Stop the Shootings

[DontWorryBeHappy]

Same crap, different decade, imo. rrobs is as bereft of critical thinking and as dense as dictor paul. Same condescending, superiority complex based upon genuine ignorance and lack of ability in any legitimate exegesis of "Da word". There are no "originals", remember? What principles of legitimate textual criticism and peer review did you follow? What are your "credentials" besides simply copying what "everybody else said"?

"Just the word", eh? Which version? All you have is versions of 500 year old translations of the 1550 critical Greek text (Stephens) translated into 17th Century English. Copies of copies of copies etc. 80% of all the knowledge available regarding Critical Greek texts, other versions of "Da woid", and MSS documentation and evidence have occurred since 1980! Are you even aware of those FACTS?

Seems to me all you're capable of is mindless regurgitation of whatever someone else has said before. You demonstrate the same lack of intellect, personal bias, and "private interpretation" dictor paul demonstrated. Lots of rambling preaching with no substance. Why do you waste your precious time here? Go to those other 2 sites and preach over there. Get your trophies and accolades over there. Here you're just another haughty, uneducated, misled, self-deluded ex-wayfer. Very boring and packed with errors. You may impress the Biblically ignorant, but you don't reach anyone here with your 50 year old bullshit. Same crap, different decade. TTFN.

[rrobs]

11 hours ago, Rocky said:

Nothing in any internet forum discussion suggests the reader is responsible for looking up anything to support the writer's claim(s).

You only saved yourself the time associated with making an actual argument worth any one's consideration.

Let's not "confine the discussion to what the word [not capitalized] says." You haven't established that The Word (if that is, indeed, what you are referring to) is the authority for what the Creator of Heaven and Earth actually means.

I didn't ask you, the reader, to support my claims. I asked to to show me where I'm off. So far nothing and I don't think there will be anything because what I said is in perfect alignment with the word. If you don't think so, then tell me where. Personally, If I read something and want to know more about the subject, I don't hound the author to give me more information. I find it myself if I'm that interested. But you appear completely uninterested in even considering if my post is valid or not. You seem to know it's not. That's your choice and you have every right to make such a choice. The onus is not on me to convince your. Just curious, what do you believe? I know it's none of my business and all that, so if I understand if you don't want to share it with me.

Edited October 7, 2017 by rrobs
content

[T-Bone]

18 hours ago, rrobs said:

I posted this same paper on two other Christian forums. Totally different response from that of GSC. All very positive. I even got a "trophy" on one site. Yeah me! That tells me it's not the content, but the one writing the content. Any other explanations?

Please provide links to the two Christian forums you’re referring to - and more specifically, please include links directly to what you posted so I can read it in context of what and how you said it along with the responses from others on those forums.

[rrobs]

11 hours ago, T-Bone said:

 

So…using your own criteria of chapter and verse – let us proceed…

...I’ll just limit it to a few select points since it appears your first post does exhibit such a flagrant disregard for documentation (citing chapter and verse) – which in turn leaves my line of inquiry rather repetitive…

== == == ==

rrobs:

The quality of life of a society is ultimately determined by the thoughts that each individual in that society holds in their mind.

T-Bone:

Please provide chapter and verse for your assertion.

== == ==

rrobs:

Those thoughts in turn are dependant on the things each individual is told by sources outside of ourselves.

T-Bone:

Please provide chapter and verse for your assertion.

== == ==

rrobs:

That is basic to life.

T-Bone:

Please provide chapter and verse for your assertion.

== == == ==

rrobs: 

The influence on our thoughts, and therefore our quality of life, by NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, Google News, et.al.  is nothing short of grossly underestimated. In fact, it would be fair to say it’s given no estimation whatsoever. But that doesn’t change the fact that 24/7 our minds are assaulted with words and images that definitely tend towards the things that make us full of anxiety, doubt, fear, and a general feeling of helplessness. That makes for a society with a low quality of life.

T-Bone:

Please provide chapter and verse for your assertions (this is referencing the entire above paragraph).

== == == ==

rrobs:

To reverse this each individual must change the diet upon which their mind feeds. Man’s philosophy, moral concepts, and their false religions are a poor diet indeed. All that unhealthy food  needs to be replaced by healthy food.

T-Bone:

Please provide chapter and verse for your assertions.

