Mike
-
Posts
6,834 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by Mike
-
Not sure which item number this fits under in this thread. I have a few pressing projects tying up most of my time these days, especially with the holidays happening. But I’ve also had more time to think about some things. It has been a puzzle to me why people are so upset with “The Bible interprets itself,” but I think I am finally understanding some of it. First let me tell you why I liked it, upon first hearing it. I am sure I NEVER took it to be literal, but took it as a figure of speech right from the start. And the first thing it told me had nothing to do with the many details that followed, which eventually explained the figure of speech to my complete satisfaction. What “the Bible interprets itself” FIRST says to me is that there is really only ONE Author of that book. How I quickly arrived at that, upon my first exposures to the phrase, I’ll leave as a temporary mystery for you all, since I said time is short, especially today. I probably first heard this phrase from teenagers at my first twig, then 8 weeks later read the PFAL book, and then 4 months later took the film class. We didn’t have SNT tapes then, because they were reel to reel. */*/*/*/* Tell me if I am wrong, but I sense that you all took the phrase to be literal, in the sense that the Bible was like an intricate machine or computer, and that IT did all the work of interpreting, leaving us readers with nothing to interpret. This reminds me of a joke a couple of my airline friends have told me over the years, and that I hear in the media now at times. The cockpit area of modern airliners are SO AUTOMATED that they only need one pilot to fly it, and one dog to accompany him. The dog’s job is to bite the hand of the of the pilot if he tries to touch any of the controls. I get the impression that the first take you folks had on hearing with “The Bible interprets itself” was the Bible was like a machine that was SO AUTOMATED that we human readers need do nothing for the interpretation. And if we try, a dog might bite us. That is like saying, that there are only two possibilities: either we can perform a private interpretation, or we can perform NO INTERPRETATION at all. And if we want avoid having Tick bite us in the hand, we must choose “no interpretation.” I have never thought that way. On first hearing this teaching and then the many details that followed, it was obvious to me that the Bible was not an automated interpreting machine at all. It was obvious that I had a lot of work to do (not automated) in order for my interpreting performance to NOT be a private interpretation, but a PROPER interpretation, a rightly-divided interpretation. The way I avoid a private interpretation is to follow the 80 some pages in the book on HOW the “The Bible interprets itself.” If I follow those steps and avail myself of the resources WITHIN the Bible for my interpreting work, that can help me avoid a private interpretation. A private interpretation is one where I do NOT avail myself of the resources within the Bible for this, but look within MY OWN resources for the interpretation. */*/*/* Another analogy of the false model for understanding “The Bible interprets itself” is a topic we discussed before. This false model of an automated Bible, that has the ability to interpret for us like a machine or computer, has befuddled some here, I sense. This other analogy I have in mind is called a “Formal System” in mathematics that was being discussed in the late 1800s and early 1900s. A formal system was a theoretical math machine that could prove mathematical theorems and proofs. It was a theoretical Logic Machine. It could do math jobs that were too difficult for humans to do. They were using this “math machine” to find and prove all of mathematical truth. Kinda sounds like a Bible that interprets itself? Godel’s Theorems in 1933 completely busted this logic machine idea. I was fascinated by Godel before I took the class. Maybe this is why I knew right off the bat that “The Bible interprets itself” had to be a figure of speech.
-
Not really. I'm not done inventing it. That was version 1.0 of the "self referential mnemonic." Version 2.0 gets a new name "self-referential mnem-selfic" Once it gets heavy use, we can call it a SRMS. That's the nature of figures of speech. They not only are attention getters themselves, but even their names can be attention getting. If it weren't against my religion, I'd have copyrighted it before posting.
-
Mike in purple . Back when I was in TWI … .WHEN? TWI was so segmented by history, and changes in the BOT that it helps to know when, when I hear stories of how things went wrong or stale or evil. One major segment to consider is the change-over to Craig, which was gradual in practice, from grooming in 1981, to installation in 1982, to VPW’s physical fading in early 1985. Another thing that is important for TWI stories is whether it was before the 1986 meltdown or after it. ANOTHER major segment that I ask myself when I hear a TWI story (of how things went wrong, usually) is whether the story takes place within the Corps or outside the Corps. most of us had a cookie-cutter approach to evangelizing and counseling. The PFAL class was considered a guaranteed formula for resolving any problem. Yes, that was the FOUNDATION. Some people I knew in TWI (I was 72-88nonCorps) built some good structures on that foundation, and some did not. I think in later years, and within the Corps, that trend I saw continued, and the cookie-cutter approach grew in the early 80s, and went insane after 1986. Yes, that cookie-cutter approach is how things would start out sometimes, until the people would get some experience and progress to greater learning from the Bible directly. We believed the PFAL class was the best way to get someone born again. Not all of us, and not all of the time… or segments. My experiences and beliefs back in the 70s and early 80s were that by the time a person arrived at Session One, all the hoops they jumped through to sign up probably got any empties filled to capacity. */*/*/* Definitely “we” believed the PFAL class was the best way to help people inexperienced with the Bible (like me at age 22) to be able to read it myself and grow from it. It was a good way to get someone born again, but the foundation it gave us was sound and many built good renewed minds for years on it, and still are. And once a person was a grad of the class in many one-on-one counseling situations a typical solution to propose would often be some pat answer from the PFAL class. ... Not everyone was that shallow in my 70s-early80s experience. Some got good at it. In the crazy post-1986 years, I don’t know, but I heard stories…
-
YES! He did say that phrase, and then he moved on to the details. VPW used the figure of speech "The Bible interprets itself" to summarize the topic, and to make it memorable. That that phrase NOT to supply the details, but to summarize them, figuratively. It is a self referential mnemonic, easy to remember, and signifies great importance, being a figure of speech. He then spends lots of time in the film class explaining what he means by that catchy phrase. He spends many pages on it in the book. It is a highly detailed topic, and it served me well. I don't focus on the summary at the beginning of the topic, the figure of speech, the self referential mnemonic. That has a limited purpose; the meat comes later in the details.
