Leaderboard

Control is at stake. On that topic, check out an excellent video on the topic of "undue influence." It's the second "story" on the home page of the International Cultic Studies Association. "Undue influence" is a term that describes the overreaching control that cultic groups exert over members. Description on website: "This talk will explain how the legal concept of undue influence, which has existed for centuries, can be helpful to former members of cultic groups today. Judges have hesitated or refused to hear testimony about brainwashing, mind control, and thought reform on the grounds, that, in their opinion, these concepts lack scientific validity. How can expert witnesses be more persuasive in court? What will help bring clever influencers to justice? The discussion will focus on how the undue influence concept can be updated and applied to cultic relationships, human trafficking, domestic violence, and other influence situations." https://www.icsahome.com/

I am in love with the idea of invisible information. This is $#!t you get to make up and attribute to God even though God could easily have said it but didn't. It's a mystery. You have to take it on faith. None dare call it Horse$hit. More seriously, though: It is false that I do not accept "pertinent" additional information. Speculation is fair. Extrapolation is fair. The reasoning process is fair. What's not fair is making $#!t up to pretend the conflicting accounts are in harmony when they are not. Peter denying Christ six times when each gospel says three. That's not reasonable. That's grasping at straws. Five crosses on the hill when each gospel says three is not reasonable. It's grasping at straws. Reasonable is when you say Christ died on a Wednesday and rose on a Saturday, and the Thursday sabbath was a high holy day, not the weekly sabbath. It's consistent with the facts and it does seem to fit together. There's nothing wrong with learning from history or other sources and incorporating that knowledge into your analysis of the scripture. What's wrong is making up excuses because without them your thesis of inerrancy falls apart. What's wrong is bolstering the reliability of one book because you need it to be accurate, even when the actual subject of that book has left behind his own testimony that its account is incorrect. That's just dishonest. It's not "pertinent invisible information." It's a cheap excuse that might as well be signed by Epstein's mother for all its reliability.

If they recruit outsiders, they introduce outside ideas. If they introduce outside ideas, they can't control what people think. If they can't control what people think, they can't convince them to consistently hand over 10% of their income. In other words, yes, they want to do their thing- and that includes the money- and remain free of variables they can't control.

And just how is that "certain pertinent, invisible information" which you add to the equation supposed to be evaluated for consistency -- especially when what one person who abandons the premise related to factual information -- is NOT consistent with various other persons? Against what is said information supposed to be evaluated? What spin might that be? Please be as specific as possible.