Smith was rejected because he claimed to have received a new revelation that added a new book to Scripture.
Hardly solid examples in every case of "rejection" or failure!
quote:
Moon was rejected because he claimed to replace Christ
If I recall correctly, Moon now runs or owns a newspaper and university or two. What a failure.
quote:Gnostics were rejected because they claimed Jesus did not come in the flesh (See John's Gospel and letters)
So hence "John" betrays his actual time and place of his compositions - early second century, when the supposed gnostic threat was quite active. Though some have also argued gnostic elements being present in John's writings, prompting the question, How much "gnosticism" did John reject, -or adopt?
quote:Papal infallibility was rejected because the Bible says we all sin and come short of the glory of God.
Millions of Catholics today apparently don't think so.
quote:The Branch Davidians were rejected because Koresh claimed to be a messiah and he did not rise from the dead.
Silly me - I had thought our government pretty much contributed to their fiery end.
quote:Doctrines are accepted or rejected based on its measure to Scripture.
Dan, you're looking at Def's post from the wrong perspective. Look at my earlier post and you'll see where Def was coming from.
Def, my post was aimed at my inference from Mike's post, namely, that he finds comfort in the fact that most of us are rejecting him. The fact that one's views are rejected are not an indicator that they are right.
You wrote: “The fact that one's views are rejected are not an indicator that they are right.”
I totally agree with this statement.
I did not mean to imply the opposite in any post of mine or in anything I’ve ever said in my life.
I saw the what I call the Martyr-Verification Fallacy long ago in groups like the Mormons and JW’s, and would never make the same mistake myself.
My post about the 400 to 1 was not an assertion of proof that I am right, not did I intend to imply that. That post was to simply refute a poster’s implication that the significance of the statistics is proof that I’m wrong.
I invoked the 400 to 1 account to demonstrate that what I call the Majority-Verification Fallacy.
In no way do find comfort that the majority rejects me here. It’s hard work to continually work my mind to not feel discouraged at these statistics, but I got real good at this skill long ago, long before GreaseSpot and Waydale when I was fighting the Geer majority that existed in San Diego after the meltdown.
When I went to the CES meetings here during the same time period, again, I’d be in the vast minority within that context, and had more opportunities to learn this skill of ignoring statistics.
Back in the 70's, when I was deciding on the trinity, the majority trinitarians was constantly shoved in my face as proof, and I had no trouble rejecting it.
Raf, you are totally wrong in your guess that I find any comfort in these statistics against me, and that’s not the only guess of yours about my internal state of mind that’s totally wrong.
You have so established a lack of trustworthiness that your denials prove my conclusions more than any recap or quote of your idolatrous rantings.
But thank you for playing.
quote:That post was to simply refute a poster’s implication that the significance of the statistics is proof that I’m wrong.
That wasn't the poster's implication. That was your inference. The poster (Def) only cited a statistic. You're the one who injected meaning into it. Take a grammar class, it will help you communicate more effectively.
You wrote: "You have so established a lack of trustworthiness that your denials prove my conclusions more than any recap or quote of your idolatrous rantings."
Well! In THAT case... I deny my above post and I admit I love it when I'm persecuted! :D-->
I will admit this. When and where I am in the majority, it occurs to me that something may be wrong. It's not proof of any kind, but I see it as cause, not for alarm, but for extra alertness.
Why? Because the adversary is very skilled at whipping together majorities.
I came to PFAL assuming it all to be true. It was only through careful reading and prayer that I realized that not all of its contents were true. When you came along spouting your idolatrous nonsense, it was as easy to refute as someone walking around talking about the moon being made of green cheese.
I think it's clever that you refer to my rejection of your nonsense as idolatry. Telling me that I idolize tradition is plain old ordinary flat out stupid, but coming from you, I'd call it standard.
You, on the other hand, idolize the imperfect work of an imperfect man. And you proudly proclaim your unwillingness to consider a contrary point of view. You CLAIM you looked at PFAL honestly, but your words have demonstrated that you have always considered PFAL to be God-breathed. YOU HAVE NEVER HONESTLY CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY THAT PFAL IS NOT GOD-BREATHED.
