I'm learning how to use a search engine, and looked at some old threads from back than. I'm a little surprised at how crazy it got. I'm thankful for any civil discussion I can get, and it's much more available now.
It was a genuine compliment, So_crates. I do not have a chip on my shoulder at all. I have been examining my own motivations for being here again, and some are not yet totally clear. However, I do know I'm not trying to taunt, toy with, or challenge anyone in a negative way. Yes, I want to challenge all to re-think some things they don't think need re-thinking, and THAT is a challenge to anyone.
It was a genuine compliment, So_crates. I do not have a chip on my shoulder at all. I have been examining my own motivations for being here again, and some are not yet totally clear. However, I do know I'm not trying to taunt, toy with, or challenge anyone in a negative way. Yes, I want to challenge all to re-think some things they don't think need re-thinking, and THAT is a challenge to anyone.
And while your challanging us to re-think some things, are you, also willing to re-think some things?
I find it interesting that you would have such feelings, and it's also interesting (in a different way) that you would post them.
This is nothing compared to the fur flying and the garbage that was thrown at me 15 years ago. I think you came in on the tail end of all that when things had calmed down a lot.
Thomas, people try to reason with him, but he still insists that he is right. I think he is like Trump; he needs constant attention, or he will throw a tantrum.
Thomas, people try to reason with him, but he still insists that he is right. I think he is like Trump; he needs constant attention, or he will throw a tantrum.
Grace, I think the crux of his problem is a bit more fundimental then that.
He thinks he's going to teach (or as he says, "(get us to) re-think some things"
His primary failure is that he wants us to "re-think" things, but doesn't want to do so himself. One way streets seldom work out in life.
On 1/4/2018 at 4:07 PM, Grace Valerie Claire said:
Yes Mike, either prove it, or keep silent.
If prior experience is any guide, he will do neither. Just pages and pages of him talking about there being proof, about his having proven it, about having proof that we don't deserve, and so on. Then, later, how he proved it before. All without actual attempts at proof.
And while your challanging us to re-think some things, are you, also willing to re-think some things?
Prior experience shows he will do nothing of the kind- just label us for not bowing our knee to his premise. BTW, if you want to look at some good examples of Mike going on for pages and pages about how we didn't deserve him to get to his point or how we had to earn it, do a search on him talking about his "Table of Challenge." It goes on, and on, and on, and on...all with no substance from Mike. He missed his calling as a political speechwriter.
But no, don't expect Mike to examine his thinking. According to him, he's done all the re-examining he needs, and it all ended with concluding twi documents of pfal were holy writ. It's only us that have to rethink anything.
But no, don't expect Mike to examine his thinking. According to him, he's done all the re-examining he needs, and it all ended with concluding twi documents of pfal were holy writ. It's only us that have to rethink anything.
If that's the case then he should afford us the same courtesy and leave us to the way we think.
If that's the case then he should afford us the same courtesy and leave us to the way we think.
If you were a monolithic "us" you'd have a point. But you're not. Even with the active posters there is a spread to the bell curve on "your" position. But there are many more less active posters and potentially many more non-posting readers who are less settled in their positions.
I may run across some new information here, but have much more info you and almost all the others have never seen. Research Geeks post from 2002 is just one recent example of that. Did you see it? On the other thread?
If you were a monolithic "us" you'd have a point. But you're not. Even with the active posters there is a spread to the bell curve on "your" position. But there are many more less active posters and potentially many more non-posting readers who are less settled in their positions.
I beg to differ. I think most posters here agree on certain things: that Saint Vic did more evil than good, that the Way is a cult, that PLAF is riddled with errors.Which you would notice if you read other posts.
So, if you refuse to budge on your beliefs then the only honorable thing to do is to leave us to our beliefs.
Quote
I may run across some new information here, but have much more info you and almost all the others have never seen. Research Geeks post from 2002 is just one recent example of that. Did you see it? On the other thread?
Yah, a post that left out a lot of details and made it sound like Saint Vic attended an Ivy League school--which he didn't. Very credible/sarc
The goal of any essayist is usually to inspire people to think or to look at something from a fresh perspective.
I don't look at twi, dictor or PFLAP the way he does but I haven't seen him throwing tantrums lately.
IMNSHO, the best way to get him to (eventually) shut up here is to let him make his case and move on.
