Nope. Plagarised material from Bullinger, Kenyon, Ruben Archer Torrey, Pillai, Lamsa, etc. by a drunk/alcoholic, defrocked pastor who was too horny with woman, narsisisitic, bully, crybaby snowflake(but no blizzards unless Dairy Queen). Had parental problems with his father. Need I say more? Oh a poor student including college and seminary.
If pfal was supposedly "theo pneustos" ("God-breathed"), then it would be required to conform to the characteristics of "God-breathed" as defined in pfal itself. The most obvious property it would have to have would be it would be FREE OF ERRORS.
We've discussed LISTS of errors in the material before. We carried on active, lively discourses on multiple sides of several issues, and got places. Naturally, the one person who claims it IS-Mike- has categorically REFUSED to discuss ANY of the OBVIOUS ERRORS in pfal. What he did do was refuse to discuss them, claim he had answers and offer varieties of excuse why he would not offer even one, and when someone made a point that made it look like a single error in the stack might not be an error, Mike declared victory and said he knew it all along, taking credit for someone else's work. \
My favorite "it's technically impossible for this NOT to be an error" was when a statement was declared true in the Foundational and its opposite declared true in the Intermediate.
I wonder if fundamentalists will ever be able to view "God inspired" as something other than that which would send them on a scavenger hunt for like-fitting puzzle pieces so they can sit in their safe little room and amuse themselves by trying to solve puzzles with their minds.
One of the other reasons I was staying on one thread is because there’s just too much for me to keep track of hopping around like this. I wasn’t even close to answering (and neatly refuting) all the false charges, mis-readings, and lacks of understanding. I must have touched a nerve there, and I was waiting on the flurry of posts to calm down. I quickly read some posts and missed a few others. Should I abandon them?
I’m tempted to, because this topic is very close to my heart.
One of the other reasons I was staying on one thread is because there’s just too much for me to keep track of hopping around like this. I wasn’t even close to answering (and neatly refuting) all the false charges, mis-readings, and lacks of understanding. I must have touched a nerve there, and I was waiting on the flurry of posts to calm down. I quickly read some posts and missed a few others. Should I abandon them?
I’m tempted to, because this topic is very close to my heart.
Not so fast there, Mike...instead of your typical ploy to turn the tables - it's obvious to many of us here that our accurate dissection of wierwille-centered-doctrine has touched a nerve with you...
so I recommend you go back to the wierwille legacy: who will write the book? thread and answer the ton of questions and challenges folks have already put to you. You have not even remotely come close to answering or refuting the abundance of facts / evidence that reveal the shyster known as wierwille.
Not so fast there, Mike...instead of your typical ploy to turn the tables - it's obvious to many of us here that our accurate dissection of wierwille-centered-doctrine has touched a nerve with you...
so I recommend you go back to the wierwille legacy: who will write the book? thread and answer the ton of questions and challenges folks have already put to you. You have not even remotely come close to answering or refuting the abundance of facts / evidence that reveal the shyster known as wierwille.
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?
One of the other reasons I was staying on one thread is because there’s just too much for me to keep track of hopping around like this. I wasn’t even close to answering (and neatly refuting) all the false charges, mis-readings, and lacks of understanding. I must have touched a nerve there, and I was waiting on the flurry of posts to calm down. I quickly read some posts and missed a few others. Should I abandon them?
I’m tempted to, because this topic is very close to my heart.
10 minutes ago, Mike said:
So, my saying "I touched a nerve" has touched a nerve?
No – I’m saying you have a lot of nerve using reverse psychology …you say stuff like this to get a certain reaction and you hope folks will fall for the bait instead of seeing that you’re being manipulative, playing a game of diverting folks attention from what appears to me to be your inability to intelligently respond to direct questions….so here’s more direct questions for you – per your previous post:
Specifically what are the false charges? You referred to them as ALL the false charges. Therefore you must have been keeping a list…so list them please.
Specifically what are the miss-readings?
Specifically what are the “lacks of understanding” ?
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?
