ya--i mean those in general, and didn't mean to attack Mike specifically. I think defending a religion or doctrine will paint one into corners, so to speak, and people are trained into pat answers or denial without even realizing it, because they naturally become ego-invested in their choices. I am no different. The choices we make reflect upon our character, and "i don't really know" is not perceived as a valid choice.
i have stuck with Apo/Pent people primarily because of the popular edict "i'm here because these people seem to be most interested in adhering to Scripture, and if i find some others who are more genuine in this pursuit, i will follow them."
of course this is only what we tell ourselves, and is only as true as the person themselves is--which i find follows the trajectory of a person's beliefs. Meaning that of course we mean this statement at first, and then over time we come to
not mean it, in a reflection, perhaps, of
forgetting our first love. With all this in mind i'm sure that Mike would put some of his recent interpretations differently, or barring that perhaps you (or another of his defenders) might like to defend them?
Threaded Mode