Feedback that challenges him to clarify can be helpful toward that end. Antagonistic feedback, as I see it, probably won't help.
I supported that position the first time he showed up. Perhaps he will make his case this time and actually drop any substance- if there is any. Past experience is indeed a guide, and every time we danced this dance, his posts had sound and fury.
I supported that position the first time he showed up. Perhaps he will make his case this time and actually drop any substance- if there is any. Past experience is indeed a guide, and every time we danced this dance, his posts had sound and fury.
The process of making my case(s) can be lengthy and complex. One example is the "proof" for this thread. It entails many side discussions, and for many reasons. Some I insist on; some others insist on.
I was not toying earlier here when I asked for “why want a proof?” and “give me an example of something proved.” I am genuinely interested in the process of proofs, from Physics to Philosophy.
I investigate what satisfies people when they present their theories on the mirror riddle. The subject of surety is one I like to brainstorm on with people, but few people pay much attention to such things. In Starbucks I can talk to anyone about the mirror riddle, but surety as a subject in itself is usually beyond most people I can strike up a conversation with. Here I expect to find many more takers.
There were many, many exotic topics that came up in the ministry that I am not sure on, regarding both ministry history and spiritual matters. One example is originality. That is a FASCINATING topic. I’m still learning a lot there. I know many people here have been pondering it (how deeply?) for many years now. Not many Starbucks people think about that topic either.
I am also constantly picking up new details on ministry history here, as well as depositing new details to ministry history here. One of the most recent ones is how the PFAL’77 plans to replace the 1968 film class were scuttled a full week BEFORE the beginning of PFAL’77, and not after it started, as was erroneously reported here. I offered plenty of room to disprove me (many witnesses) and tape evidence from the Sunday Service one day before PFAL’77 began that reflected what I witnessed.
The process of making my case(s) can be lengthy and complex. One example is the "proof" for this thread. It entails many side discussions, and for many reasons. Some I insist on; some others insist on.
I was not toying earlier here when I asked for “why want a proof?” and “give me an example of something proved.” I am genuinely interested in the process of proofs, from Physics to Philosophy.
I investigate what satisfies people when they present their theories on the mirror riddle. The subject of surety is one I like to brainstorm on with people, but few people pay much attention to such things. In Starbucks I can talk to anyone about the mirror riddle, but surety as a subject in itself is usually beyond most people I can strike up a conversation with. Here I expect to find many more takers.
There were many, many exotic topics that came up in the ministry that I am not sure on, regarding both ministry history and spiritual matters. One example is originality. That is a FASCINATING topic. I’m still learning a lot there. I know many people here have been pondering it (how deeply?) for many years now. Not many Starbucks people think about that topic either.
I am also constantly picking up new details on ministry history here, as well as depositing new details to ministry history here. One of the most recent ones is how the PFAL’77 plans to replace the 1968 film class were scuttled a full week BEFORE the beginning of PFAL’77, and not after it started, as was erroneously reported here. I offered plenty of room to disprove me (many witnesses) and tape evidence from the Sunday Service one day before PFAL’77 began that reflected what I witnessed.
See what I mean, Rocky? If left unanswered, he will go on for HUNDREDS of pages like this and there will always be some excuse as to why he never actually made his point.
The process of making my case(s) can be lengthy and complex. One example is the "proof" for this thread. It entails many side discussions, and for many reasons. Some I insist on; some others insist on.
I was not toying earlier here when I asked for “why want a proof?” and “give me an example of something proved.” I am genuinely interested in the process of proofs, from Physics to Philosophy.
And it depends on what the meaning if 'is' is. /sarc
See what I mean, Rocky? If left unanswered, he will go on for HUNDREDS of pages like this and there will always be some excuse as to why he never actually made his point.
I understand.
59 minutes ago, Mike said:
The process of making my case(s) can be lengthy and complex. One example is the "proof" for this thread. It entails many side discussions, and for many reasons. Some I insist on; some others insist on.
I was not toying earlier here when I asked for “why want a proof?” and “give me an example of something proved.” I am genuinely interested in the process of proofs, from Physics to Philosophy.
I investigate what satisfies people when they present their theories on the mirror riddle. The subject of surety is one I like to brainstorm on with people, but few people pay much attention to such things. In Starbucks I can talk to anyone about the mirror riddle, but surety as a subject in itself is usually beyond most people I can strike up a conversation with. Here I expect to find many more takers.