== == == =

rrobs: 

It is his divine power and his alone that gives us all things that pertain to life and godliness. We can realize that power only by having a knowledge of God. It sure won’t come via the TV, computer screen, or radio. Only God tells us how life should be. If you really want to do something positive to change the course of our world, study the Bible and start believing the things it says instead of believing all you hear on CBS. With a scripture centered change of mind, the quality of your individual life will take a turn for the better. The more individuals that do that, the better life becomes for society as a whole.

T-Bone:

Please provide chapter and verse for your assertions.

It would be quicker for you to provide chapter and verse that would disprove the post. It would be quicker because there are none! Believe what you want.

[rrobs]

1 hour ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

Same crap, different decade, imo. rrobs is as bereft of critical thinking and as dense as dictor paul. Same condescending, superiority complex based upon genuine ignorance and lack of ability in any legitimate exegesis of "Da word". There are no "originals", remember? What principles of legitimate textual criticism and peer review did you follow? What are your "credentials" besides simply copying what "everybody else said"?

"Just the word", eh? Which version? All you have is versions of 500 year old translations of the 1550 critical Greek text (Stephens) translated into 17th Century English. Copies of copies of copies etc. 80% of all the knowledge available regarding Critical Greek texts, other versions of "Da woid", and MSS documentation and evidence have occurred since 1980! Are you even aware of those FACTS?

Seems to me all you're capable of is mindless regurgitation of whatever someone else has said before. You demonstrate the same lack of intellect, personal bias, and "private interpretation" dictor paul demonstrated. Lots of rambling preaching with no substance. Why do you waste your precious time here? Go to those other 2 sites and preach over there. Get your trophies and accolades over there. Here you're just another haughty, uneducated, misled, self-deluded ex-wayfer. Very boring and packed with errors. You may impress the Biblically ignorant, but you don't reach anyone here with your 50 year old ..... Same crap, different decade. TTFN.

What must I do to be saved?

[T-Bone]

48 minutes ago, rrobs said:

It would be quicker for you to provide chapter and verse that would disprove the post. It would be quicker because there are none! Believe what you want.

Duly noted...so what you’re saying (what you’re admitting to) is that you cannot cite chapter and verse! In other words - you cannot back up...you cannot prove your assertions ( That i referred to in my post) have any biblical basis !

The fact that you cannot leaves me with the conclusion that you are unable to do so. Perhaps you think it’s clever to dodge the questions - as if to indicate to others you intentionally will not cite chapter and verse - but I’m left to assume you’re trying to save face for repackaging old wierwillisms - and now want to avoid any challenges to your unsubstantiated nonsense.

By all indications you’ve demonstrated thus far on this thread - you lack both the ability AND willingness to carry on a meaningful and intelligent discussion on a thread that YOU started - and of all things by using the recent horrific tragedy of the Las Vegas mass shooting as a springboard for your drivel. That’s just sick and twisted in my book. Of course, that’s just my opinion.

 

Oh and please respond to my other post where I asked you to provide links to the posts you made on two Christian forums - I want to read exactly what you said and how others responded to it...just want to see how far I’m off base from your “trophy worthy” musings.

Edited October 7, 2017 by T-Bone
Clarity

[rrobs]

45 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Duly noted...so what you’re saying (what you’re admitting to) is that you cannot cite chapter and verse! In other words - you cannot back up...you cannot prove your assertions ( I referred to in my post) have any biblical basis !

The fact that you cannot leaves me with the conclusion that you are unable to do so. Perhaps you think it’s clever to dodge the questions - as if to indicate to others you intentionally will not cite chapter and verse - but I’m left to assume you’re trying to save face for repackaging old wierwillisms - and now want to avoid any challenges to your unsubstantiated nonsense.

By all indications you’ve demonstrated thus far on this thread - you lack both the ability AND willingness to carry on a meaningful and intelligent discussion on a thread that YOU started - and of all things by using the recent horrific tragedy of the Las Vegas mass shooting as a springboard for your drivel. That’s just sick and twisted in my book. Of course, that’s just my opinion.

The claims you made in the first paragraph are baseless and void of any validity, therefore the rest of your reply is without a valid basis. All I hear is nothing more than standard GSC speak. None of the replies have an original thought in them. How ironic is that?

[T-Bone]

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

Please provide links to the two Christian forums you’re referring to - and more specifically, please include links directly to what you posted so I can read it in context of what and how you said it along with the responses from others on those forums.

 

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

Duly noted...so what you’re saying (what you’re admitting to) is that you cannot cite chapter and verse! In other words - you cannot back up...you cannot prove your assertions ( That i referred to in my post) have any biblical basis !

