waysider

No. You simply sidestepped your responsibility to provide proof of your claim. The ball is still in your court.

You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Like this right here. This may be your opinion... but I doubt you'll find much evidence to support its veracity.

They're only battles if you make them battles, Mike. Otherwise, they're discussions. A good way to keep a discussion from escalating into a battle is to follow the accepted conventions of discussion. By that I mean learning to argue your point without resorting to flawed logic and reason, recognizing and avoiding such things as false dilemmas, false equivalence, appeals to authority, strawman arguments, sunken cost thinking and so on. If you can develop some level of proficiency with that approach, you might just find your audience to be more receptive and less adversarial. It's definitely an evolutionary process but well worth the effort.

Confirmation lined up very nicely with bias. "It's axiomatic."

Straight out of PFAL. (It must be true.)

No. HERE

I posted a link.

I think you missed the point, Mike. You're assuming the post was directed at you.

Maybe this would be a good time to revisit the Concorde fallacy.

Thank you for paraphrasing session #5. "Stand! ...and don't budge." If you think that concept is God Breathed, you might want to take a second look at what you're standing in.

If I'm honest with myself, it was initially a case of "date & switch".

How do you fix cognitive dissonance? I have no idea.

Mike has made it clear he does not accept this premise. According to his methodology, the ideas belong to God and, thus, are available for all to use without citation. Unless Mike is willing to dispense with this misguided notion, all other discussion is in vain.

Separating the books from the man: Okay, why not? The books are filled with inaccuracies and falsehoods, regardless of who wrote them. How am I doing?

Congratulations, Mike. You have managed, once again, to redefine another word that had no ambiguity to start with. "I see the entire David incident as told in PFAL as instructive on how the human things back in Biblical cultures was much the same human things today." And I see it as VPW preemptively rationalizing his own misdeeds in case he ever gets called out on them. It's all in the perspective, I suppose.

The problems begin to arise when we, ourselves, become the sole arbiters of what is accurate and what is not.

Yes, that's my recollection, also.

A few years ago, I started exploring THIS book. I have no idea if it's worth investigating because I didn't get too far with it. Lots of things were going on in my life that sidetracked me. And now, it seems a bit too overwhelming a task for a subject I no longer care about as passionately as I once did. But, there it is if anyone is interested.

That's just how it is here. I don't know why. Some days are a flurry of activity and others are a snooze-fest. It's always been that way, to one degree or another. On a personal level, I still work a fulltime job. I don't have personal internet access there, either. And, no, I don't have a cell phone. I used to carry one, years ago, when I was on 24 hr. call. When you're required to carry one at all times, the novelty wears thin quickly. So, that's the story of why my posting is sometimes limited.

I'm not familiar with "Wealth and Poverty". I do know, though, that my high school acting teacher used to hammer that concept into our heads on a regular basis. "If you take criticism personally", he would say, "You won't go very far in the theater."

You simply say "Thank you." At the same time it's a healthy practice to internally reflect on what prompted their praise.

Sometimes, in ourselves, it's difficult to recognize the difference between a healthy dose of confidence and an overinflated ego. That's why we do well to learn how to view outside criticism with an object eye. This is a lesson professional actors and other performers are supposed to learn early on in their careers. You have to give fair consideration to outside critique and consider whether or not it has legitimate value. We've all seen examples of celebrities who somehow missed that lesson. There is no shortage of divas.

The irony of using this particular scripture out of context is that, in the blink of an eye, it shifted the focus from Christ to one's own self. That doesn't simply obscure the message, it contradicts it. You (not Christ) become the central figure, by operating the law of believing and faithfully following the formula for success. To say that Wierwille wasn't operating a bait & switch scheme would be a naive denial of reality.

One can get a better feel for what the Bible refers to as the abundant life by reading John 10:10 in its full context. Hint: it's not what Wierwille said it is. Wierwille clearly sucked this verse out of context in order to give the impression the abundant life is a material entity. " I looked all around me and saw the the unbelievers were living a more abundant life than the believers". So, if it's spiritual, what was it that the unbelievers had? (rhetorical question)