Scripture is sacred text written by humans derived from (preposition) oral tradition. Given. But (conjunction) when is it decided that these words are sacred? And who decides? And must it be ancient?
The scripture of 2 Peter is the Torah, right? Or is "Peter" talking about Paul's letters and the Gospels? 2 Peter was certainly written late enough that anything written in the 1st century might have seemed ancient to his audience...
Or was Peter talking about scripture from the Far East? Or from Sumer? Or Egypt?
PFAL became scripture to some soon after it was published.
Scripture is sacred text written by humans derived from (preposition) oral tradition. Given. But (conjunction) when is it decided that these words are sacred? And who decides? And must it be ancient?
The scripture of 2 Peter is the Torah, right? Or is "Peter" talking about Paul's letters and the Gospels? 2 Peter was certainly written late enough that anything written in the 1st century might have seemed ancient to his audience...
Or was Peter talking about scripture from the Far East? Or from Sumer? Or Egypt?
PFAL became scripture to some soon after it was published.
Who decides?
I think this is a few different subjects.
I want to be clear I don't want to conflate anything VPW did with how the major world religions or items like their texts came to be.
I do feel PFAL and The Bible operate (personification) differently. PFAL is very specific to one individual, VPW. And PFAL had to use The Bible to mask itself.
One of the reasons believed to have caused the shrinking of the human brain over the past 3000 years is written communication. These matters used to be memorized. As information is written down, less brains are needed. You can imagine how the internet will accelerate this process.
Back in the day (1990s?) I would go into a Borders bookstore and imagined it as an encyclopedia on steroids... Then there was Amazon. And of course, the interwebs. I'm not so sure it will make human brains shrink but it has made possible massively accelerated innovation.
. . I'm not so sure it will make human brains shrink . . .
Just refering to the lack of selective pressure for larger brains in an evolutionary time frame. Written communication is one of three reasons cited for this phenomenon, which had been occurring over the past few millenia. It does not necessarily mean less intelligent or less creative . . . But different.
Just refering to the lack of selective pressure for larger brains in an evolutionary time frame. Written communication is one of three reasons cited for this phenomenon, which had been occurring over the past few millenia. It does not necessarily mean less intelligent or less creative . . . But different.
And what I presented was/is an alternative perspective.
Because the brain has become smaller, it's able to more efficiently use energy. If you need an analogy, just think about how you can use your phone to access information it doesn't have to store.
Because the brain has become smaller, it's able to more efficiently use energy. If you need an analogy, just think about how you can use your phone to access information it doesn't have to store.
Yep.
When we say scripture we mean a written communication. In this thread we're refering to a book.
Remember when everyone wore masks? You couldn't see smiles or scowls. It was harder to read people. Some folks are better than others at reading eyes for emotional cues. Those face to face interactions were missed, I felt.
When stories are written, that's not a face to face interaction. But ongoing experience might change how you interpret a written story. I have changed my views on some stories over long periods of time, because I had changed.
VPW's idea that scripture interprets itself highlights the static nature of his being. Scripture was supposed to be understood immediately and never change. That's ridiculous. I doubt he as a person changed much at all over his entire life.
When we say scripture we mean a written communication. In this thread we're refering to a book.
Remember when everyone wore masks? You couldn't see smiles or scowls. It was harder to read people. Some folks are better than others at reading eyes for emotional cues. Those face to face interactions were missed, I felt.
When stories are written, that's not a face to face interaction. But ongoing experience might change how you interpret a written story. I have changed my views on some stories over long periods of time, because I had changed.
VPW's idea that scripture interprets itself highlights the static nature of his being. Scripture was supposed to be understood immediately and never change. That's ridiculous. I doubt he as a person changed much at all over his entire life.
Yes. It's also a form of gaslighting. It's a control tactic designed to cause self doubt, because everyone is slightly wrong all the time, requiring reproof and correction. One must be "taught" how (H-O-W) scripture interprets itself rightly, otherwise it's man-made private opinion. Don't do it.... Dooon't do it!
Yes. It's also a form of gaslighting. It's a control tactic designed to cause self doubt, because everyone is slightly wrong all the time, requiring reproof and correction. One must be "taught" how (H-O-W) scripture interprets itself rightly, otherwise it's man-made private opinion. Don't do it.... Dooon't do it!
"When narcissistic abusers or a gaslighter feels threatened, they feel a strong need for acceptance and support. They want others to believe their retelling of events to restore their sense of control.
Gaslighting can also be the result of someone believing that their account is more accurate than yours. By convincing you to question your memory of events, they can regain that sense of superior intellect."
Quote
Edited by Bolshevik I didn't see an edit . . . you must be crazy
Back in the day (1990s?) I would go into a Borders bookstore and imagined it as an encyclopedia on steroids... Then there was Amazon. And of course, the interwebs. I'm not so sure it will make human brains shrink but it has made possible massively accelerated innovation.
I'm going to get into jot and tittle mathematical precision nonsense. What interprets what?
I'm going to get into jot and tittle mathematical precision nonsense. What interprets what?
Saccades. What a cool, obscure word.
To answer your question, words interpret themselves. But the word in NOT that. The word cat is not the actual cat @ 6:10. The words are NOT the Word.