The fact that you cannot leaves me with the conclusion that you are unable to do so. Perhaps you think it’s clever to dodge the questions - as if to indicate to others you intentionally will not cite chapter and verse - but I’m left to assume you’re trying to save face for repackaging old wierwillisms - and now want to avoid any challenges to your unsubstantiated nonsense.

By all indications you’ve demonstrated thus far on this thread - you lack both the ability AND willingness to carry on a meaningful and intelligent discussion on a thread that YOU started - and of all things by using the recent horrific tragedy of the Las Vegas mass shooting as a springboard for your drivel. That’s just sick and twisted in my book. Of course, that’s just my opinion.

 

Oh and please respond to my other post where I asked you to provide links to the posts you made on two Christian forums - I want to read exactly what you said and how others responded to it...just want to see how far I’m off base from your “trophy worthy” musings.

 

31 minutes ago, rrobs said:

The claims you made in the first paragraph are baseless and void of any validity, therefore the rest of your reply is without a valid basis. All I hear is nothing more than standard GSC speak. None of the replies have an original thought in them. How ironic is that?

Please provide links to your posts on two Christian forums...so we’ll see your validity / biblical basis on other sites.

[T-Bone]

On 10/6/2017 at 3:47 PM, rrobs said:

I posted this same paper on two other Christian forums. Totally different response from that of GSC. All very positive. I even got a "trophy" on one site. Yeah me! That tells me it's not the content, but the one writing the content. Any other explanations?

well...since you ask - before I formulate an explanation or just to see if what you say is true - I would need to see your posts on those sites as well as the response by others –  -

so, please be so kind as to provide links to your posts on the two Christian forums

also I’m curious to see if you have any credibility or validity issues on these two Christian  forums as well – and whether you actually did post the same paper there as you did here…

…if you don’t want to provide those links that’s alright…no big deal…I’ll just assume those instances are non-existent like the chapters and verses to support your assertions I identified…on the flip side – maybe I’ve misunderstood you here and maybe a “change of venue” might help me to give you a fair shake..

..sooooooooo....got links?

11 hours ago, rrobs said:

I didn't ask you, the reader, to support my claims. I asked to to show me where I'm off. So far nothing and I don't think there will be anything because what I said is in perfect alignment with the word.

If you don't think so, then tell me where.

Personally, If I read something and want to know more about the subject, I don't hound the author to give me more information. I find it myself if I'm that interested. But you appear completely uninterested in even considering if my post is valid or not. You seem to know it's not. That's your choice and you have every right to make such a choice. The onus is not on me to convince your. Just curious, what do you believe? I know it's none of my business and all that, so if I understand if you don't want to share it with me.

but you are asking the reader to do just that in a round about way - you are asking folks to disprove your statements yet you do not offer any proof of their validity - other than you saying so...you are expecting folks to assume you've already made a VALID point and then you expect folks to make a counterpoint to a non-existent point.

...."prove all things" and "be ready to give an answer to everyone that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you" come to mind - and it's along those lines that I think the onus is back on you to provide reasons for what you said - and to stick with the "rules" you yourself set up...you claim all that you said is in perfect alignment with the word - ok - so show me specifically by chapter and verse -

anybody can claim a particular doctrine is in perfect alignment and harmony with the word and even show verses to back it up....yeah, I have a small collection of systematic theologies that do just that - so step up to the plate and prove your case...

sorry to be so persistent on this but I'm curious if you were just spouting pat answers or if you have really taken the time, thought process and due diligence to declare such bold and authoritative sounding statements...that makes me think of a pivotal scene in Working Girl. Sigourney Weaver's character stole an idea from her assistant played by Melanie Griffith - and the stolen idea impresses the heck out of a CEO - enough so for a merger deal. The CEO asks Sigourney what was the inspiration for her idea but she fumbled around trying to explain a particular thought process she never had in the first place. Whereas Melanie could because it was her idea - and the CEO could tell...things worked out well for Melanie...not so much for Sigourney....

If you want to compare reading material...personally, I prefer reading authors who accurately and honestly document their references and provide logical arguments for a subject that I'm interested in. I don't need to hound them for more info if they've intelligently and honestly  laid out  their case - - how they clearly show from specific data how they arrived at a given idea...and really, a lot of my favorite authors on a variety of subjects tend toward overkill when it comes to documentation, references, etc...needless to say I've got lots to look into from their footnotes, references, further reading, bibliography, etc.

 

11 hours ago, rrobs said:

It would be quicker for you to provide chapter and verse that would disprove the post.

