So_crates
-
Posts
2,271 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by So_crates
-
As long as we're extrapolating things out of scripture: those Ministry women who believed Saint Vic was a MOG, did they get bread or a stone? An egg or a scorpion?
- 1,462 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- dark persuasion
- delusion
- (and 10 more)
-
You're presenting something different than point blank writing. Go to Leviticus and Numbers. The Law was important. They were written point blank, no room for guessing what they mean. Now go to SIT. Everything the Ministry claims come from sources other than direct statements. As I said, if SIT were so important why isn't anything direct written about it?
-
Saint Vic teaching about self-control is like Jeffry Dahmer teaching a cooking class.
-
I apologize for the delay: my tablet's battery died. You're right. It's in John. John 20:22 to be exact. It only says Jesus breathed in and said, "Receive the holy spirit." All the move your lips, your vocal cords were added by Saint Vic. I find it very curious that for as important as Saint Vic claims SIT was God left no detailed instructions on how to do it. You'd think Paul would have wrote a paragraph or two at the very least.
-
If I remember correctly the part about breathing in was in Matthew.
-
And naturally you feed your brain good stuff about us at GSC, right? That's why your always accusing us of being hostile toward you.
-
Jesus told the apostles to breathe in, the text says breathe on. There's nothing about the holy spirit giving you the words or you move your lips and vocal cord. There's also a passage in Act that describes the sound as a great rushing wind which Saint Vic interpreted as the apostles breathing. @Nathan_Jr
-
Don't I recall something from the class? Add a word, change a word, turn the whole thing around?
-
As to PLAF, the thing I could never figure out is why so many people waste so much time researching things that don't do anybody any good. Four crucified. So you know it, how does that change your life? The two Greek words for receive. How does that change your life? Knowing what the Aramaic word for "cloak" means. That changes lives, how? And now updating the definition of "free will." It all boils down to intellectual pursues giving glory to the pursuer by their attempts to look important. If PLAF was so important, why didn't Saint Vic research principles for believing and how to operate it? Considering the bible tells us we live by believing, I would think that would be an important thing to know. Isn't it odd that there are sessions for practicing and improving SIT, but there's nothing to practice and improve your ability to believe?
-
So your going to academia with it, the people who...
-
Bad in your opinion. **Points over Mike's head** Look, Mike, there goes the point. So, in your opinion, the definition of free will is bad, yet there's no authority to define just what free will is, right? So you're going to try and set yourself up as the authority. Neuroscientist and microbiologist can't figure it out, but you can. That's like me saying I came up with a better way to smash atoms.
-
You really like to hide behind words. I don't care for Hitler, is he anti-idol? I'm disgusted by Dahmer, is he anti-idol?
-
There's a story about a guy who went into a diner and ordered a steak and eggs breakfast. When his food arrived he was surprised to see a hamburger patty on his plate instead of steak. When he complained the waitress told him: "That's our interpretation of steak." When he went to pay the check, he gave the waitress a bubblegum wrapper. "This isn't money," she said. The guy responded: "It's my interpretation of money."/ The point? To paraphrase Saint Vic in the class: You change the definition of free will, then I can change the definition of salvation. What do we have? A lot of nothing. The definition may be horribly constructed by your understanding, but then I can make the same claim about the definition of salvation.
-
Between this thread and the seditive to the conscience thread, I'm starting to wonder if this determinism schtick is nothing more than another way to claim Saint Vic deserves a pass.
-
As I've asserted numerous times, free will is about choosing. You seem to think all natural man is is "robotic reflex." Not so, even natural men can be proactive. But we do use our free will all the time: think of how many decisions we make a day. No, character is what you do when nobody's looking. Character is what Saint Vic had a serious lack of.
- 1,462 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- dark persuasion
- delusion
- (and 10 more)
-
And there's the possibility that you're wrong and are trying to bull you way out of it. As they say, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle the with bull. If this is all on the level, why the need to change definitions? That right there should tell people something is up.
-
And he could have chosen not to act on those influences, again free will. He could have chosen not to kill Stephen. He could have chosen not to be in the vicinity of Stephen. All reflections of Paul's free will when he was a natural man.
-
Again, you're wrong. God gave us free will because he didn't want robots. Your definition of determinism narrows us to exactly that. Not people that make choices, but machines reacting to the latest stimulus.
-
And all this has what to do with his freedom to choose?
-
Influences have nothing to do with your ability to choose, which is free will. You an always choose to go counter to influences. An example of that would be Nazi Germany. Despite the influences of propaganda, some people chose to act against Germany.
-
And I will repeat, God does not use force, therefore the decision was made freely hence free will.
-
No insult just statement of fact. When somebody twists themselves into a pretzel trying to hold on to something that's obviously false, according to science, according to the bible, and according to common sense, they're either trying to bull you, or are unaware of what they're talking about.
-
Oh I understand, you're trying to dump a ton of manure on this, hoping something beautiful will grow. As with your point with Paul and Damascus. Could he have refused God then, too? Then he had a choice, free will.
-
YES! According to you, a natural man is subject to totally determined acts and previous synapse setting for his entire life. Then, a split second before he confesses Jesus as lord he suddenly develops free will. Have you ever heard of Occum's razor? It appears to me that you're trying to shoehorn the facts into your pet theory rather than letting the fact speak for themselves. You remind me of the little kid that had a charm to keep the lions out of Florida. "But there are no lions in Florida," he was told. His response, "See how good it works."
-
Really?! God doesn't use force, therefore getting born again was a decision made freely.
