So_crates

Thanks, BA. I seemed to have gotten my rulers crossed. I appreciate the correction. Yes, I read the Gospel of Thomas some time back. It was amusing. Thanks. I wondered why we chose the books of the New Testement we chose. SoCrates

How could the books of the bible fit together perfectly? Charlemagne made an arbitrary decision about what books to put into the bible. He threw out many other works such as the Gnostic Gospels and, I'm not sure, but also the book of Wisdom used in the Catholic bible. SoCrates

Do I have to say it? According to your chosen belief system: If you believe people have made up their minds, then they have made up their minds. But its your believing. If you think people think nothing Saint Vic ever said was true, then people will think nothing Saint Vic ever said was true. But its your believing. If you believe the case is dismissed, the case is dismissed. But its your believing. Renewed mind? Anyone? SoCrates

That's why I keep driving home the point ad hominem arguments never work. First, they're a way of diverting attention away from you inability to address the issue. Second, the show lack of rationality in your argument, why else would you have to make it personal. I think the calling names and insulting is carrying on Saint Vic's legecy. After all, Saint Vic being a bully, could only teach others to be bullies too. SoCrates

I will also add truth is arrived at through reasoning and argumentation. Argumentation reqires you question someones reasoning, ferreting out the logical errors. Again, if you do not do this, you don't arrive at truth, you arrive at PI, private interpretation, or as its commonly called doctrine. I'll give you a logical error from the PFAL: Saint Vic mentioned, in the course of expounding on a scripture that there was a mathamatical principle involved. "Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other." Let's try that in the physical world: Apples=fruit Oranges=fruit Apples=Oranges Don't think so. Maybe emotionally: Love=Involvement continuum Hate=Involvement continuum Love=Hate Hmmmmmm. SoCrates

You building another strawman argument here. First off truth is truth: it doesn't need us to agree or disagree with it. It stands by itself. You believe it or you dont at your own peril. Say we were driving in a car, you the driver, me the passanger. Now say I saw you were going to run into a brick wall. You can tell me all you want about your driving record, how sturdy the car is, quote the owners manual verbatim, deny the wall exists, but the simple truth is when you hit that wall, its gonna hurt. Ditto jumping off a 20 story building. Ditto not drinking water for over 3 days. Second, truth stands questioning. How do you arrive at truth if you can't question it? Not too long ago, a group of scientist announced they discovered cold fusion. They published their experiment on the internet. Oddly, it could not be replicated, so it was discounted. That's one of the rules of scientific method. It has to be able to be replicated. So how do you arrive at whether or not you erred in the replication. By comparing and asking questions. So, "pulling rank" does nothing to help you arrive at truth. It helps you arrive at PI, private interpretation. Truth is arrive by objectively finding out facts and then letting them speak for themselves. Failure to find truth comes from walking in with preconcieved notions, and then trying to make the facts fit your premises. SoCrates

Of course. That's one thing I carried away from Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man. In one of the final scenes of the 13 episode series aired on PBS, he was stnding near a pool in Auschwitz noting that it was filled with human ash. He said the holocaust was cause by certainty and arrogance. "What if they had stopped," he asked, "and thought for a moment, I could be wrong?" SoCrates

[/img]

We made up our mind, you made up your mind. So? SoCrates

Never trust anyone who has to ask whether or not you trust them. Under normal circumstances, trust is a given, it doesn't have to be rality checked. I have two pat answers for that question: 1. I trust, but I also verify 2. Sure, I trust you. But, I don't trust the devil inside you. SoCrates

Here's a thought: If the constellations gave Adam and Eve the bible at that time, how would that have been possible. Stars would have moved distorting the constellations. For example this is how the big dipper has distorted by stellar motion and what it would have looked like in the past: (source) Are we sure the constellations we see today are the same ones Adam and Eve saw? SoCrates