It's not really a matter of finding any value in what Mike says…and I am aware of his “bait” tactic as you so eloquently pointed out on the legacy/who writes the book thread…I use Mike’s ultra-wierwille-centric monologues as a springboard that lends impetus to critical thinking…as I’ve said on other threads – I post in the hope that newcomers to Grease Spot and those still in TWI will mull over the way folks dissect the twisted and distorted doctrine and practice of TWI and all things wierwille…I think DWBH also said something along those lines on the legacy/who writes the book thread.
Some folks like watching surgical operations on TV, like my wife….not me – I’m squeamish…but I do enjoy reading comments of folks with critical thinking in high gear…which lately in my humble opinion has been folks OTHER THAN MIKE on the legacy/who writes the book thread.
No – I’m saying you have a lot of nerve using reverse psychology …you say stuff like this to get a certain reaction and you hope folks will fall for the bait instead of seeing that you’re being manipulative, playing a game of diverting folks attention from what appears to me to be your inability to intelligently respond to direct questions….so here’s more direct questions for you – per your previous post:
Specifically what are the false charges? You referred to them as ALL the false charges. Therefore you must have been keeping a list…so list them please.
Specifically what are the miss-readings?
Specifically what are the “lacks of understanding” ?
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?
It's not really a matter of finding any value in what Mike says…and I am aware of his “bait” tactic as you so eloquently pointed out on the legacy/who writes the book thread…I use Mike’s ultra-wierwille-centric monologues as a springboard that lends impetus to critical thinking…as I’ve said on other threads – I post in the hope that newcomers to Grease Spot and those still in TWI will mull over the way folks dissect the twisted and distorted doctrine and practice of TWI and all things wierwille…I think DWBH also said something along those lines on the legacy/who writes the book thread.
Some folks like watching surgical operations on TV, like my wife….not me – I’m squeamish…but I do enjoy reading comments of folks with critical thinking in high gear…which lately in my humble opinion has been folks OTHER THAN MIKE on the legacy/who writes the book thread.
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?
No I don’t
Someone here once talked about devoted TWI-followers as being like the Borg with the hive-mind and that “resistance is futile” argumentative attitude…wonder what life would be like for a single Borg disconnected from the hive-mind.
So, my saying "I touched a nerve" has touched a nerve?
You didn't touch a nerve.
Someone asked you for your proof in Who will write the book. Your response was to question whether or not you need to start another thread. Rather than wait for you to get around to it (which I doubt you ever will) I shortcutted the process.
I'm calling you out: You claim PLAF is God-breathe, prove it.
Someone here once talked about devoted TWI-followers as being like the Borg with the hive-mind and that “resistance is futile” argumentative attitude…wonder what life would be like for a single Borg disconnected from the hive-mind.
I'm calling you out: You claim PLAF is God-breathe, prove it.
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.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
63
252
68
130
Popular Days
Jan 25
114
Jan 6
58
Jan 9
51
Jan 3
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 63 posts
Mike 252 posts
waysider 68 posts
So_crates 130 posts
Popular Days
Jan 25 2018
114 posts
Jan 6 2018
58 posts
Jan 9 2018
51 posts
Jan 3 2018
45 posts
Popular Posts
DontWorryBeHappy
"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."........Thomas Paine.
penworks
Here's an idea: we each drop out of this topic and go read a book.
DontWorryBeHappy
Can anyone tell me dictor paul's scriptural position on the word "Covfefe"? What is the true meaning of that word?? Mike's textual criticism, and use of the basic dictor "keys to research", is as made
Posted Images
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
Nope. Plagarised material from Bullinger, Kenyon, Ruben Archer Torrey, Pillai, Lamsa, etc. by a drunk/alcoholic, defrocked pastor who was too horny with woman, narsisisitic, bully, crybaby snowflake(but no blizzards unless Dairy Queen). Had parental problems with his father. Need I say more? Oh a poor student including college and seminary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I've seen no evidence to suggest it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The PLAF definition of God-breathe?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wouldn't that make it circular logic?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yes.
I'm wondering if a dog chasing it's tail fast enough can smell it's own dog-breathe and thinks it's another dog.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If pfal was supposedly "theo pneustos" ("God-breathed"), then it would be required to conform to the characteristics of "God-breathed" as defined in pfal itself. The most obvious property it would have to have would be it would be FREE OF ERRORS.
