Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
  • Announcements

    • GT

      Log in changes   08/07/2016

      With the upgrade there is no longer separate login ids and display names.  Your login ID is now your display name.
So_crates

Is PLAF theopneustos, god-breathe?

Recommended Posts

Nope. Plagarised material from Bullinger, Kenyon, Ruben Archer Torrey, Pillai, Lamsa, etc. by a drunk/alcoholic, defrocked pastor who was too horny with woman, narsisisitic, bully, crybaby snowflake(but no blizzards unless Dairy Queen). Had parental problems with his father. Need I say more? Oh a poor student including college and seminary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PLAF definition of God-breathe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

The PLAF definition of God-breathe?

Wouldn't that make it circular logic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, waysider said:

Wouldn't that make it circular logic?

Yes.

I'm wondering if a dog chasing it's tail fast enough can smell it's own dog-breathe and thinks it's another dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If pfal was supposedly "theo pneustos" ("God-breathed"), then it would be required to conform to the characteristics of "God-breathed" as defined in pfal itself.  The most obvious property it would have to have would be it would be FREE OF ERRORS. 

We've discussed LISTS of errors in the material before.  We carried on active, lively discourses on multiple sides of several issues, and got places. Naturally, the one person who claims it IS-Mike- has categorically REFUSED to discuss ANY of the OBVIOUS ERRORS in pfal.  What he did do was refuse to discuss them, claim he had answers and offer varieties of excuse why he would not offer even one, and when someone made a point that made it look like a single error in the stack might not be an error, Mike declared victory and said he knew it all along, taking credit for someone else's work. \

My favorite "it's technically impossible for this NOT to be an error" was when a statement was declared true in the Foundational and its opposite declared true in the Intermediate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if fundamentalists will ever be able to view "God inspired" as something other than that which would send them on a scavenger hunt for like-fitting puzzle pieces so they can sit in their safe little room and amuse themselves by trying to solve puzzles with their minds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2018 at 1:21 PM, So_crates said:

Take her away Mike.

Yikes!  I'll spread my self thin.

One of the other reasons I was staying on one thread is because there’s just too much for me to keep track of hopping around like this. I wasn’t even close to answering (and neatly refuting) all the false charges, mis-readings, and lacks of understanding. I must have touched a nerve there, and I was waiting on the flurry of posts to calm down. I quickly read some posts and missed a few others. Should I abandon them?

I’m tempted to, because this topic is very close to my heart.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mike said:

Yikes!  I'll spread my self thin.

One of the other reasons I was staying on one thread is because there’s just too much for me to keep track of hopping around like this. I wasn’t even close to answering (and neatly refuting) all the false charges, mis-readings, and lacks of understanding. I must have touched a nerve there, and I was waiting on the flurry of posts to calm down. I quickly read some posts and missed a few others. Should I abandon them?

I’m tempted to, because this topic is very close to my heart.

 

Not so fast there, Mike...instead of your typical ploy to turn the tables - it's obvious to many of us here that our accurate dissection of wierwille-centered-doctrine has touched a nerve with you...

so I recommend you go back to the wierwille legacy: who will write the book? thread and answer the ton of questions and challenges folks have already put to you. You have not even remotely come close to answering or refuting the abundance of facts / evidence that reveal the shyster known as wierwille.

Edited by T-Bone
details

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Not so fast there, Mike...

So, my saying "I touched a nerve" has touched a nerve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Not so fast there, Mike...instead of your typical ploy to turn the tables - it's obvious to many of us here that our accurate dissection of wierwille-centered-doctrine has touched a nerve with you...

so I recommend you go back to the wierwille legacy: who will write the book? thread and answer the ton of questions and challenges folks have already put to you. You have not even remotely come close to answering or refuting the abundance of facts / evidence that reveal the shyster known as wierwille.

T-Bone, I respect your intellectual vigor and mostly enjoy your posts. But on this I'm wondering why you find any value in Mike's vain babblings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mike said:

So, my saying "I touched a nerve" has touched a nerve?

The very definition of casting some bait and someone getting hooked on the bait.

It's all still vain babblings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

30 minutes ago, Mike said:

Yikes!  I'll spread my self thin.

One of the other reasons I was staying on one thread is because there’s just too much for me to keep track of hopping around like this. I wasn’t even close to answering (and neatly refuting) all the false charges, mis-readings, and lacks of understanding. I must have touched a nerve there, and I was waiting on the flurry of posts to calm down. I quickly read some posts and missed a few others. Should I abandon them?

I’m tempted to, because this topic is very close to my heart.

 

 

10 minutes ago, Mike said:

So, my saying "I touched a nerve" has touched a nerve?

No – I’m saying you have a lot of nerve using reverse psychology  :biglaugh:…you say stuff like this to get a certain reaction and you hope folks will fall for the bait instead of seeing that you’re being manipulative, playing a game of diverting folks attention from what appears to me to be your inability to intelligently respond to direct questions….so here’s more direct questions for you – per your previous post:

Specifically what are the false charges?    You referred to them as ALL the false charges. Therefore you must have been keeping a list…so list them please.