You forgot SEIU's Steve Lerner: a union organizer, who claims to be for the working class, coming up with a plan to crash the stock market with morgage strikes the first week of May, wiping out people's 401ks, pensions, and retirement account--all those benefits he says he's protecting. Not to mention making banks insolvent which would wipe out people's savings. And what would happen to all those jobs he claimed for so many years he was trying to protect. SoCrates

OS, the above is what he answered when I asked him his agenda. This isn't his agenda, this is his means of carrying out his agenda. I would ask, to what end. Note, the above has no mention of goal. That can only be understood by asking the questions: What do you want? How will you know when you have it? SoCrates

Spoken by the Joker (Jack Nicholson) in Batman I believe. Which means never mess with another man's girl. Rhubarb in this context being a sweet dish. He was speaking of Vicki Vale. Just thought you'd like a little background. In case you thought he ment something else. SoCrates

I disagree. Agendas are usually hidden. You've just given me what you claim is your agenda. To get a deeper understanding: What do you want? How will you know when you have it? Suprisingly, my agenda isn't to deconstruct TWI. I want people to know the truth about Saint Vic and his demented circus. Once they know its up to them to make their own decisions about what they want to do. I'll know I have it when I've broadcasted by every possible means the sham TWI is. Belief systems are in a constant state of revision. When I was four, I believed you could get a girl pregnant by kissing her. I know better now. When I was young, I believed my mother and father would live forever. I know better now. When I was a teen, I believed I would live forever, I know better now. When I was in twig, I believed God had an amazingly fantastic life just waiting for me to live. I know better now. No belief system is fixed. As people grow and learn, they adjust their beliefs as they get new information. SoCrates

According to your claimed belief system: If you believe people misrepresent you, they do. But, its your believing. If you believe what you say will fall on deaf ears, it will. But its your believing. If you believe people are anti-waybrained, they are. But its your believing. So rather than look at the fact that a lot of this is your negative believing, you rationalize and continue to blame others. And you call me self pitying? Once again. The purpose of communication is the result. If your not getting the results you want, adjust the communication. Its your responsibility to package your message so it doesn't misrepresent you. Our only responsibility is to understand it best as we can. The only person that can misrepresent you is you. SoCrates

Here is a post just loaded with negative believing. I was just being honest. I read both the links he posted on #29 of 'asking your opinion. Sounded like a bunch of self pitying excuses for why the word doesn't work. I guess even wayfers can still get some things right.-- A positive believing person would have commended the effort and celebrated that I hung in there much longer than anyone else would have under the circumstances. A positive person would have said, you really gave a valiant effort, lets find out where it went wrong. Rather then ascribing a negative motive, a positive person would have fell back on Doctrine, Reproof, and Correction. Remember: Doctrine, how to believe rightly; Reproof, where you went wrong; and correction; how to get back on track. Was Jesus being christ like in Matt. 23 when he repeatedly said woe unto you scribes and pharisees hypocrites and serpents and generation of vipers? Right there in the temple where everybody could hear him? We were discussing something and Socrates tone was just as confrontational as mine. So your putting me in the role of being your authority figure. That's amuzing. I don't consider myself anybody's authority figure. I'm about as much a legalistic church leader as Barack Obama is a capitalist. Rather than falling back on that passage, why don't you leaf through the gospels, check on all the times people came to Jesus Christ honestly looking for answers, and enumerate all the times he ascribed negative motives to them. What were we discussing? Why are you leaving that part out? More of your negative believing perhaps? To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. This includes a time to break down and a time to build up. Don't you ever confront your son about what he says? Doesn't it hurt his feelings sometimes? So now we'll use the bible to hide behind, because we really we're using negative believing. Again, you ascribed a negative motive, rather than a positive one. Why is it whenever your confronted with the truth, the other person is always morally superrior or bitter or a brown-noser or feeling self pity? If the word is truth and people on this board are telling you the truth, then they must be speaking the word, right? So why won't you accept the truth? Didn't Jesus say "my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me"? He stuck up for his doctrine all the time. Considering the fact you've over reacted several times when confronted with the truth about that doctrine, I think perhaps you need to decide what you believe. Are you speaking God's doctine or St.Vic's? I'd say, because of the over reaction, deep in your heart you know its Saint Vic's, you just haven't gotten around to admitting it to yourself. Further, didn't Saint Vic mention in the class, "Truth needs no defense?" So why are you defending something that needs no defense? You have every right to tell others what happened to you. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony always hurts those who are guilty and the loved ones of those who are guilty. So what? If you're telling the truth, then that shouldn't concern you. I'm not trying to imply that I don't think you're telling the truth, I'm just saying..... A little bit of friendly advise try to phrase things in a positive form. Rather than phrases like "I'm not trying to imply that I don't think your telling the truth." The mind can process negatives so it turns them into positives. An example: you and the wife are going out and you leave the kids with a sitter. As you go out the door you tell the kids: "Don't get into trouble." What always happens? Another example: Don't think of tigers. I don't want you to think of tigers. What are you thinking of? So you tell someone "I'm not trying to imply that I don't think your telling the truth," guess what their mind is hearing.... I'll ask again, you said in an earlier post everyone has an agenda, so what's your agenda? SoCrates