We've discussed LISTS of errors in the material before. We carried on active, lively discourses on multiple sides of several issues, and got places. Naturally, the one person who claims it IS-Mike- has categorically REFUSED to discuss ANY of the OBVIOUS ERRORS in pfal. What he did do was refuse to discuss them, claim he had answers and offer varieties of excuse why he would not offer even one, and when someone made a point that made it look like a single error in the stack might not be an error, Mike declared victory and said he knew it all along, taking credit for someone else's work. \
My favorite "it's technically impossible for this NOT to be an error" was when a statement was declared true in the Foundational and its opposite declared true in the Intermediate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I wonder if fundamentalists will ever be able to view "God inspired" as something other than that which would send them on a scavenger hunt for like-fitting puzzle pieces so they can sit in their safe little room and amuse themselves by trying to solve puzzles with their minds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yikes! I'll spread my self thin.
One of the other reasons I was staying on one thread is because there’s just too much for me to keep track of hopping around like this. I wasn’t even close to answering (and neatly refuting) all the false charges, mis-readings, and lacks of understanding. I must have touched a nerve there, and I was waiting on the flurry of posts to calm down. I quickly read some posts and missed a few others. Should I abandon them?
I’m tempted to, because this topic is very close to my heart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Not so fast there, Mike...instead of your typical ploy to turn the tables - it's obvious to many of us here that our accurate dissection of wierwille-centered-doctrine has touched a nerve with you...
so I recommend you go back to the wierwille legacy: who will write the book? thread and answer the ton of questions and challenges folks have already put to you. You have not even remotely come close to answering or refuting the abundance of facts / evidence that reveal the shyster known as wierwille.
Edited by T-Bonedetails
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So, my saying "I touched a nerve" has touched a nerve?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The very definition of casting some bait and someone getting hooked on the bait.
It's all still vain babblings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
No – I’m saying you have a lot of nerve using reverse psychology
…you say stuff like this to get a certain reaction and you hope folks will fall for the bait instead of seeing that you’re being manipulative, playing a game of diverting folks attention from what appears to me to be your inability to intelligently respond to direct questions….so here’s more direct questions for you – per your previous post:
Specifically what are the false charges? You referred to them as ALL the false charges. Therefore you must have been keeping a list…so list them please.
Specifically what are the miss-readings?
Specifically what are the “lacks of understanding” ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
It's not really a matter of finding any value in what Mike says…and I am aware of his “bait” tactic as you so eloquently pointed out on the legacy/who writes the book thread…I use Mike’s ultra-wierwille-centric monologues as a springboard that lends impetus to critical thinking…as I’ve said on other threads – I post in the hope that newcomers to Grease Spot and those still in TWI will mull over the way folks dissect the twisted and distorted doctrine and practice of TWI and all things wierwille…I think DWBH also said something along those lines on the legacy/who writes the book thread.
Some folks like watching surgical operations on TV, like my wife….not me – I’m squeamish…but I do enjoy reading comments of folks with critical thinking in high gear…which lately in my humble opinion has been folks OTHER THAN MIKE on the legacy/who writes the book thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Good points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
No I don’t
Someone here once talked about devoted TWI-followers as being like the Borg with the hive-mind and that “resistance is futile” argumentative attitude…wonder what life would be like for a single Borg disconnected from the hive-mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
You didn't touch a nerve.
Someone asked you for your proof in Who will write the book. Your response was to question whether or not you need to start another thread. Rather than wait for you to get around to it (which I doubt you ever will) I shortcutted the process.
I'm calling you out: You claim PLAF is God-breathe, prove it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
No, you bloody well weren't, despite many many requests for answers.
Wouldn't mind if you could actually refute anything - whether neatly or not. But that would require actually addressing something that had been said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Yep, So_crates. You've asked just one question. Let's see just one answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That seems like a fair enough request.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Didn't that happen to Seven of Nine?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
When he mentioned VPW and God working together in the Legacy Book thread he mentioned VPW first. Before God.
If VPW worked through God that clearly explains how it was God Breathed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.