Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

So_crates

Members
  • Posts

    1,932
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

So_crates last won the day on November 18 2022

So_crates had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Here And There--Mostly There

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

So_crates's Achievements

Proficient

Proficient (10/14)

  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • First Post Rare

Recent Badges

264

Reputation

  1. No the joke is the lengths you'll go to to protect a lying rake. Quelle surprise! Like you'd admit it was debunked. I notice you're still speaking in the abstract. Notice the debunking link speaks in specifics. Have you got any specifics for your rebuttal? If you were any more transparent, you'd disappear. Your attempt to minimize the debunking here is so obvious it's sad. Luckily, I wasn't doing it for you. I would encourage your "read only audience" to follow the links, read the posts, and decide for themselves whether or not the Research Geek's paper has been debunked.
  2. As far as you're concerned, anybody that agrees with you has great credibility
  3. This is the second time in this thread I've provided you this link
  4. As I said in the post, the link is in the post below:
  5. Joe Sixpack wouldn't, he'd hear Princeton and think Princeton University. You apparently didn't check the link. I only stated one of the most glaring errors. The errors in Research Geek's paper are far from puny, they border on deceptive.
  6. The link is in the post below; It would be hard him to respond, as when the debunking occured he hadn't been posting for a while. What does he need to respond to? When you write Saint Vic went to Princeton, rather than the factual Saint Vic went to Princeton Theological Seminary, you're either sloppy in your research or attempting to be deceptive.
  7. You didn't care where they came from?! So what your trying to tell me is Saint Vic could have lied about what the literals stated, you'd have no way of probing it one way or the other, and you're okay with that.
  8. You mean Research Geek, the guy that did the Saint Vic credential paper you tried posting in every active thread at that time until you were reminded it had been debunked five years earlier? Yah, Research Geek, a real credible source.
  9. This is apparently a definition of "enlightened" I'm not familiar with. I call it adding to the text. Everybody, add to the word of God and... Johnny Jumpup, Maggie Muggins, Snowball Pete, Palooka Joe, and Joe Sixpack (all at once) ...you no longer have the word of God!
  10. I don't think we're having trouble distinguishing between the two types of believing. I think you failed to clearly tell us you were referring to the manifestation. Hence my questions. Hence OldScool's reaction.
  11. So what about the sinner in the Law of Believing works for Saint and sinner alike? Are they manifesting to help others? Or are they applying it to themselves?
  12. For someone who pontificates on helping people, Mike seems more concerned with being right.
  13. You got to ove it when they hang themselves. You said you don't buy the you believe it or don't meme and that it was bad teaching. What's the difference between believing on and believing off and you believe something or you don't? Further, how does something that's binary favor believers?
  14. How is it pretty logical? You repeated this. Are you trying to convince me or you? You're trying to set yourself up as a standard. You're not.
×
×
  • Create New...