Rocky

Well, that of course is a subjective argument. We can't quantify either one. But Twinky articulated Mike's position well. Probably far better than Mike ever could... at least far more succinctly.

So did I. :)

How very ELITIST of you. What exactly are your academic credentials? Fundamentalism 1. (Ecclesiastical Terms) Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true 2. (Islam) Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law 3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs What is fundamentalism? Fundamentalism is the approach to religion that sees believers embrace an early form of their religion, to consider it beyond criticism and worthy enough to be enforced upon oneself (or others) without having to accommodate modern evidence or logical arguments against it. (continued) Mike, you sir, beside the fact that you are a dogmatist, are a fundamentalist. Except that YOUR fundamentalism is PFLAP flavored.

That apparently was Alexander Pope. In An Essay on Criticism, Part II, in 1711, apparently, Pope explains that, while anyone can make a mistake, we should aspire to do as God does, that is, show mercy and forgive sinners: Note that Pope's original wording uses the word 'humane' rather than, as it is now usually spelled, 'human'. This wasn't a spelling mistake, nor have we misunderstood the poet's meaning, just that 'humane' was the accepted spelling of 'human' in the early 18th century.

First of all, in asking you to explain how either of those two stories demonstrated that twi is NOT a fundamentalist organization, I did not question the stories themselves. IOW, I acknowledge(d) that you cited an excerpt from PFLAP and a well understood citation from the class on "send me at least 10 percent of all of your money." While you may have provided some insight as to how YOU rationalize these things in your mind, you did NOT explain how they relate to what you claim they mean. You just didn't. Ya know, Mike... some people here try to give you the opportunity to actually engage in discussion as you requested. But you now (and in the past) just don't seem to get it, and don't respond to legitimate points people make when they try to respond to you. The India incident in PFLAP does nothing to show Wierwille or twi as not fundamentalist. The incident served instead, in the class and in the book, as Wierwille's attempt to buttress his claim to greatness. IOW, it was only your hero saying, "look at how great I am." That's narcissism. Nothing more, nothing less. The tithing concept from the other class and pamphlet was offered ONLY as alleged evidence that if you faithfully send him money, you'll prosper. Nothing more, nothing less. Is there anything in any Wierwille proclamation where he says that he approves of Hinduism or Mormonism as valid and legitimate ways to God? Didn't Ted Ferrell have a song or two about the only way to God?

Really?

Unrelated concepts. Loy's pension would have no bearing on tax exempt status of the corporation as a whole.

Okay, Mike. Wierwille set forth in the PFLAP book a story (anecdote) about how someone of the Hindu culture and religion praised him. That IS the meaning of the excerpt you quoted, right? Further, the Mormon subculture is built on the diligent practice of tithing. Wierwille used that as (alleged) evidence for the concept he was promoting in his pamphlet on the subject, surreptitiously titled "Christians should be prosperous." The message in the book was more fundamentally, "send me money, at least 10 percent of all of what you get from any source." Please explain how these anecdotes provide evidence that the subculture Wierwille established is "not fundamentalist." Thank you.

Good post, Mike. I appreciate your response. it's too late this evening for me to post a comprehensive reply. But I can tell you that I DO hunger and thirst for righteousness (Proverbs 2:1-5). But I don't find it in the oppressive constraints of fundamentalism, including Wierwille's version thereof. There is so much more to life and more to learn about God and godliness than what is in PFLAP and/or in the Bible.

I have a jack, but I'm not going to help you!

Poor Mike. Woe is Mike. Honest question, Mike. Do you, or did you ever, really think GSC was a place your "thesis [dogma]"* would be taken as legitimate? Has anyone here ever articulated that they are trying to "break you?" *Dogmatist: noun. "One who asserts positively doctrines or opinions unsupported by argument or evidence."

I'm confident you're not kidding. That's sorta what I was getting at when I recognized and commented that Mike is a dogmatist. [one who asserts positively doctrines or opinions unsupported by argument or evidence.] Great insight T-Bone.

You missed the point. You "voted" "genuine." Interesting that you would invoke the "US military." How does the US military relate to the way your hero conducted his ministry and established his subculture?

Really? You KNOW you weren't projecting? That would be a reasonable premise if you actually followed with an explanation of how you so "knew." But you didn't. I asked you to answer for the two points regarding pride in Proverbs because I wanted you to answer them. I really don't understand where you're coming from suggesting that I ever tried to predict your answer to any question. That's just subterfuge on your part, misdirection... unless you can point to anywhere that I claimed to predict your answers. Further, the fact that you're the ONLY one saying anything about an alleged "pure evil model" provides evidence that said model is solely a construct of your imagination (imagined summary interpretation of what you've read on GSC about your hero).

How is that at all related to your need to recognize that you were doing nothing other than projecting your insecurities onto me in that previous post?

This is Mike. I hope he doesn't take offense. If he's honest, he'd embrace it. Of course, Mike is still welcome here.

Even you should be able to recognize that as nothing more and nothing less than you projecting onto me. Here's the formula you set forth: "When YOU _____ it was because you thought _____." Dude, you've projected so far and so emphatically that you --- having NO basis in fact or in my words (which you didn't quote to even try to show where you came up with the notion) for claiming I was trying to predict anything that you would say. That's beyond bizarre.

good night sleep tight. Don't let the bed bugs bite.

Mike, how much alcohol must you consume to come up with this malarky?

Get it out incoherently, you might mean. When others pose questions for clarification (what about this; what about that; etc) if you had a coherent message, you'd be able to process the feedback and use it to build. By your own admission, you practiced dodging. How artful is subject to debate. And because you didn't and don't participate in a socratic process to make your message more meaningful, it collapses on the weight of its own hallowness because the support beams can't handle the weight. That you think I was trying to predict your answers gives rise to your confabulation. I was not trying to predict, I was asking you to answer. Your second paragragh makes no sense. I wasn't trying to put myself into any such thing. Carry on. Hope against hope that one day you will make sense.

Facts? Where did you present any facts at all about Wierwille's notions?

Right... it's NOT a democracy, but you vote "genuine." Should you not at least answer the questions raised from scripture? (Proverbs 11:14 and 16:18)

IDK... George mainly doesn't care who he offends.

I understand, Mel. It's the same thing Mike's been saying since the start of GSC.