Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

So_crates

Members
  • Posts

    1,456
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by So_crates

  1. Another time, back in my university days, a grad student and I were discussing postmodernism. It was her assertation that there was no reality, only perceptions. "No reality, only perceptions," I repeated. "So if there are only perceptions, I go into a class and do what I percieve is "A" work, but you claim its "D" work. What makes one perception more valid than the other?" "The one with the authority," she responded. "But if all you have is perception, then authority too must be a perception." She just kind of shook and walked away. There is something out there, beyond my skin, that is more than my perception. Newton percieved the apple, but something moved the apple seperate from Newton. E=MC squared is a phenomenon that exists whether we percive it or not
  2. For me proof is an objective thing. As with most scientific thought one of the elements of proof is predictability. How do we know two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen make water? It's been done billions of times and will be done billions more. How do we know gravity exists? Apples fell before Newton and they continue to fall to this day. That's why cold fusion fell flat. The scientists say they created it once, but nobody could replicate their experiment. (My theory: The original scientists unknowingly used a dirty test tube and whatever was in that test tube before served as a catalyst that helped create cold fusion. Nobody knows what dirtied the test tube so we'll never know what the catalyst was.)
  3. I'm always leery of all encompassing statements. Back in my university days, an astronomy TA tried to tell me you can't really know anything. My response: "If we can't really know anything, how do you know we can't really know anything?" Same difference with your quote above: If we can't prove anything, then we can't prove we can't prove anything, which opens the possibility things can be proven. (Still there?) Science is actually based on proof. Oh, there are theories, but theories have to sooner or later be proven. And not just once. Again and again.
  4. Or, as they used to say at the university: You spend four years in to the School of Engineering learning to ask the question, How can we make it? You spend four years in the School of Management learning to ask the question, What will it cost? And you spend four years in the School of Liberal Arts learning to ask the question, You want fries with that order?
  5. Which disqualifies him from making any value judgements about Saint Vic or his work. Would we trust the ruling of a judge or jury that said, at a trial, never mind the details of the crime, just tell me about the times the defendant was an upstanding citizen. What Mike fails to understand is that if he continues to push his Weirwille over the World agenda, he going to constantly be confronted with Saint Vic's sexual indiscretions. When Saint Vic started information wasn't a few mouse clicks away. Now, a few keystrokes and anyone can find out everything they would care to know about Saint Vic, The Way, or PLAF in lurid detail. So this will be a subject Mike will be vistiting again and again. Tell possible converts you have personal issues and that prevents you from making good value judgements about Saint Vic and the potential converts will tell you "okay" and go join the Church of Latter Day Smurfs or something. After spending 20 years trying to find a way around the stealing others work and bearing false witness issue, you would think Mike would have better answers. A few post back, Mike said: In war (which this was) the rules of man can be thrown away. Abraham Lincoln did it. Read the bible much? We've been a war since before Eden (part of the reason the snake tempted Eve). Were there abysmal men of the cloth before? I imagine so. The Scribes and Pharisees, who, though they held everybody to The Law, thought they were above The Law (sound familiar? Paging Saint Vic!) Paul, in Timothy, talks of the great falling away. How does Saint Vic's moment in the war differ from the rest of human history? Once again, you try to claim plagiarism is man's law. It's not. Not only does God tell us not to steal, He also tell us not to bear false witness (in this case, Saint Vic claiming he did something he didn't do, the textbook definition of plagiarism.). So it was God's law that was broken. Isn't amazing how God, in his foreknowledge saw there was going to be a plagiarism issue and he put those commandments in the bible to solve it once and for all?