Sorry double posted SoCrates

Johniam, In PFAL, Saint Vic talks about the alcoholic that was in his church community. As Saint Vic tells the story, he attended church one day. So, Vic put aside the sermon he was going to give and gave a fiery one on the evils of alcoholism. As Vic tells the story, he was patting himself on the back for a job well done. He went to the front of the church to shake hands with the congregation. Up comes the alcoholic. Vic thinks he's done something really great. Rather than shaking his hand the alcoholic told him: "I came here for help and what did you do? You put me deeper in what I was in." Vic said he went into his office and dropped to his knees and asked God for forgiveness and swore he would never do another negative sermon. Now, I'll ask you: do you think you helped me or do you think you put me deeper in what I was in? Do you think you moved me closer to God (you have the ministry of reconciliation, right?) or further away? SoCrates

The revised version: seperating the quotes from the responses I was just being honest. I read both the links he posted on #29 of 'asking your opinion. Sounded like a bunch of self pitying excuses for why the word doesn't work. I guess even wayfers can still get some things right. -- Was Jesus being christ like in Matt. 23 when he repeatedly said woe unto you scribes and pharisees hypocrites and serpents and generation of vipers? Right there in the temple where everybody could hear him? We were discussing something and Socrates tone was just as confrontational as mine. To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. This includes a time to break down and a time to build up. Don't you ever confront your son about what he says? Doesn't it hurt his feelings sometimes? Didn't Jesus say "my doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me"? He stuck up for his doctrine all the time. You have every right to tell others what happened to you. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony always hurts those who are guilty and the loved ones of those who are guilty. So what? If you're telling the truth, then that shouldn't concern you. I'm not trying to imply that I don't think you're telling the truth, I'm just saying.....

Say the law of believing is true. You think this is because of your negative believing? Wouldn't renewed mind have prevented most of this from happening? Notice how believing and renewed mind are used as a weapon against someone else, but leadership never wants to check their own believing or renewed mind? And once again I'll ask: your claim is everyone has an agenda, what's yours? SoCrates

Most groups want lockstep loyalty. What most groups fail to see when they do that is that they lose their free thinkers, those people who can think outside the box. Eventually, the whole group becomes a one trick pony, falling into groupthink. You can see that with TWI2 and TWI3, not an original idea among them. Just more of what Saint Vic or the Craigmiester did. Then they look at their dwindling parisoners and think we need new blood. So they apply their if a little is good, more is better, and too much is just right theory and create more of the same: PFAL, The Musical or a play, Death of An MOG. And even more leave their ranks... SoCrates

I was going to say something like that, Skyrider. It amazes me how many groups--social, political, or religious--demand lockstep loyalty of their followers. Its not enough to believe in the purpose of the group and its intent, you have to believe every statement the leadership spews out. Its not enough to believe the platform, you have to agree to every plank, too. Maybe that's why there's getting to be so many lone wolfs (no club) out there. SoCrates