-
HOWEVER, we want to avoid private (one's own) interpretation in the process. And how do we do that? Hint: Remember the figure of speech includes the word "itself."
-
Here is the literal: The Bible can get interpreted properly when we do that interpreting by using material that comes from within the Bible itself.
-
I have NEVER taken it to be literal. The Bible interprets itself. The Bible, as the subject of the sentence, is not literally capable of doing the action in the verb "interprets." The Bible is a book, and a book cannot do things or perform actions. It just sits there and WE do the action or interpreting WITH MATERIALS that come from within the Bible. The word "itself" in the sentence refers to those internal materials that WE use when WE do the interpreting.
-
You guessed wrong. My first examples of service were the two brothers and their mom who hosted the first twig I went to. I was never around VPW long enough to get to know him. I got to know Uncle Harry, though, and he was a great servant. I did have the chance to hang out with him some. I never got into long distance admiration except for girls when I was in Jr High.
-
I don't get the phobia here about the Bible interpreting itself. Why is that such a difficult idea? Is it because the phrase CAN sound like the Bible mechanically and uniquely unravels all by itself, without any work or insight on our part? Does "Bible interpreting itself" sound like too objective a process, or too easy, when there are actually some subjective turns in working the Word? What is all the fuss about the Bible interpreting itself? It is definitely figurative language, and not literal. Is that the problem?
-
Yes I have seen such screaming. For myself, I try to maintain the attitude of service, and not stature, except when facing the adversary. That is when we should walk about and proudly insist the adversary deals with the Christ in us. When we face humans in need (everyone), then we walk about with the attitude of service, because we know we can effectively serve.
-
That was a very small sample of Harari Yuval that you got that quote from. That quote was very general, and could apply to dozens of scientific situations. That makes sense in lots of situations. I have seen other quotes from him, and he strongly denied belief in free will, but that is probably Libertaian FW. I suspect he also strongly believes no other form of FW can exist. ALSO, he is strongly aligned with one of those globalist billionaires, but I forget which one. His focus is political, and he uses philosophy and science to forge ahead with a political agenda. For these reasons I pay him almost no attention.
-
I have undergone a series of major changes in my approach to science. I feel I was in error for 45 years on how the brain works. I had idolized it up to a place God had not intended, and it was atheist scientists who straightened me out on this. I was placing soul in the spiritual realm, when Biblically it is in the physical realm. This change was both humbling and exhilarating. It started in 1995 and took 20 years, but by 2015 I was solidly on the other side and writing what I posted here. THEN, from all that I worked on this I am impressed with how much persistence plays in free will. It's like we are the Tin Man in Oz, and we seek that free will, and with persistence can find it.
-
Almost all of the brain people I learn from do podcasts now, and have a bunch of You-Tube videos.
-
I think I agree with all you just wrote. Paul was describing the quality of natural men found in Israel, but the same spiritless condition afflicts natural man outside Israel as well. I realize NONE of the old man nature vanishes with the new birth, but what changes with the new birth is the ability to rise above that spiritless nature, AT TIMES.
-
I disagree that VPW downplayed emotions in THAT way. That is a whole other topic, though. Maybe some other time we could discuss it. I just want to note that UNLIKE Harari Yuval, the two scholars you just mentioned are closely aligned with the UCSD hard core determinism school of thought I have talked about, and that I align myself with. Dennett was a visitor to the group I attended around 1995, where I had a chance to meet and talk with him. I later discussed some of my work with him by e-mails. Domasio and his wife (another superstar) visited us twice, but I didn't get a chance to talk with them close-up. The Domasio team has written several of the best books in the field of brain science, IMO.
-
Late additions to my post above: I see the ORIGINAL state of man as being in that image of God. In the image of God was the INTENDED quality of mankind. Then the fall and loss of that image. I see the ORIGINAL state of man as being in that image of God. Then the fall and loss of that image, and the loss of dominion over the animals.