  6. I understand: it must be pretty frustrating to repeatedly present the same old, tired argument you've been pedaling for 17 years just have someone else answer with the same rebuttal that disproves the argument. For example, about 20-50 posts back, you made the claim God gave Saint Vic permission to steal others work. I asked how you know God gave Saint Vic permission. You said you didn't have time to explain. However, you've had time to continue writing other posts. Then there's the claim, also pretty far back, God won when Saint Vic got away with stealing others works. I asked you if God won when Saint Vic got away with forcing himself on ministry women. Again, you refused to answer. As I said before, you want less topics, don't have so many illogical fallicies. However, this one has only one topic, Your claim of God's view and man's view is flawed because you deny the black or white view of God: stealing is stealing. Period. Yah, I know, you have no time. You sure it's not because my bearing false witness argument pokes a huge hole in your not-plagerism-because-God-owns-everything argument and you feel the need for some damage control? So we agree. Again we agree. So when God said, Thou shall not steal he meant thou shall not steal anything. Not a grape, not the church poor box, not someone elses work. And the same applies to Saint Vic: Paul, tells us not to steal: not a grape, not from the chuch poor box, not someone elses work. So, as you've just admitted, if there's no grey area, Saint Vic stole from both man and God's viewpoint No, your the one mearging two concepts: You just claimed God's viewpoint is absolute as I said, yet you claim that even with this absolute-black or white viewpoint--God didn't see Saint Vic as stealing when he stole other's works.. So your saying stealing has nothing to do with being in fellowship or not, right? Again, your attempting to set yourself as the standard. I don't care what you think, I care what God thinks. God says do not steal and as you've admitted above he means do not steal anything, not a grape, not from the church poor box. not someone elses work. God also says do not bear false witness (take credit for something you didn't do), which is the textbook definition of plagerism. So your saying God has nothing about bearing false witness to your neighbor (taking credit for something you didn't do, which is the textbook definition of plagerism)? Isn't it amazing that God, in His foreknowledge, knew a question about plagerism would come up so He put that commandment in there to address it? If the truth were so flimsy, that would have been obvious immediately and you would not have wasted over 40 years trying to find a way around it, as you admitted a few lines back. Nor would this thread have ran for near 20 pages, if the truth were so flimsy. For example, look at all the responses to the gossimer reason your presenting.
  7. I find it interesting that you use the two views argument here, yet you fail to follow through on it. Yes, there's God's view and man's view. God's view is absolute, black or white (your either in fellowship or your not; you either obeyed Him or you didn't; something was either stolen or it wasn't) is necessary because those same rationalization we use to fudge our obedience to God, Christ could have used to fudge his obedience to The Law. If Christ didn't obey The Law, then we have no savior. If rationalizations were acceptable to God, then Christ could have stolen the temple poor box and proclaimed: "This money belongs to my father, I am his son, so it's not really stealing." Silly isn't it. But that's what you get when Man tries to impose shades of grey on God's black or white absolution. God's view is absolute; while man makes rationalizations. One such rationalization is stealing is okay is some contexts, but not in others. Not only does God and Paul tell us not to steal, God also tells us not to bear false witness (in this instance taking credit for something you didn't do). We are also commanded to obey the laws of men, like theft and plagerism. The only time we can disobey the laws of men is when the run contrary to the laws of God, for example, if there were laws against praying or attending church. We've discussed this at length before, but somehow you either don't read my posts or you refuse to see anything but your viewpoint.
  8. Once again, your intellectual dishonesty is on display; The following is a copy of my original post: Your answer: As you can see, you gave an answer to question I didn't ask. Now would you like to answer the other part of may post (Are they God winning, as you claim with Saint Vic getting away with stealing others works)? Also, the problem with plagerism is that it's deceitful, bearing false witness (taking credit for something you didn't do). This begs the question: Would a loving God send one of his spokesmen to intentionally decieve His people? And what is the bibical presidence for that.
  9. So your contention is that because Saint Vic got away with stealing others works, God's hand was in it. Really? Your argument falls apart in more instances than I care to count. Here are a few: Saint Vic also got away with forcing himself on how many women? Was that God winning too? Jack the Ripper got away with murdering how many prostitutes? Was that God winning too? Hitler got away with the systematic slaughter of how many Jews? Was this God winning too? Stalin got away with killing how many Russians? Was that God winning too? All four follow your law broken and they got away with it rationalization.
  10. The above is another question you apparently didn't have time to answer. As it's the crux of your argument, one would think you would make time to answer it. So, once again, how do you know God gave Saint Vic permission to steal other people's work?