There were many, many exotic topics that came up in the ministry that I am not sure on, regarding both ministry history and spiritual matters. One example is originality. That is a FASCINATING topic. I’m still learning a lot there. I know many people here have been pondering it (how deeply?) for many years now. Not many Starbucks people think about that topic either.
I am also constantly picking up new details on ministry history here, as well as depositing new details to ministry history here. One of the most recent ones is how the PFAL’77 plans to replace the 1968 film class were scuttled a full week BEFORE the beginning of PFAL’77, and not after it started, as was erroneously reported here. I offered plenty of room to disprove me (many witnesses) and tape evidence from the Sunday Service one day before PFAL’77 began that reflected what I witnessed.
Mike, you will NEVER succeed in making your case until you go offline and actually think about making your case and FOCUS on writing it up. It's just not possible.
Not only will you never be able to focus doing it like you've done it here, but "I investigate what satisfies people" suggests you have no idea HOW to actually make a case for anything.
Have you ever read Ephesians 4:14? I realize it's not necessarily "God-breathed" (/snark) but in consideration of the subject at hand, it MIGHT provide some insight.
"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"
If you don't like that translation/version, there are quite a few others at the link I provided.
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt for a while. But it really seems like you either don't know how or don't want to make your case and then present it. It is simply impossible for you to do so being distracted with every tangent anyone takes you on when they challenge every little point you try to make.
Mike, you will NEVER succeed in making your case until you go offline and actually think about making your case and FOCUS on writing it up. It's just not possible.
Not only will you never be able to focus doing it like you've done it here, but "I investigate what satisfies people" suggests you have no idea HOW to actually make a case for anything.
Well, actually I do know how, but I am not up the effort that a thorough treatment would require. Slogging one together on the fly is what I had in mind for this go around. Last time I tried this it was more thorough.
Keep in mind, I’m doing this thread in response to a request. It is not my sole purpose in life to convince or satisfy my critics. I have other reasons to be here, and how much effort and how fast I apply it here is not something you should demand of me.
Word Wolf is right, I can do this for hundreds of pages, but not with a diabolical motive of wasting anyone’s time in MY humble opinion. Your opinion may differ; I know my motives (most of them). If I put the work into those hundreds of pages, part of those pages will be my arguments as to why they are not a waste of time.
...I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt for a while. But it really seems like you either don't know how or don't want to make your case and then present it. It is simply impossible for you to do so being distracted with every tangent anyone takes you on when they challenge every little point you try to make.
I sensed that, and am grateful. And I've tried to work with you on this. There are odd delays involved with multiple posters and backlogs and missed posts. It’s hard to keep totally current here.
What I’ll do is stop posting on this thread, go offline and READ the posts I totally missed, and the posts that I did read once, but have not had a chance to respond to yet.
I also want too look at that abbreviated outline of an argument that I did post here earlier.
Still another thing is learning the search engines that can find my previously posted attempts at this topic of why I believe PFAL is God-breathed. I did put a lot of thought into it back then.
For the past ten years I’ve directed my thoughts NOT at proving “why PFAL,” but just at its practical applications to my life. When I left GreaseSpot 10 years ago I said I wanted to practice what I was preaching. That’s where my great attention has been. I don’t think about proofs that much any more. From 1998 to 2008 that’s pretty much ALL that I thought of.
This will be an offline exercise for me for a while, and I’ll refrain from any heavy posting on this thread until I have something I think, you might feel is a better answer.
It wont be a proof that can force anyone to believe, but it will show you that it’s NOT been an irrational, delusional, stupid, unprofitable, and degrading path to PFAL that I've been on. I’m so sorry so many here feel that they accepted PFAL under those circumstances. I feel very lucky to have missed so much of the carnage, and was so very blessed way back than as well as now.
One last point. I want to ask a few questions (not toying).
Those of you who believe the original Bible scriptures were God-breathed: How do you prove that to yourself and how do you prove that to others?
Can you see yourself able to prove that on this board in a thread?
How do you feel about English translations and their being “as” God-breathed as the ancient language originals?
I’d like to hear what you all feel about these things. They are DIRECTLY related to the challenge put to me to “prove” that PFAL is God-breathed. Maybe in the Doctrinal Forum?
