Raf

Wierwille took responsibility for what was written under his name. You are dishonestly absolving him of that responsibility in an effort to dishonestly dodge, distract, challenge right back but never admit an error is an error. That is lying. You are not engaging in an honest dialogue. I am not assuming dishonesty. I am observing, noting and documenting dishonesty.

Wierwille took personal responsibility for everything in books that had his name as the author. To act as though errors in those books get a mulligan because they were collaborative efforts is fundamentally dishonest and at odds with Wierwille's own written testimony about the content of those books. They are his words. They are not "proofreaders oversights. They are actual errors. Your dishonesty would be shameful coming from a thinking person.

What is also simple is that it is a testable thesis. It actually gives you the methodology to test it. And it fails. Therefore, it is a false thesis. It takes breathtaking dishonesty to say otherwise. Ooh, look!

Dodge. Distract. Challenge right back. But never admit an error is an error. That is a fundamentally dishonest tactic unworthy of the label "Christian." Wierwille's books are god-breathed, except the ones written by committee, regardless of the fact that he himself took personal responsibility for the final product. We've reached the point, I think, where identifying you as "dishonest to the core" is not "namecalling" but a fair and objective description of your conduct on this board. You'e not an honest debater, and that makes discussion with you a profit to no one.

I don't know how someone can write such breathtakingly dishonest posts and still consider themselves Christian. Honestly, how do you do it? Is your relationship with Christ so meaningless to you that you fail to say how you assassinate his character by claiming to be his disciple? I'm not even a Christian anymore and I'm embarrassed for him at the notion that someone might mistake you for one of his followers.

Has anyone seen the goalpost? I mean, it was JUST HERE like a second ago!

Proofreaders' oversights and printers' errors? That's NONSENSE. Those were Wierwille's words. He didn't misspell "Turkey" "F-r-a-n-c-e." He wrote something that was actually in error. The dishonesty of your answer is fruit. Tells me all I need to know about the tree.

The Council of Nicea is where the church decided once and for all that Jesus is God and of one substance with the Father, begotten not made, not a creation but the Creator. It was indeed an event of epic proportions. And it is an actual error to say Nicea was in modern day France. Good catch. I missed it. [I can't verify because my copies of these books have been transformed by the renewing of their pulp into Bounty towels.

An understandable mistake.

Where did PFAL say it is?

BAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

"Dodge, distract, challenge right back, but never admit an error is an error." Never let it be forgotten that THIS is how Mike deals with a challenge. These are HIS words. And he hasn't changed one bit. Talk about a standard ploy!

And it's a perfectly fair game question HERE. ;)

https://www.amazon.com/One-God-Lord-5th/dp/0983604223/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1516648508&sr=8-2&keywords="One+God+and+One+Lord"

One thing I've noticed is that a decade and more ago, Mike made it very clear that his method of communicating would be steeped in a dishonest approach that simply refused to acknowledge the possibility that he was wrong about something. Period. His methods have not changed one bit. They are fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with a desire to engage in an honest discussion. Unfortunately, there is no GSC rule against being so utterly full of crap that flies cannot bear the stench.

Awesome thing about actual errors and contradictions: they don't give a F@#$ whether you approve or disapprove of their existence.

If PFAL were god-breathed it would conform to its own definition of God breathed, containing no errors or contradictions. It contains errors and contradictions. End of discussion.

Yup. Bigger and bigger. It's amazing, just yesterday it was little, and then, overnight it just...

LOL.Mike, you got discredited and left here embarrassed with your tail between your legs, unable to successfully rebut a single point I had made. I will not let rules be violated just because I don't like you, but I will also not permit you to lie and distort what happened here during your first attempt to promote your laughable thesis. PFAL fails your thesis on its own terms. That alone should embarrass you into silence. That it hasn't is just evidence of how shameless you are in your devotion to a degenerate, perverted xerox machine who was no more a follower of Christ in his day than I am today.

I would care less, but that would require effort.

No politics on GSC.

you've got one thread nominally in the wrong section maybe, from a certain point of view, and it's not bothering anyone. for now, no problem. k?

No one's asking for that. Right now the people posting on this thread ARE the majority of GSC, for all practical purposes. (I exaggerate, but only slightly).

For what it's worth: My first comment was directed specifically at Chockfull. The rest at everyone else (including chockfull). I do believe this thread is doctrinal. In the old days it would have been moved. But no one's complaining, so why bother? I shouldn't have brought it up. I'm happy with the thread here. It is About the Way as well, after all.

Chockfull, I'm amused by our brief interaction here, and while I think it opens up a fascinating discussion, it is one that is off-topic here. Agree? Everyone else: If you're wondering where I am in this discussion, there are multiple explanations for my relative lack of participation. First and foremost, I consider Mike's thesis factually debunked. There is nothing to discuss. He has never answered for the plain and obvious factual errors and contradictions in PFAL and the writings of VPW that discredit his thesis conclusively all by themselves. If he ever gets around to it, maybe I'll jump back in. But I see no need to revisit the endless cycle of "dodge, deflect, deny, anything other than admit an error is an error" that is his stated m.o. Honestly, why debate someone who announces upfront that he will not debate with integrity? My apologies if this sounds like a personal attack. I'm struggling to separate criticism of the person from criticism of his stated m.o. I have nothing to say about the person that would not result in a violation of GSC rules. Which brings up another reason for my relative silence: I humbly recognize that a decent portion of the GSC rules appear to have been developed to address the various ways I behaved in dealing with Mike. Lots of things I said and did would be considered blatant rule violations today. While I have not discussed this with anyone recently, and I only discussed it minimally with people years ago, I do not believe this is a coincidence. I also do not believe I am able to disguise my feelings enough to avoid rule violations if I should re-engage in the discussion. Housekeeping: I DO believe I am capable of behaving fairly as a moderator. So for no one has asked for that, and if that should happen, I'll see if any other mods are available to take action before I step in. And I will advise Mike personally if there is something I do that he would like to challenge. Somewhere in this list of why I'm not participating is the fact that my beliefs have changed between the original discussions and today. As such, it would be too easy for people to dismiss my comments because I do not believe ANYTHING can be "God-breathed," so how can I fairly judge whether VPW's writings are? (My answer: By holding VPW's writings to their own definitions of the characteristics of the "God-breathed Word." Surely it cannot be God-breathed and yet be incorrect about what God-breathed means!) All said, in the olden days these discussions were shipped to doctrinal. I am inclined to move it again. The only reason I haven't done it already is that the GSC has changed so much that this conversation may not be the nuisance in About the Way that it once was considered. Nonetheless, the question of whether a written work is "God-breathed" automatically falls into doctrinal, for the record. In any event, happy debating.