You wrote: “YOU HAVE NEVER HONESTLY CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY THAT PFAL IS NOT GOD-BREATHED.”
This is a lie.
In addition to your vicious tone, your facts are wrong.
It wasn’t until 6 years ago that I even TRIED to believe that PFAL was God-breathed.
I have posted here that I wrestled with PFAL’s general validity often. It being totally God-breathed NEVER was a part of my thinking. In my early years I saw others totally accepting it, and I had many doubts. I even actively resisted their notions at times, and even have pieces of such resistance in writing.
Yes, in my early years I developed the notion that there were many sections in the video of “straight prophecy” and I often held tight to this. However, even this was often challenged.
I wish I were the man you describe me too be, but I wasn’t. My discipline and adherence in decades past was terrible, compared to many of my compatriots. I wavered often, and that’s one big reason I never tried to climb the ladder of leadership in the ministry. Another is that I had lots of doubts regarding many pieces of the doctrine.
I’ve posted here often on the trinitarian bouts I had.
My past is riddled with periods of great doubt. I don’t know if you are putting together your assessment of my past history from guessing, or from a 5-senses assessment of my posts, or if you think you are getting revelation. If it’s the latter, you have a big problem.
Raf is being nice here. I respect him more than I do PFAL. Why? Because at least he can see through the fog and find the areas in it that are lacking.
I don't share the same respect for PFAL that Raf has because I chucked it all in favor of starting with a clean slate.
Admittedly there are some points found in there that are found in scripture, but given the author's predaliction for plagiarism, it is often a struggle to know if it is live or memorex.
So we all are on our own pathways to God. The Bible speaks of a narrow way, and I hope that I am on it.
Mike, I do pray for your soul.
And while we disagree over the merits of PFAL, it is appearance of idolatry you hold for vpw and his books that worry us. That is what we are debating here.
One of the reasons I had for starting this thread was to see if there were really anonymous people out there who believed Mike's message, but did not want to suffer the "abuse" that Mike is subject to.
Also to see how many of Mike's opponents actually liked PFAL.
Validating or invalidating his mesage based on numbers wasn't part of the intent.
As of now those who disagree with Mike are close to evenly divided between those who think that PFAL has some good and those who think it's utter garbage. No one thinks PFAL & VP are "just great" and no one completely agrees with Mike. The two who "agree" voted for "willing to give him a shot".
quote:No one thinks PFAL & VP are "just great" and no one completely disagrees with Mike.
This is not a fair summary, given that "I disagree completely with Mike" is not one of the options.
The option that comes closest to that statement is "I disagree with Mike and think PFAL is utter garbage." I don't know how much more one can disagree with him. And 19 people picked that option.
No one is on record completely agreeing with him, which means two things:
1. Mike hasn't voted and
2. EITHER Mike hasn't encouraged enough of his compatriots to come in, sign on and vote OR Mike HAS encouraged his friends to do so and they simply haven't (because that's not how they feel or they don't want to be bothered).
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
11
7
14
Popular Days
Jun 15
34
Jun 18
19
Jun 16
12
Jun 23
8
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 15 posts
def59 11 posts
Refiner 7 posts
Mike 14 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2004
34 posts
Jun 18 2004
19 posts
Jun 16 2004
12 posts
Jun 23 2004
8 posts
def59
Smith was rejected because he claimed to have received a new revelation that added a new book to Scripture.
Moon was rejected because he claimed to replace Christ
Gnostics were rejected because they claimed Jesus did not come in the flesh (See John's Gospel and letters)
Papal infallibility was rejected because the Bible says we all sin and come short of the glory of God.
The Branch Davidians were rejected because Koresh claimed to be a messiah and he did not rise from the dead.
Doctrines are accepted or rejected based on its measure to Scripture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
For statistical purposes only
33 of 35 people reject Mike (94.3 percent)
That projects to about 503 electoral votes.
Mike is getting Gored
are you bushed yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Hardly solid examples in every case of "rejection" or failure!