One last point. I want to ask a few questions (not toying).
Those of you who believe the original Bible scriptures were God-breathed: How do you prove that to yourself and how do you prove that to others?
Can you see yourself able to prove that on this board in a thread?
How do you feel about English translations and their being “as” God-breathed as the ancient language originals?
I’d like to hear what you all feel about these things. They are DIRECTLY related to the challenge put to me to “prove” that PFAL is God-breathed. Maybe in the Doctrinal Forum?
Do you only want to hear responses from people who believe the original scriptures were God-breathed? Because I don't.
This will be an offline exercise for me for a while, and I’ll refrain from any heavy posting on this thread until I have something I think, you might feel is a better answer.
It wont be a proof that can force anyone to believe, but it will show you that it’s NOT been an irrational, delusional, stupid, unprofitable, and degrading path to PFAL that I've been on.
Mike,
Why do you feel you must show yourself approved before GSC?
I've not been suggesting things so that you can be approved before me, but rather to give you ideas that relate to your stated intent.
Do you only want to hear responses from people who believe the original scriptures were God-breathed? Because I don't.
For whichever questions still apply, I'd love to hear responses. One great disadvantage I have is not knowing most of you and your backgrounds and your current positions. A few I do. Are you current, recent folks in the forum that has personal introductions? I should read up on that if so. BTW, having your picture icon HELPS a lot in remembering who said what.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
63
252
68
130
Popular Days
Jan 25
114
Jan 6
58
Jan 9
51
Jan 3
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 63 posts
Mike 252 posts
waysider 68 posts
So_crates 130 posts
Popular Days
Jan 25 2018
114 posts
Jan 6 2018
58 posts
Jan 9 2018
51 posts
Jan 3 2018
45 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."........Thomas Paine.
penworks
Here's an idea: we each drop out of this topic and go read a book.
DontWorryBeHappy
Can anyone tell me dictor paul's scriptural position on the word "Covfefe"? What is the true meaning of that word?? Mike's textual criticism, and use of the basic dictor "keys to research", is as made
Posted Images
So_crates
Is that a challange?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No. It was a compliment.
I'm learning how to use a search engine, and looked at some old threads from back than. I'm a little surprised at how crazy it got. I'm thankful for any civil discussion I can get, and it's much more available now.
It was a genuine compliment, So_crates. I do not have a chip on my shoulder at all. I have been examining my own motivations for being here again, and some are not yet totally clear. However, I do know I'm not trying to taunt, toy with, or challenge anyone in a negative way. Yes, I want to challenge all to re-think some things they don't think need re-thinking, and THAT is a challenge to anyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And while your challanging us to re-think some things, are you, also willing to re-think some things?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Thomas, people try to reason with him, but he still insists that he is right. I think he is like Trump; he needs constant attention, or he will throw a tantrum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Grace, I think the crux of his problem is a bit more fundimental then that.
He thinks he's going to teach (or as he says, "(get us to) re-think some things"
His primary failure is that he wants us to "re-think" things, but doesn't want to do so himself. One way streets seldom work out in life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes. But there are SOME things I'm settled on. I do look at fine tuning, and often.
If I was afraid of re-thinking some of my positions I'd stay far away from here. I also learn here, and in a number of ways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Well, then, I suppose, you will understand that there are SOME things we're settled on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If prior experience is any guide, he will do neither. Just pages and pages of him talking about there being proof, about his having proven it, about having proof that we don't deserve, and so on. Then, later, how he proved it before. All without actual attempts at proof.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Prior experience shows he will do nothing of the kind- just label us for not bowing our knee to his premise. BTW, if you want to look at some good examples of Mike going on for pages and pages about how we didn't deserve him to get to his point or how we had to earn it, do a search on him talking about his "Table of Challenge." It goes on, and on, and on, and on...all with no substance from Mike. He missed his calling as a political speechwriter.
But no, don't expect Mike to examine his thinking. According to him, he's done all the re-examining he needs, and it all ended with concluding twi documents of pfal were holy writ. It's only us that have to rethink anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
If that's the case then he should afford us the same courtesy and leave us to the way we think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The goal of any essayist is usually to inspire people to think or to look at something from a fresh perspective.
I don't look at twi, dictor or PFLAP the way he does but I haven't seen him throwing tantrums lately.
IMNSHO, the best way to get him to (eventually) shut up here is to let him make his case and move on.