-
I see the ORIGINAL state of man as being in that image of God. Then the fall and loss of that image. Ecclesiastes laments that THIS is all there is NOW (man not above beasts), with great hope for the future changes. The Book of Romans documents how bad the current state is for natural man, prior to the new birth. There, in chapter 3, Paul documents from the old testament: As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.” “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
-
I am aware of Harari Yuval, but as I mentioned, many are into the free will debate for POLITICAL reasons. This strongly resembles how Soviet genetic science took a downturn in the 1950s due to Stalin's interest in having it tow the party line. These thinkers are unhappy with the way human judicial systems have evolved, and the issue of fairness is more the issue with them. They want the debate to be about Fair Will and it ruins the science, IMO, so I stay away from them. It is pretty awesome how radical some of the young followers of people like Harari Yuval can get, politically. My hunch is that Youvai is not oriented in the hard sciences, but I could be wrong. */*/*/*/* I totally agree with you, Rocky, that consciousness is the bigger topic. The Roger Penrose books I mentioned from the 1990s were focused more on consciousness, and free will was a side issue. I mentioned in my chapter 5 that I feel consciousness, LIKE FREE WILL, has been idolized by Western thinkers for 1,000 years to being something more glorious and grand than Biology has endowed it with. This idolizing of man's mind goes against the Biblical perspective that man has no preeminence above the beasts, as well as against the "USCD school of thought" on this topic, which is the hardest of the hard core sciences that are studying free will and consciousness. Their perspective, like mine, is that man's mind is a NATURAL thing with no traces of the supernatural.
-
-
Well it’s difficult to step away, when you folks are struggling and wandering. But I am aiming at other new projects, and feel that most of my work here has been done. Someone posted that Craig got “Athletes of the Spirit” from college Christian groups. That’s merely the title, though. Gurdjieff’s ideas saturated Craig’s production. The big idea Craig got from him was to TEACH the principles with DANCE and MUSIC, specifically ballet. I don’t think any of that was involved in campus outreach groups. Gurdjieff called his play “The Struggle of the Magicians” and it was developed in Moscow, Russia, where ballet story telling is a national sport, almost. I was cued in to Craig getting his ideas from Gurdjieff in the SNT announcements he made each week as “Athletes of the Spirit” was being developed. Craig’s explanations as to why they were doing the production, and the effects of learning it was to have on all the dancers, closely matched Gurdjieff’s explanations in "In Search of the Miraculous" by Ouspenski. Gurdjieff was also into body motions and their effects on consciousness, a kind of hybrid yoga. He specialized in super alertness and super attention to detail. I heard Craig expound on this, again on a SNT tape, that cued more of my Gurdjieff memories. Gurdjieff’s liberal use of emotional shocks also seems to have colored Craig’s attitudes to training. My lack of experience in these matters, and especially in the details of the Way Corps training, tells me I best back out of this topic, though. As the Corps matured I was less and less interested in what went on in there, and I turned a deaf ear to lots of Corps talk in the 1980s. I have given pretty much all I know about this topic. I think Gurdjieffian ideas, some good and some corrupt, were put into the Corps program and are likely still residing in many people from Corps background.
-
Bingo. And it is at this point that, for lack of knowledge and other personal reasons, I step aside from the discussion. One of the big lessons I pull from the Dunning-Kruger Effect, is that it a good thing to investigate one's own knowledge limits. Not everyone is able to do that, and often those that are able, don't.
-
I do. It's a little confusing with Gurdjieff, though, because both are involved.
-
Everyone has had a chance to discuss all these things with me for years. You, OldSkool, brought up cultist influence in TWI. I brought up an angle of this that no one here has seriously looked into. THAT is on topic. I included many details. Quit trying to look a gift horse in the mouth. I made a mistake in my long post above. VPW was not fully honest about ALL his sources. He never once, that I know of, mentioned Gurdgieff or any vocabulary or facts that could connect anyone to him. I could quickly recognize enough of the attitudes and ideas of Gurdjieff in VPW, so that is why I brought that book to the Rock and asked him about it. It was while I was studying Gurdjieff that I attended my first fellowship, so Gurdjieff was super fresh in my mind. I have never once heard word one from ANY ministry people about Gurdjieff. I tried to talk about him here over the years, but no one could hear it. So you folks have gone over all the other cultic influences, but you skipped Gurdjieff, who may have been the biggest. It was the Gurgjieffian system that seemed to penetrate the Corps program. Gurdjieff's trip was about overriding emotion with discipline. He used emotional shocks on his students. None of this stuff filtered down to the class, though, except for the required payment for it. I think, in turn, VPW's leadership picked up on this and also made mistakes, sending waves through. Craig obviously read Gurdjieff and got the idea of teaching with ballet for Athletes of the Spirit from him. That is as close as Gurdjieff came to the surface in the ministry. Gurdjief's most negative legacy were the "shocks" that were part of his system. He often overdid it and people got hurt, some physically. I think a lot of healthy unraveling of Corps bad attitudes and bad techniques can happen when you understand the sources of what went wrong.
-
Please don't steer this thread in the direction of being about me. Please stay on topic.
-
Let's NOT hear from me on this thread. I want to see if anyone gets the occult influence on the Way Corps program from Gurdjieff. Because I was not in the Corps, I want to disqualify myself from this topic.