It would be quicker because there are none! Believe what you want.

but the quickest solution by far would be for you to prove your point by scripture references - since you started the thread...I’m sorry but I’m not a fan of circular reasoning.

10 hours ago, rrobs said:

The claims you made in the first paragraph are baseless and void of any validity, therefore the rest of your reply is without a valid basis. All I hear is nothing more than standard GSC speak. None of the replies have an original thought in them. How ironic is that?

Very odd…as I said above - usually the onus is on the person making the claim, to provide evidence, documentation, or some fact to support their assertion.

- you do realize you made a lot of forceful and confident statements in your first post -  I just picked out a few for brevity's sake ; surely you must have SOMETHING to back up your statements – you’ve been acting so adamant and insistent that you do.

another thing - can you please define GSC speak ?

Edited October 8, 2017 by T-Bone
clarity and longevity of editing

[DontWorryBeHappy]

What must you do to be saved??? REPENT!

[Rocky]

10 hours ago, rrobs said:

I didn't ask you, the reader, to support my claims. I asked to to show me where I'm off. So far nothing and I don't think there will be anything because what I said is in perfect alignment with the word. If you don't think so, then tell me where. Personally, If I read something and want to know more about the subject, I don't hound the author to give me more information. I find it myself if I'm that interested. But you appear completely uninterested in even considering if my post is valid or not. You seem to know it's not. That's your choice and you have every right to make such a choice. The onus is not on me to convince your. Just curious, what do you believe? I know it's none of my business and all that, so if I understand if you don't want to share it with me.

Actually you did ask the reader (me) to do your homework... here's one thing I believe: TWI was and is a cult. PFLAP was an effort (often successful) in conditioning the indoctrinee to not think critically about what VPee declared to be God's Word.

I'm not "completely uninterested in considering" if your post is valid or not. I already determined that -- from a critical analysis perspective -- it is not. Again, what you seem to consider "hounding the author" I consider legitimately calling you out for making claims but refusing to support those claims, even from the perspective that (as you put it) "the word" is the standard.

All of what you have claimed in this thread is based solely on taking for granted what is presented in PFLAP.

 

[Rocky]

10 hours ago, rrobs said:

What must I do to be saved?

You seem to have forgotten to include your closing html tag "/sarc."

[rrobs]

16 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

What must you do to be saved??? REPENT!

I already did. That makes us brothers. Yeah!

[rrobs]

16 hours ago, T-Bone said:

well...since you ask - before I formulate an explanation or just to see if what you say is true - I would need to see your posts on those sites as well as the response by others –  -

so, please be so kind as to provide links to your posts on the two Christian forums

also I’m curious to see if you have any credibility or validity issues on these two Christian  forums as well – and whether you actually did post the same paper there as you did here…

…if you don’t want to provide those links that’s alright…no big deal…I’ll just assume those instances are non-existent like the chapters and verses to support your assertions I identified…on the flip side – maybe I’ve misunderstood you here and maybe a “change of venue” might help me to give you a fair shake..

..sooooooooo....got links?

but you are asking the reader to do just that in a round about way - you are asking folks to disprove your statements yet you do not offer any proof of their validity - other than you saying so...you are expecting folks to assume you've already made a VALID point and then you expect folks to make a counterpoint to a non-existent point.

...."prove all things" and "be ready to give an answer to everyone that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you" come to mind - and it's along those lines that I think the onus is back on you to provide reasons for what you said - and to stick with the "rules" you yourself set up...you claim all that you said is in perfect alignment with the word - ok - so show me specifically by chapter and verse -

anybody can claim a particular doctrine is in perfect alignment and harmony with the word and even show verses to back it up....yeah, I have a small collection of systematic theologies that do just that - so step up to the plate and prove your case...

sorry to be so persistent on this but I'm curious if you were just spouting pat answers or if you have really taken the time, thought process and due diligence to declare such bold and authoritative sounding statements...that makes me think of a pivotal scene in Working Girl. Sigourney Weaver's character stole an idea from her assistant played by Melanie Griffith - and the stolen idea impresses the heck out of a CEO - enough so for a merger deal. The CEO asks Sigourney what was the inspiration for her idea but she fumbled around trying to explain a particular thought process she never had in the first place. Whereas Melanie could because it was her idea - and the CEO could tell...things worked out well for Melanie...not so much for Sigourney....