Feedback that challenges him to clarify can be helpful toward that end. Antagonistic feedback, as I see it, probably won't help.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thank you , sir.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
If you were a monolithic "us" you'd have a point. But you're not. Even with the active posters there is a spread to the bell curve on "your" position. But there are many more less active posters and potentially many more non-posting readers who are less settled in their positions.
I may run across some new information here, but have much more info you and almost all the others have never seen. Research Geeks post from 2002 is just one recent example of that. Did you see it? On the other thread?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I beg to differ. I think most posters here agree on certain things: that Saint Vic did more evil than good, that the Way is a cult, that PLAF is riddled with errors.Which you would notice if you read other posts.
So, if you refuse to budge on your beliefs then the only honorable thing to do is to leave us to our beliefs.
Yah, a post that left out a lot of details and made it sound like Saint Vic attended an Ivy League school--which he didn't. Very credible/sarc
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I supported that position the first time he showed up. Perhaps he will make his case this time and actually drop any substance- if there is any. Past experience is indeed a guide, and every time we danced this dance, his posts had sound and fury.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The process of making my case(s) can be lengthy and complex. One example is the "proof" for this thread. It entails many side discussions, and for many reasons. Some I insist on; some others insist on.
I was not toying earlier here when I asked for “why want a proof?” and “give me an example of something proved.” I am genuinely interested in the process of proofs, from Physics to Philosophy.
I investigate what satisfies people when they present their theories on the mirror riddle. The subject of surety is one I like to brainstorm on with people, but few people pay much attention to such things. In Starbucks I can talk to anyone about the mirror riddle, but surety as a subject in itself is usually beyond most people I can strike up a conversation with. Here I expect to find many more takers.
There were many, many exotic topics that came up in the ministry that I am not sure on, regarding both ministry history and spiritual matters. One example is originality. That is a FASCINATING topic. I’m still learning a lot there. I know many people here have been pondering it (how deeply?) for many years now. Not many Starbucks people think about that topic either.
I am also constantly picking up new details on ministry history here, as well as depositing new details to ministry history here. One of the most recent ones is how the PFAL’77 plans to replace the 1968 film class were scuttled a full week BEFORE the beginning of PFAL’77, and not after it started, as was erroneously reported here. I offered plenty of room to disprove me (many witnesses) and tape evidence from the Sunday Service one day before PFAL’77 began that reflected what I witnessed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
See what I mean, Rocky? If left unanswered, he will go on for HUNDREDS of pages like this and there will always be some excuse as to why he never actually made his point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And it depends on what the meaning if 'is' is. /sarc
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I understand.
Mike, you will NEVER succeed in making your case until you go offline and actually think about making your case and FOCUS on writing it up. It's just not possible.
Not only will you never be able to focus doing it like you've done it here, but "I investigate what satisfies people" suggests you have no idea HOW to actually make a case for anything.
Have you ever read Ephesians 4:14? I realize it's not necessarily "God-breathed" (/snark) but in consideration of the subject at hand, it MIGHT provide some insight.
"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"
If you don't like that translation/version, there are quite a few others at the link I provided.
I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt for a while. But it really seems like you either don't know how or don't want to make your case and then present it. It is simply impossible for you to do so being distracted with every tangent anyone takes you on when they challenge every little point you try to make.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oh WAIT!
One last point. I want to ask a few questions (not toying).
Those of you who believe the original Bible scriptures were God-breathed: How do you prove that to yourself and how do you prove that to others?
Can you see yourself able to prove that on this board in a thread?
How do you feel about English translations and their being “as” God-breathed as the ancient language originals?
I’d like to hear what you all feel about these things. They are DIRECTLY related to the challenge put to me to “prove” that PFAL is God-breathed. Maybe in the Doctrinal Forum?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Do you only want to hear responses from people who believe the original scriptures were God-breathed? Because I don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Mike,
Why do you feel you must show yourself approved before GSC?
I've not been suggesting things so that you can be approved before me, but rather to give you ideas that relate to your stated intent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
For whichever questions still apply, I'd love to hear responses. One great disadvantage I have is not knowing most of you and your backgrounds and your current positions. A few I do. Are you current, recent folks in the forum that has personal introductions? I should read up on that if so. BTW, having your picture icon HELPS a lot in remembering who said what.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.