  11. No you didn't. You left out half the question and went off on a tangent. An intellectually honest person would have answered the whole statement. Once again, you attempt to set yourself as the standard. Well, I don't care what your opinion is. I care what God's opinion is. Responding to half a statement is not only a sin of omission, it's intellectually dishonest. An intellectually dishonest person lecturing about intellectual honesty is like a Saint Vic lecturing on thou shall not commit adultry. Don't have to. The point has nothing to do with previous post. Your just continuing your intellectual dishonesty by attempting to cloud the issue. The point is: you intentionally ignored something that would disprove your claim. Your responded to half a statement which is intellectually dishonest. Yah, yah, yah. Same excuses. None of which address the point. I wrote "explain to me the good that can come from stealing others works and someone forcing themself on women." You had enough time to address the first part (and then wait for and write other posts), now why didn't you have time to address the someone forcing themselves on women part? All your proving is that your "not enough time" excuse is another way of dodging. You come across loud and clear: You have little time. When some people say they're busy (another way of saying I have little time) what they really mean is that what they want you to address isn't a priority. And I can see why its not a priority, the theme running through all your post: Everyone else evil, Saint Vic good. Everyone else no excuse, Saint Vic must be excused. We always have time for things that are important to us. For you, it's your hero worship of Saint Vic. For me, it's getting out the truth about Saint Vic. As I told you once before, you plead for the positive is like a jury saying we don't want to hear about the crimes committed, tell us only what a model citizen the defendant was. Your always complaining people here are trying to trick you. Who's trying to trick who here? Data? Logic ? Is your claim is that its logical to address half a post with an argument that's been disproven 25 times (I notice you didn't address my rebuttal, but chose to go off on this smoke screen) and ignore the other half that disproves your claim? So your saying its logical to be intellectually dishonest?
  12. At the cost of how many peoples lives? How many women had Saint Vic force himself on them in the name of getting the job done?
  13. Don't change the meaning of what I wrote. I wrote "explain to me the good that can come from stealing others works and someone forcing themself on women." I notice you left out the part about Saint Vic forcing himself on women. Rather intellectually dishonest don't you think? Of course I remember it. I also remember its been pointed out the irrationality of your position because if God owns everything than its okay to steal a car. That in spite of the fact God commands us not to steal. There's also the small matter of your position negating Christ sacrifice for us. What was to prevent Christ from stealing from the chuch poor box then claiming it wasnt stealing because, "God own everything, I'm the son of God, therefore I really own this. Also, God gave me permission." The second, most obvious question, How do you know God gave him permission to steal others works?
  14. So, what's all this called for positivity do for the people who Saint Vic plagerized? What's this call for positivity do for the women Saint Vic forced himself on? Where in the bible does it say "Positivity will set you free"? I can, however, point out in the bible where it says The truth will set you free (John 8:32). So, explain to me the good that can come from stealing others works and someone forcing themself on women. You want to talk about a Pure Evil model. Have you read any of your posts recently? All the negitivity launched at other posters. According to you they're constantly trying to trick you, or trip you up, or attacking you. What's your model for people in this forum? Maybe you should try a few cc's of positivity toward other posters before you start criticizing.
  15. And your proof it was a genuine revelation, beyond I said it was a genuine revelation? And you realize of course that Spectrum 49's brilliant post would discredit Saint Vic as a MOG, don't you? For example, when did Saint Vic ever praise someonewho wasn't doing his bidding? And after 42 years of effort resulting in failure--not to mention others testimonials on this forum of resounding failures--I'd vote PHONEY What else you got?
  16. Actually, there are plenty of facts you repeatedly choose to ignore. Many woman have written testimonials here about how Saint Vic forced himself on them. Losing the Way is another book of facts you've chosen to ignore. This is like a jury saying, We don't want to hear anything about the crime, just tell us what a model citizen the defendant was. How can you make an honest decision based on half the information? So you have no trouble forgiving Saint Vic, but you have a problem forgiving everyone here. Proof? How many accusations have you made at the people here? Just a few post down, you accuse ssomeone of trying to trip you up. And you know what goes on in his mind, how? You've accused Twinky of using lawyer tricks. And you know her intent how? Where is all that forgiveness your preaching? And your presidence for this is what? For us professional question askers (lawyers, procecutors, journalist, etc.) when somebody dodges a question it usually means one of two things: a). They haven't thought their story through b). They're hiding something
  17. First, I believe there has been a revision and Telsa is presently credited with having invented radio. Second, for the sake of argument, did either inventor give permission to the people who made money off of radio to use it? You see, back when VCRs first came out there were two formats: Beta and VHS. Sony, the inventor, said they were going to keep Beta for themselves and charge companies wanting to make Beta tapes a fee. They, however, gave the VHS patent, the poorer quality signal, to whoever wanted it. Naturally, where there's money to be made, people invest. That's why there are billions of VHS tapes floating around, but very few Beta tapes. Also, someone posted an experience where he wanted to use some things lying around, but the Corps leader said it was wrong. "Taking without asking is stealing," the leader said. Now, this was the early Corps, so where did the corps leader get that standard? From Saint Vic, himself? If that was a corps standard, and Saint Vic was the top corps leader, why didn't he obey that standard in relation to his plagerism?