If I recall correctly, Moon now runs or owns a newspaper and university or two. What a failure.
So hence "John" betrays his actual time and place of his compositions - early second century, when the supposed gnostic threat was quite active. Though some have also argued gnostic elements being present in John's writings, prompting the question, How much "gnosticism" did John reject, -or adopt?
Millions of Catholics today apparently don't think so.
Silly me - I had thought our government pretty much contributed to their fiery end.
Yeah, just like it was in twi.
Same crap, different day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Yes silly you.
The Bible, which instructs us not to add or subtract, is the Christians measuring stick.
John's defense was because even in the first century, such notions were coming up.
As for Smith, see first graf.
Moon may be earthly successful, heck by that token Hugh Hefner would be idolized - no wait he already is.
But he claimed that Jesus failed, something the Bible does not teach.
He had the message and mission from God. Oh gee, where have we heard that from?
As for Koresh, his people believed he was the Messiah. When he did not rise on the third day, I think we have a good idea he was not.
Dan, hey, guess what? We disagree! Isn't America a wonderful place.
God Bless.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Dan, you're looking at Def's post from the wrong perspective. Look at my earlier post and you'll see where Def was coming from.
Def, my post was aimed at my inference from Mike's post, namely, that he finds comfort in the fact that most of us are rejecting him. The fact that one's views are rejected are not an indicator that they are right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
Well you succeeded in dragging me back here.
You wrote: “The fact that one's views are rejected are not an indicator that they are right.”
I totally agree with this statement.
I did not mean to imply the opposite in any post of mine or in anything I’ve ever said in my life.
I saw the what I call the Martyr-Verification Fallacy long ago in groups like the Mormons and JW’s, and would never make the same mistake myself.
My post about the 400 to 1 was not an assertion of proof that I am right, not did I intend to imply that. That post was to simply refute a poster’s implication that the significance of the statistics is proof that I’m wrong.
I invoked the 400 to 1 account to demonstrate that what I call the Majority-Verification Fallacy.
In no way do find comfort that the majority rejects me here. It’s hard work to continually work my mind to not feel discouraged at these statistics, but I got real good at this skill long ago, long before GreaseSpot and Waydale when I was fighting the Geer majority that existed in San Diego after the meltdown.
When I went to the CES meetings here during the same time period, again, I’d be in the vast minority within that context, and had more opportunities to learn this skill of ignoring statistics.
Back in the 70's, when I was deciding on the trinity, the majority trinitarians was constantly shoved in my face as proof, and I had no trouble rejecting it.
Raf, you are totally wrong in your guess that I find any comfort in these statistics against me, and that’s not the only guess of yours about my internal state of mind that’s totally wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike,
You have so established a lack of trustworthiness that your denials prove my conclusions more than any recap or quote of your idolatrous rantings.
But thank you for playing.
That wasn't the poster's implication. That was your inference. The poster (Def) only cited a statistic. You're the one who injected meaning into it. Take a grammar class, it will help you communicate more effectively.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
You wrote: "You have so established a lack of trustworthiness that your denials prove my conclusions more than any recap or quote of your idolatrous rantings."
Well! In THAT case... I deny my above post and I admit I love it when I'm persecuted!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I will admit this. When and where I am in the majority, it occurs to me that something may be wrong. It's not proof of any kind, but I see it as cause, not for alarm, but for extra alertness.
Why? Because the adversary is very skilled at whipping together majorities.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So you're less likely to consider the merit of our counterarguments to your idolatry because we outnumber you, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
I totally thought that through long before I started posting. Almost every argument here against me I had already thought of myself.
My question to you is do YOU ever consider your idolatry to tradition and your own brains?
Have you given my arguments due consideration?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Years ago.
I came to PFAL assuming it all to be true. It was only through careful reading and prayer that I realized that not all of its contents were true. When you came along spouting your idolatrous nonsense, it was as easy to refute as someone walking around talking about the moon being made of green cheese.
I think it's clever that you refer to my rejection of your nonsense as idolatry. Telling me that I idolize tradition is plain old ordinary flat out stupid, but coming from you, I'd call it standard.
