Quote:
Originally Posted by Myplanet2
rejecting something on the basis of whether it contradicts some "bought into" data set is equally as silly as accepting something because it agrees with some "bought into" data set.
|
I know. Thats what i pointed out that the WMM material is doing with older concepts/words. Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myplanet
My own filters flash on when I hear things like "you'll recognize it as false when it contradicts what I've said. (paraphrase of quotes purported to be from Jesus)
I can picture some scanning a thread or post with a key word search on "Jesus" to see if "he's" contradicted, and if so, then getting to work disgorging the HMS (and GSSC) borne justifications.
Where does that compulsion to discredit originate? That's what I'd be asking. Not "how can I discredit this in his holy name"?
|
That's what i was asking.
What is at the root of the attempts of the WMM to discredit worthy concepts?
For my part, i pointed out an esoteric layer of what the older texts were revealing then compared and contrasted it with the WMM. James did a lot of comparing and contrasting himself in the interview. I outlined the demolition job that is evident to me in the WMM and explained what i see as the subtext underneath that.
That doesn't make me a 'HMS' "disgorger" or a fundamentalist christian for noticing what's there and writing it down on a discussion forum. If you're referring to me that is.