waysider

Two major claims have been brought forth on this thread. 1.) PFAL is God Breathed. 2.) Wierwille, himself, declared it to be God Breathed. Neither claim has been substantiated to any reasonable degree of satisfaction.

This point of your premise has already been disproved. What else ya got?

The theory as a whole can not be tested. Therefore, one must test the individual components. This is something we have done, many times over, on several of the individual points. Those points have been proved to be invalid. Therefore, I must conclude that the thesis, as a whole, has been disproved.

In my opinion, here's the basic problem with the whole idea that PFAL is God Breathed: It relies entirely on circular reasoning. By that, I mean the premise is based on self verification. Person 1.) "PFAL is God Breathed." Person 2.) "How do we know?" Person 1.) "It says so right in the PFAL text." Person 2.) "How do we know this claim in the PFAL text is accurate?" Person 1.) "Because the PFAL text is God Breathed." It's like the TV commercial that was popular a while back. Person 1.) "You can't lie on the internet." Person 2.)" How do you know?" Person 1.) "I heard it on the internet." There would need to be outside evidence to give any sort of credence to the premise. It's just that simple.

He'll never give up. He has to ...STAND! ...'cuz VPW said so. (session #5? Help me out here, Mike.)

Yeah, you could do that. Or, ya know, you could simply define the variables again .

Define the variables for me once more. It's been a long time since I sat in a Physics lecture.

FTFY (Fixed That For You)

Needs and Wants must be parallel Child A = Needs Child B = Wants See Saw Plank = Coinciding Plane The Ground = Not part of the problem. The fulcrum does not need to rest on an absolute horizontal plane. When Child A's weight is balanced with Child B's weight, they occupy a coinciding plane. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Has anyone thought to consult the Oxford Dictionary? I wonder what usage #8 of "parallel" is." Please enlighten us. I'm curious to know why usage #8 is more relevant than usages #1-#7

Even if we allow you the see saw example, they are NEVER parallel. They are either coincidental or intersecting. edit: This is grade school level math here. I thought the guy had a doctorate.

So, if I hand you a snake and tell you it's a stone, that shouldn't be a problem. Amiright?

Actually, yes I did. Just as much as I had a hard time understanding the difference between all without distinction and all without exception.

Unloosed I have heard, especially in more rural communities.

I've lived in various parts of Ohio for 67 years. I've never heard it used that way.

Well, the context involved something that happened at The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Maybe it was the creation of the Canon, I don't really remember. This isn't like you and I having a conversation and hearing something incorrectly. This is an event of epic proportions in the history of the Catholic church. There were two (IIRC) Ecumenical Councils in France but they were much later and in Lyon, hence they are known as the Councils of Lyon.

France

This right here, Mike. I asked you a perfectly simple question. ("The ancient city of Nicaea was located in what modern country?") The correct answer is Turkey. One simple word. Your answer? "That depends, yada,yada, blah, blah blah, ad infinitum". There is nothing to "rethink". You dodged the question because you know it reveals an error in PFAL. You can't change facts simply because they don't agree with your "thesis".

Certainly. When people ask you simple questions that require simple answers, answer them in an appropriate fashion.

But, what if it's a "Thus said The Lord." statement? There could be a hidden message in there that none of us has seen.

No! You can't give up. What about that session where Wierwille tells us we have to "STAND!" no matter what?

Who knew answering a yes or no question could be so complicated?

WOW! You really HAVE mastered the PFAL material..."Answer a question with a question."

Life is just a bowl of oat bran. You wake up every morning and it's there. Are you all sitting comfybold two square on your botty? Then I'll begin....HERE

Wierwille never claimed it. You're seeing something that just isn't there. Wierwille was skilled at using ambiguity whenever and wherever it suited his agenda. That's what con men do. They gain your confidence.They make you believe they are telling you the truth. Even Wierwille, himself, stressed this in one session of PFAL when he used an example of a guy who successfully sold a toothbrush though it had only one bristle. You might have missed the meaning of that lesson. Lots of older grads never saw it in its fullness..

Mike, there is nothing in the premise referenced in your most recent post to suggest PFAL is divinely inspired. Wierwille used some common words that can also be found quite easily in the Bible. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing. I hope you catch your golden pony. He's pretty elusive.