If you want to compare reading material...personally, I prefer reading authors who accurately and honestly document their references and provide logical arguments for a subject that I'm interested in. I don't need to hound them for more info if they've intelligently and honestly  laid out  their case - - how they clearly show from specific data how they arrived at a given idea...and really, a lot of my favorite authors on a variety of subjects tend toward overkill when it comes to documentation, references, etc...needless to say I've got lots to look into from their footnotes, references, further reading, bibliography, etc.

 

but the quickest solution by far would be for you to prove your point by scripture references - since you started the thread...I’m sorry but I’m not a fan of circular reasoning.

Very odd…as I said above - usually the onus is on the person making the claim, to provide evidence, documentation, or some fact to support their assertion.

- you do realize you made a lot of forceful and confident statements in your first post -  I just picked out a few for brevity's sake ; surely you must have SOMETHING to back up your statements – you’ve been acting so adamant and insistent that you do.

another thing - can you please define GSC speak ?

I believe what I posted.You seem not to. Let's just leave it at that.

[T-Bone]

18 minutes ago, rrobs said:

I believe what I posted.You seem not to. Let's just leave it at that.

Ok rrobs, 

thanks for your timely response

Love & peace

T-Bone

 

[Bolshevik]

On 10/7/2017 at 11:27 AM, rrobs said:

I didn't ask you, the reader, to support my claims. I asked to to show me where I'm off. So far nothing and I don't think there will be anything because what I said is in perfect alignment with the word. If you don't think so, then tell me where. Personally, If I read something and want to know more about the subject, I don't hound the author to give me more information. I find it myself if I'm that interested. But you appear completely uninterested in even considering if my post is valid or not. You seem to know it's not. That's your choice and you have every right to make such a choice. The onus is not on me to convince your. Just curious, what do you believe? I know it's none of my business and all that, so if I understand if you don't want to share it with me.

 

This I believe is Game of Frames.  Typically, arguments are won by beating the smaller opponent with a blunt object. 

Maybe your experience in TWI was different.

 

 

 

[rrobs]

On 10/8/2017 at 10:20 AM, T-Bone said:

Ok rrobs, 

thanks for your timely response

Love & peace

T-Bone

 

All of this got me to thinking. People here are right, I should not just make claims without some documentation. So here are some of verses that inspired me to begin with, and the challenges I got at GSC made me look up more.

Ps 33:10-21, Ps 144:11-15, Ps 146:5, Prov 28:2, Prov 29:4, Prov 29:18, Ecc 10:16-17, 2 Chron 7:14

I believe that the central message of my original post can be justified by these verses. There are others probably, but this is a good start I think. It was really a good exercise and I think I learned something.

Take care...

[rrobs]

40 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

Typically, arguments are won by beating the smaller opponent with a blunt object. 

Going off topic for a second;

In the arena of physical fighting, usually the bigger and stronger defeats the smaller and weaker. I think that more or less aligns with your statement.

Tai Chi/Kung Fu was invented for the express purpose of changing that. Both are arts where finesse is used instead of brute force to enable the smaller and weaker to overcome the bigger and stronger. There may be some parallel there in the spiritual realm.

[Bolshevik]

2 hours ago, rrobs said:

Going off topic for a second;

In the arena of physical fighting, usually the bigger and stronger defeats the smaller and weaker. I think that more or less aligns with your statement.

Tai Chi/Kung Fu was invented for the express purpose of changing that. Both are arts where finesse is used instead of brute force to enable the smaller and weaker to overcome the bigger and stronger. There may be some parallel there in the spiritual realm.

 

You're saying Kung Fu is in the Bible?

[rrobs]

No. That's why I said I was going off topic.

I was just suggesting a strategy that could work in all kinds of life's arenas other then physical confrontations. Maybe typically most arguments are won by beating the smaller opponent with a blunt object as you rightly suggested, but it may not work against said smaller opponent who knows the principles of kung fu and applies them in an argument. Maybe debate teams use a similar strategy sometimes. I don't know.

On the surface, you could say that David used Kung Fu against Goliath and he didn't do it by brute force. He'd lost that one if he did. Of course, the real reason he beat Goliath was because he trusted in God, so it's academic.

[TLC]

 

On ‎10‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 5:47 PM, DontWorryBeHappy said:

What must you do to be saved??? REPENT!

On ‎10‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 9:54 AM, rrobs said:

I already did. That makes us brothers. Yeah!