Specifically what are the miss-readings?

Specifically what are the “lacks of understanding” ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rocky said:

T-Bone, I respect your intellectual vigor and mostly enjoy your posts. But on this I'm wondering why you find any value in Mike's vain babblings?

It's not really a matter of finding any value in what Mike says…and I am aware of his “bait” tactic as you so eloquently pointed out on the legacy/who writes the book thread…I use Mike’s ultra-wierwille-centric monologues as a springboard that lends impetus to critical thinking…as I’ve said on other threads – I post in the hope that newcomers to Grease Spot and those still in TWI will mull over the way folks dissect the twisted and distorted doctrine and practice of TWI and all things wierwille…I think DWBH also said something along those lines on the legacy/who writes the book thread.

Some folks like watching surgical operations on TV, like my wife….not me – I’m squeamish…but I do enjoy reading comments of folks with critical thinking in high gear…which lately in my humble opinion has been folks OTHER THAN MIKE on the legacy/who writes the book thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

 

 

No – I’m saying you have a lot of nerve using reverse psychology  :biglaugh:…you say stuff like this to get a certain reaction and you hope folks will fall for the bait instead of seeing that you’re being manipulative, playing a game of diverting folks attention from what appears to me to be your inability to intelligently respond to direct questions….so here’s more direct questions for you – per your previous post:

Specifically what are the false charges?    You referred to them as ALL the false charges. Therefore you must have been keeping a list…so list them please.

Specifically what are the miss-readings?

Specifically what are the “lacks of understanding” ?

Of course you don't really expect him to answer your questions, do you?

Not only does he bait GSC readers, but he is really adept at passive-aggressive behavior. When called out on making claims without supporting them with any kind of argument, does he ever respond to them? Has he ever said, "okay, I see your point, let me clarify?"

Passive-aggressive and disingenuous. If he really had a point of view on the legitimacy of PFLAP, wouldn't he acknowledge those who it point out and present something to back up his claims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

It's not really a matter of finding any value in what Mike says…and I am aware of his “bait” tactic as you so eloquently pointed out on the legacy/who writes the book thread…I use Mike’s ultra-wierwille-centric monologues as a springboard that lends impetus to critical thinking…as I’ve said on other threads – I post in the hope that newcomers to Grease Spot and those still in TWI will mull over the way folks dissect the twisted and distorted doctrine and practice of TWI and all things wierwille…I think DWBH also said something along those lines on the legacy/who writes the book thread.

Some folks like watching surgical operations on TV, like my wife….not me – I’m squeamish…but I do enjoy reading comments of folks with critical thinking in high gear…which lately in my humble opinion has been folks OTHER THAN MIKE on the legacy/who writes the book thread.

Good points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Of course you don't really expect him to answer your questions, do you?

Not only does he bait GSC readers, but he is really adept at passive-aggressive behavior. When called out on making claims without supporting them with any kind of argument, does he ever respond to them? Has he ever said, "okay, I see your point, let me clarify?"

Passive-aggressive and disingenuous. If he really had a point of view on the legitimacy of PFLAP, wouldn't he acknowledge those who it point out and present something to back up his claims?

No I don’t

Someone here once talked about devoted TWI-followers as being like the Borg with the hive-mind and that “resistance is futile” argumentative attitude…wonder what life would be like for a single Borg disconnected from the hive-mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Mike said:

So, my saying "I touched a nerve" has touched a nerve?

You didn't touch a nerve.

Someone asked you for your proof in Who will write the book. Your response was to question whether or not you need to start another thread. Rather than wait for you to get around to it (which I doubt you ever will) I shortcutted the process.

I'm calling you out: You claim PLAF is God-breathe, prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mike said:

...I wasn’t even close to answering ... all the false charges, mis-readings, and lacks of understanding.

No, you bloody well weren't, despite many many requests for answers.

1 hour ago, Mike said:

...(and neatly refuting) ...

Wouldn't mind if you could actually refute anything - whether neatly or not.  But that would require actually addressing something that had been said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, So_crates said:

I'm calling you [Mike] out: You claim PLAF is God-breathed, prove it.

Yep, So_crates.  You've asked just one question.  Let's see just one answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, So_crates said:

You claim PLAF is God-breathe, prove it.

That seems like a fair enough request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

No I don’t

Someone here once talked about devoted TWI-followers as being like the Borg with the hive-mind and that “resistance is futile” argumentative attitude…wonder what life would be like for a single Borg disconnected from the hive-mind.

Didn't that happen to Seven of Nine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When he mentioned VPW and God working together in the Legacy Book thread he mentioned VPW first.  Before God.

If VPW worked through God that clearly explains how it was God Breathed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, So_crates said:

I'm calling you out: You claim PLAF is God-breathe, prove it.

While it might not be possible to prove it (kinda like proving the existence of God), it's entirely reasonable to demand that Mike at least make an argument to support his claim thereof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×