You, on the other hand, idolize the imperfect work of an imperfect man. And you proudly proclaim your unwillingness to consider a contrary point of view. You CLAIM you looked at PFAL honestly, but your words have demonstrated that you have always considered PFAL to be God-breathed. YOU HAVE NEVER HONESTLY CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY THAT PFAL IS NOT GOD-BREATHED.
I reject your idolatrous swill, Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
You wrote: “YOU HAVE NEVER HONESTLY CONSIDERED THE POSSIBILITY THAT PFAL IS NOT GOD-BREATHED.”
This is a lie.
In addition to your vicious tone, your facts are wrong.
It wasn’t until 6 years ago that I even TRIED to believe that PFAL was God-breathed.
I have posted here that I wrestled with PFAL’s general validity often. It being totally God-breathed NEVER was a part of my thinking. In my early years I saw others totally accepting it, and I had many doubts. I even actively resisted their notions at times, and even have pieces of such resistance in writing.
Yes, in my early years I developed the notion that there were many sections in the video of “straight prophecy” and I often held tight to this. However, even this was often challenged.
I wish I were the man you describe me too be, but I wasn’t. My discipline and adherence in decades past was terrible, compared to many of my compatriots. I wavered often, and that’s one big reason I never tried to climb the ladder of leadership in the ministry. Another is that I had lots of doubts regarding many pieces of the doctrine.
I’ve posted here often on the trinitarian bouts I had.
My past is riddled with periods of great doubt. I don’t know if you are putting together your assessment of my past history from guessing, or from a 5-senses assessment of my posts, or if you think you are getting revelation. If it’s the latter, you have a big problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You are the liar here, Mike.
But I appreciate your assessment of me. Coming from you, I take it as the highest of compliments.
If I've got your Satanic influence worried about the source of any revelation I may receive, then I am surely doing something right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
As for my "vicious tone," I treat you with the respect you have earned.
Wanna know something really weird?
In recognizing PFAL for what it is, as opposed to worshipping it for what it is not, I honor and respect PFAL more than you ever will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Mike
It is now 35 of 37 who disagree with you.
(94.5 percent)
Mondale had a better chance of winning in 84 than you do.
Take the high road. concede and go back rosieland.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Mike
Raf is being nice here. I respect him more than I do PFAL. Why? Because at least he can see through the fog and find the areas in it that are lacking.
I don't share the same respect for PFAL that Raf has because I chucked it all in favor of starting with a clean slate.
Admittedly there are some points found in there that are found in scripture, but given the author's predaliction for plagiarism, it is often a struggle to know if it is live or memorex.
So we all are on our own pathways to God. The Bible speaks of a narrow way, and I hope that I am on it.
Mike, I do pray for your soul.
And while we disagree over the merits of PFAL, it is appearance of idolatry you hold for vpw and his books that worry us. That is what we are debating here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Yes, it still is, Def.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
One of the reasons I had for starting this thread was to see if there were really anonymous people out there who believed Mike's message, but did not want to suffer the "abuse" that Mike is subject to.
Also to see how many of Mike's opponents actually liked PFAL.
Validating or invalidating his mesage based on numbers wasn't part of the intent.
As of now those who disagree with Mike are close to evenly divided between those who think that PFAL has some good and those who think it's utter garbage. No one thinks PFAL & VP are "just great" and no one completely agrees with Mike. The two who "agree" voted for "willing to give him a shot".
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Oak
I just like numbers. Since I work for the media, I was prepping for 2004 election coverage.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Nooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry: Not looking forward to election coverage.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This is not a fair summary, given that "I disagree completely with Mike" is not one of the options.
The option that comes closest to that statement is "I disagree with Mike and think PFAL is utter garbage." I don't know how much more one can disagree with him. And 19 people picked that option.
No one is on record completely agreeing with him, which means two things:
1. Mike hasn't voted and
2. EITHER Mike hasn't encouraged enough of his compatriots to come in, sign on and vote OR Mike HAS encouraged his friends to do so and they simply haven't (because that's not how they feel or they don't want to be bothered).
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.