Rocky

Do you only want to hear responses from people who believe the original scriptures were God-breathed? Because I don't.

No, the tangents are not important also. You either can make your case without distraction or you can't. Don't expect sympathy from anyone here because you have a problem with instant gratification (which is what getting distracted is all about). Yes, anything can and will be picked apart. EVERY argument humans make are is subject to people finding holes in them and point out the holes. If you genuinely want to accomplish what you have claimed you want to accomplish, get to it. But you're not fooling anyone here with your weak-willed inattention to your claimed intent. If you don't go offline and make your case, every person here who has vocally scoffed at your intent will (continue to) be justified. If you DO write up an argument then come back here to present it, if you are sincere about your intent, you'll look at the criticism that follows as opportunity to go back offline and update the argument. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I understand... and explained why (on the god-breathe thread) it is not possible for him to do so by interacting on this forum while he's trying (that's giving his motivation the benefit of the doubt... otherwise he's just pretending) to make a case. I pointed out Ephesians 4:14 which highlights the concept of getting distracted.

I understand. Mike, you will NEVER succeed in making your case until you go offline and actually think about making your case and FOCUS on writing it up. It's just not possible. Not only will you never be able to focus doing it like you've done it here, but "I investigate what satisfies people" suggests you have no idea HOW to actually make a case for anything. Have you ever read Ephesians 4:14? I realize it's not necessarily "God-breathed" (/snark) but in consideration of the subject at hand, it MIGHT provide some insight. "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" If you don't like that translation/version, there are quite a few others at the link I provided. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt for a while. But it really seems like you either don't know how or don't want to make your case and then present it. It is simply impossible for you to do so being distracted with every tangent anyone takes you on when they challenge every little point you try to make.

Mike, you're not helping your cause by responding to every tangential point anyone tries to make. Make your case, as clearly and succinctly as you can. I'd bet you'll feel better when you do. Perhaps if you go offline and write it up as such, then come back and post it, it will be less frustrating for you and other readers and posters. I'm confident, however, that when you do so, people here will still pick it apart. But at least you'll be able to say you made an effort to develop a coherent case.

Because it was not a conscious thing they were trying out. It's a social phenomenon. Modeled behavior indicates what the real beliefs of the organization are. If anything, that social "progression" tends to prove that if the god who breathed PFLAP is the true God, he/she is not a god of love.

Bull$hit is one of my favorite words. It's reasonable and effective in many situations. The link is to a book written by Harry G Frankfurt, a professor emeritus of philosophy at Princeton University (NOT Princeton Theological Seminary) on the subject.

Mike, you weren't way corpse, right? The screaming started in the WC by dictor behaving as an entitled a$$hole believing he had every right to abuse people especially in the WC. Martindale kicked it up several notches BEFORE his dancing career (AoS) but really never moderated his behavior. Of course, Martindale was eventually humbled and lost his platform. However, as a WC outsider, the time correlation you suggested tracks with WC getting acclimated to a culture of being demanded of and then demanding of everyone else. That is a(n im)practical outgrowth of dictor's version of "god-breathed" doctrine.

The goal of any essayist is usually to inspire people to think or to look at something from a fresh perspective. I don't look at twi, dictor or PFLAP the way he does but I haven't seen him throwing tantrums lately. IMNSHO, the best way to get him to (eventually) shut up here is to let him make his case and move on. Feedback that challenges him to clarify can be helpful toward that end. Antagonistic feedback, as I see it, probably won't help.

That quote was from 10/21/2016 at 3:31pm. The only thing I can infer from your post an hour ago is that you're still wondering about the answer to your questions about whether all the adult married or unmarried woman had sex with VB. We don't specifically have the answers to those questions. You might be able to contact Karl Kahler on Facebook. He had done some investigative work (as a journalist) on the subject and MIGHT have come across the answers you're looking for. Also Mark Frontczak is on Facebook. He was (and still may be) a part of the group. You might ask him.

Are you suggesting anyone owes you something, like kinder, gentler treatment? What do you expect, given that you come here to what you know is "hostile territory?"