  18. On the contrary, Saint Vic tolerated a lot of compromise. God is the right way we do it? You mean like when he stole others works and claiming he wrote them, compromising God's Word on stealing? Or how about when he forced himself on ministry women, compromising God's Word on adultry? Saint Vic seemed to have no trouble compromising on those. But, of course, when it comes to 5 senses things, specifically money and power, Saint Vic felt there was no compromise, as proven by your anecdote In an earlier post you wrote: Jesus tolerated no compromises either, not on important issues. What Jesus didn't compromise on, unlike Saint Vic, was God's Word. So, by your compromise proving priorities argument we can see God's Word wasn't important to Saint Vic, as he repeatedly compromised on it. However, Saint Vic's desire for money and power were important as he refused to compromise on it.
  19. I think all we have to do is look to how the ministry defined compromise for an answer to the above statement. In the real world compromise means both sides give a little to reach an agreement. However, with Saint Vic and the ministry leadership, compromise meant what's mine is mine and what's yours in negotionable. In other words, they wanted it their way and, not giving an inch, expected you to "compromise" to their position.
  20. I would agree with you to a point, Bol. I think that what often causes people to do bad things is not so much the Trinity as thinking they have the one, the only, in big capital letters, TRUTH. Proof? How many of us were convinced Saint Vic was the MOG for our day and time? How many of us thought every word coming out of Saint Vic's mouth came from God's mouth to Saint Vic's ear? Then we took PLAF and were convinced we had the truth, and by-gum the rest of the world was going to listen. How many of us do you think challanged local priest, ministers and rabbis? How many of us challanged our parents? And all these years later, how many of us realize how wrong we were? Thinking you have the only truth does something to the human mind: it fills it with huberis. Once filled with huberis, the mind closes and refuses to continue the search. That huberis also make you view people who don't believe your doctrine a inferior (after all, they're going to the bad place, your going to the good place).
  21. My position throughout these two threads has been: If we can't conclusively prove the existence of God, how can we conclusively prove the existence of something God is a major part of, like the Trinity. I could turn to John and ask okay what was the Word in the beginning with God that became flesh? Who was God talking to when He (speaking of man) said. " Let US create him in OUR image." I've read JCING, so I know the explainations The Way offered. But if you look at it objectively, you can see where the Trinitarian explaination is just as valid as the non-Trinitarian explanation. Both sides have made their case over the centuries, and both have just as much validity. It's like the argument of whether Adam and Eve had a navel. I mention that to someone once and the asked, "Well, did they?" I shrugged my shoulders. "I don't know, I wasn't there." To me, claiming one thing or the other--and especially saying our salvation is dependent on it--is the old Ford attempting to explain Henry. None of us are God, none of us know, all we have is a handful of verses we insist on injecting our personal beliefs and speculations into.
  22. Just like your claim the two verses you presented prove the Trinity doesn't exist is pure speculation. Show me the verse that says "There is no Trinity." Okay, let's look at scripture. Where's the scripture that says there's no Trinity. They don't say there's no Trinity. It's speculation on your part. You set the standard. Now show me the verse that says there's no Trinity. Anything less is speculation.
  23. From the Billy Graham thread in Open: From my understanding of the Trinity, these verses don't prove or disprove them. The Trinity is three states same essence: it often been described as like water: it can be steam, water, or ice. It's all H2O. Using that model, you can see how your two verses fail to prove or disapprove the Trinity. They both mention two of the three states, yet both have the same essence. No, as I said, people start with preconcieved notions, then want to read their notions into scripture. Objectivity--which involves seeing both sides--shows you proof verses can be taken either way
×
×
  • Create New...