 

Throw stones at me if you must, but I'm going to say it anyways.... All the penitence in the world isn't actually what saves any of us. Matter of fact, I'm not persuaded it's even a necessary prerequisite for salvation.  Granted, it can (and perhaps often does) precede it.  But, not always.  Where does it say that Cornelius did? Or for that matter, Paul? And why is it not evident in Acts 16:30,31? Or Acts 17? Sure, it was part of Peter(and the 12)'s gospel.  But not so much, Paul's, when the real "change of heart" (i.e., repentance) came after salvation (not before it.)

Edited October 10, 2017 by TLC

[Rocky]

5 hours ago, rrobs said:

Going off topic for a second;

In the arena of physical fighting, usually the bigger and stronger defeats the smaller and weaker. I think that more or less aligns with your statement.

Tai Chi/Kung Fu was invented for the express purpose of changing that. Both are arts where finesse is used instead of brute force to enable the smaller and weaker to overcome the bigger and stronger. There may be some parallel there in the spiritual realm.

And Aikido too.

[Bolshevik]

15 hours ago, rrobs said:

No. That's why I said I was going off topic.

I was just suggesting a strategy that could work in all kinds of life's arenas other then physical confrontations. Maybe typically most arguments are won by beating the smaller opponent with a blunt object as you rightly suggested, but it may not work against said smaller opponent who knows the principles of kung fu and applies them in an argument. Maybe debate teams use a similar strategy sometimes. I don't know.

On the surface, you could say that David used Kung Fu against Goliath and he didn't do it by brute force. He'd lost that one if he did. Of course, the real reason he beat Goliath was because he trusted in God, so it's academic.

The point of those fighting techniques is to never have to use them.  Just having the confidence they're there if you need them.

Kinda the opposite of what's taught in TWI.

But here's some Bible Kung Fu.

Luke 10:18.  There kicks was fast as lightning.

[rrobs]

20 hours ago, TLC said:

 

Throw stones at me if you must, but I'm going to say it anyways.... All the penitence in the world isn't actually what saves any of us. Matter of fact, I'm not persuaded it's even a necessary prerequisite for salvation.  Granted, it can (and perhaps often does) precede it.  But, not always.  Where does it say that Cornelius did? Or for that matter, Paul? And why is it not evident in Acts 16:30,31? Or Acts 17? Sure, it was part of Peter(and the 12)'s gospel.  But not so much, Paul's, when the real "change of heart" (i.e., repentance) came after salvation (not before it.)

I think you are right. Eph 2:8-9 says we are saved by grace, that it is a gift,  and not of works. I think repentance is works in the sense that it is something we do, not something God did for us. I myself have to repent or change my mind (metanoao). That's my job, not God's. God made me whole, not it's up to me to repent (or not, free will).

Probably more to it, but that's what I see for now.

Edited October 10, 2017 by rrobs
Content

[WordWolf]

On 10/9/2017 at 4:28 PM, rrobs said:

All of this got me to thinking. People here are right, I should not just make claims without some documentation. So here are some of verses that inspired me to begin with, and the challenges I got at GSC made me look up more.

Ps 33:10-21, Ps 144:11-15, Ps 146:5, Prov 28:2, Prov 29:4, Prov 29:18, Ecc 10:16-17, 2 Chron 7:14

I believe that the central message of my original post can be justified by these verses. There are others probably, but this is a good start I think. It was really a good exercise and I think I learned something.

Take care...

Being fair and logical, I'd acknowledge that you've acknowledged that you need to support claims and statements, and not just toss them out baldly. In any discussion, that's necessary.  However, you didn't fulfill the minimum REASONABLE requirement.  You dumped a bunch of verse citations, and said that they cover "the central message." 

Anyone reasonable would expect the following.

[claim made]  "This matches Hekekiah 8:42, which says "[verse quoted.]

If it's a single verse, people might give you a pass on posting the text of the verse, especially if the meaning of the verse is obvious. If there's anything contestable, they're free to post the verse, point out the problem, and point out that failing to post the verse looks like you were trying to pretend there was a Scriptural basis for a non-Scriptural point, and used an irrelevant verse to conceal that, hoping nobody would check it. (vpw did that quite a bit when text-dumping- just look at his stuff on the manifestations in the Advanced Class, and you'll find a bunch without looking hard.) 

Even if I might agree with your points, or might match your thinking if I saw their basis, if you just make bald claims, then make bald claims that they have a Scriptural basis, I'm NOT going to take you seriously- and neither would most people. Don't think that's specific to either you, us, or this subject. That's pretty much what you find in MOST of cyberspace- providing it's a place of actual discussions. (Places where people trade insults and places where people just pat each other on the back won't look that way, either one.