I never asked you for proof. I don't believe you (one) can prove or necessarily disprove that any of Wierwille's religious writings were God-breathed. Had you not been toying with us, you wouldn't have had to suggest it. But you should be able to support your claims without evasiveness or passive-aggressive behavior if you want to be taken seriously. Perhaps you don't know what I mean by making an argument? Let me provide some direction where you can get some insight on that subject. Do you know any lawyers? Have you ever been involved in any litigation (even for a speeding ticket)? If you want to contest the ticket (or whatever claim is made against you), you have to provide support showing either that you didn't do it or if you did, there was some lawful justification. You have made claims... that PFLAP and Wierwille authored collateral written materials are God-breathed. You have not supported said claims. From the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, "Most material you learn in college is or has been debated by someone, somewhere, at some time. Even when the material you read or hear is presented as simple “fact,” it may actually be one person’s interpretation of a set of information. Instructors may call on you to examine that interpretation and defend it, refute it, or offer some new view of your own. In writing assignments, you will almost always need to do more than just summarize information that you have gathered or regurgitate facts that have been discussed in class. You will need to develop a point of view on or interpretation of that material and provide evidence for your position." "If you think that “fact,” not argument, rules intelligent thinking, consider an example. For nearly 2000 years, educated people in many Western cultures believed that bloodletting—deliberately causing a sick person to lose blood—was the most effective treatment for a variety of illnesses. The “fact” that bloodletting is beneficial to human health was not widely questioned until the 1800’s, and some physicians continued to recommend bloodletting as late as the 1920’s. We have come to accept a different set of “facts” now because some people began to doubt the effectiveness of bloodletting; these people argued against it and provided convincing evidence. Human knowledge grows out of such differences of opinion, and scholars like your instructors spend their lives engaged in debate over what may be counted as “true,” “real,” or “right” in their fields. In their courses, they want you to engage in similar kinds of critical thinking and debate." "What is an argument? In academic writing, an argument is usually a main idea, often called a “claim” or “thesis statement,” backed up with evidence that supports the idea. In the majority of college papers, you will need to make some sort of claim and use evidence to support it, and your ability to do this well will separate your papers from those of students who see assignments as mere accumulations of fact and detail. In other words, gone are the happy days of being given a “topic” about which you can write anything. It is time to stake out a position and prove why it is a good position for a thinking person to hold. See our handout on thesis statements." I believe it is disingenuous of you to demand anyone here set forth an acceptable format for proof before you proceed with making an argument.

From your lips (or fingertips)... A wholehearted YES from me. I'm confident Mike DOES know about making an argument to support his (specious) claim. Yet, he doesn't even respond. He's just toying with GSC readers.

Passive aggressive non-responsive reply. Not even an attempt at an argument to support your claims.

Thanks for the link. I went there and began reading. I found this excerpt near the beginning of the post troubling, I began studying the the Word of God, and I got as far as the Mosaic Law which proscribes the death penalty for adultery. I believed that if God commanded the death penalty for adultery in the Old Testament, His will on the subject could not have changed with the change of administration. (emphasis mine) I don't know if it was a typo or a gross misunderstanding or something in between but correct usage of the word "proscribes" would indicate that the Old Testament OUTLAWS the death penalty for adultery.

While it might not be possible to prove it (kinda like proving the existence of God), it's entirely reasonable to demand that Mike at least make an argument to support his claim thereof.

Good points.

Of course you don't really expect him to answer your questions, do you? Not only does he bait GSC readers, but he is really adept at passive-aggressive behavior. When called out on making claims without supporting them with any kind of argument, does he ever respond to them? Has he ever said, "okay, I see your point, let me clarify?" Passive-aggressive and disingenuous. If he really had a point of view on the legitimacy of PFLAP, wouldn't he acknowledge those who it point out and present something to back up his claims?

The very definition of casting some bait and someone getting hooked on the bait. It's all still vain babblings.

T-Bone, I respect your intellectual vigor and mostly enjoy your posts. But on this I'm wondering why you find any value in Mike's vain babblings?

For example, "... verbal attacks contain bait. Just like the fisherman, the attacker presents you with bait in the hope that you will swallow it and be hooked. Bait is often unsaid, or pre-supposed. What this means is that the attacker need not attack you directly, but need only imply certain things, without really saying anything."

In the mid-1990s, I went through two years of high-conflict divorce litigation. During that time, I met a former politician who was working on developing a conflict resolution model/class based on the martial art known as Aikido. The one thing from his class that has stuck with me is to beware of getting hooked on bait that someone may dangle in front of you to foster (or escalate) rather than resolve conflict. At GSC, especially lately, Mike has played the role of offering bait. While he says he's friendly opposition, does he give any genuine consideration to sound, valid arguments that have been made about Wierwille and PFLAP or does he just dismiss them out of hand by falsely claiming that people who disagree with him about Dictor refuse to consider his (Mike's) reality because we hold a "pure evil model" mindset about Dictor, PFLAP and twi? After (many people, including me) calling Mike out repeatedly (constraining him), it has become painfully obvious his discourse here is disingenuous. If Mike does not begin to engage constructively (acknowledge and consider arguments he has heretofore dismissed), I recommend people stop taking his bait.

How quaint. Make an argument, not just a claim. "We had good delivered to us..." Make an argument to back up that claim or just stop toying with people here.

You speak of well-rounded education (in some of your comments). The problem to which you referred is a cultural problem. Widespread behaviors are based on societal mores (unwritten rules). A person with a well-rounded education might be able to articulate that changing cultures and mores is never done quickly or easily. It's not a matter of fear... even though you probably used that expression as an idiom (or as bait).