98% of 1st century Palestine was illiterate. People must have been amazed to see someone read and write. One could persuade anyone to believe ANYTHING, if only they could get it written down and read to an audience.
Sadly, with literacy rates at an all time high, one can persuade anyone to BELIEVE anything, if only they can get it written down and read to an audience.
VPW was an NPD (imo) and was motivated by what NPDs are motivated by. He came up with nonsensical statements to fulfil his need for narcissistic supply. His followers were victims of pattern recognition . . . reading is pattern recognition from nature repurposed. The Written Word in WayWorld, Scripture Interpreting Itself, is a distortion of seeking real phenomena.
Edited by Bolshevik another error . . . . I'm seeing a pattern . . .
Intelligence is partially measured, not only by the ability to detect patterns, but also by the ability to anticipate how the patterns will evolve. I think this might partly explain why some otherwise intelligent people were attracted to the (seemingly) unique approach TWI took toward Bible study. Just my opinion.
Intelligence is partially measured, not only by the ability to detect patterns, but also by the ability to anticipate how the patterns will evolve.
Yeah – I think you have something there…according to the following article:
"Humans have a tendency to see patterns everywhere. That’s important when making decisions and judgments and acquiring knowledge; we tend to be uneasy with chaos and chance (Gilovich, 1991). Unfortunately, that same tendency to see patterns in everything can lead to seeing things that don’t exist…
…in Shermer’s 2000 book How We Believe, he argues that our brains have evolved as pattern recognition machines. Our brains create meaning from patterns we see or at least think we see in nature (Shermer, 2008). Often, the patterns are real, while other times they are manifestations of chance. Pattern recognition tells us something valuable about the environment from which we can make predictions that help us with survival and reproduction. Pattern recognition is imperative to learning…
…Research studies have demonstrated that when people believe that two variables are correlated, they will see a connection even in data where they are totally unrelated. It is not unusual for clinicians to see correlations “in response patterns because they believe they are there, not because they are actually present in the pattern of responses being observed“ (Stanovich, 2007, p. 169)…
…Our pattern-detecting ability serves us well in many instances, but it also can lead to seeing something when there is nothing there. In the words of Rudolf Flesch:
Instead of the black and-white, single-track, everyone-knows-that-this-is-due-to-that approach, get used to the idea that this is a world of multiple causes, imperfect correlations, and sheer, unpredictable chance. It is true that the scientists, with their statistics and their probabilities, have made a stab at the harnessing of chance. But they know very well that certainty is unattainable. A high degree of probability is the best we can ever get…"
Intelligence is partially measured, not only by the ability to detect patterns, but also by the ability to anticipate how the patterns will evolve. I think this might partly explain why some otherwise intelligent people were attracted to the (seemingly) unique approach TWI took toward Bible study. Just my opinion.
I'm reminded of confirmation bias. Don't think I'd quite related to validation . . . in a certain way before.
"Humans have a tendency to see patterns everywhere. That’s important when making decisions and judgments and acquiring knowledge; we tend to be uneasy with chaos and chance (Gilovich, 1991). Unfortunately, that same tendency to see patterns in everything can lead to seeing things that don’t exist…
Certainly want to dissect that last sentence later
Research studies have demonstrated that when people BELIEVE that two variables are correlated, they will see a connection even in data where they are totally unrelated. It is not unusual for clinicians to see correlations “in response patterns because they BELIEVE they are there, not because they are actually present in the pattern of responses being observed“ (Stanovich, 2007, p. 169)…
Thanks for these excellent articles Bolsh and T-Bone. Much to contemplate here.
Confirmation bias. "Habit patterns." One must be trained, programmed, indoctrinated, "taught" to BELIEVE coincidence is pattern and correlation is causal.
When one can observe freely, free from conditioning, one can see what actually is.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
12
58
12
Popular Days
May 2
25
May 16
14
May 11
14
May 13
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 9 posts
waysider 12 posts
Bolshevik 58 posts
Nathan_Jr 12 posts
Popular Days
May 2 2022
25 posts
May 16 2022
14 posts
May 11 2022
14 posts
May 13 2022
14 posts
Popular Posts
Nathan_Jr
Not only does scripture interpret itself, it writes itself and reads itself. Similarly, poetry interprets itself, writes itself and reads itself. Or, art interprets itself, paints itself, views i
Bolshevik
"Scripture Interprets Itself" - I don't know what this means. If I need something interpreted, it's because it's written in a language I don't understand. Or written in code. Soooo . . . . t
T-Bone
“Scripture interprets itself” is nonsensical – it implies no other agency is needed. Consider some definitions from the internet for interpret, translate and interpreter: Interpret: ex
Posted Images
Nathan_Jr
Scripture is sacred text written by humans derived from (preposition) oral tradition. Given. But (conjunction) when is it decided that these words are sacred? And who decides? And must it be ancient?
The scripture of 2 Peter is the Torah, right? Or is "Peter" talking about Paul's letters and the Gospels? 2 Peter was certainly written late enough that anything written in the 1st century might have seemed ancient to his audience...
Or was Peter talking about scripture from the Far East? Or from Sumer? Or Egypt?
PFAL became scripture to some soon after it was published.
Who decides?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think this is a few different subjects.
I want to be clear I don't want to conflate anything VPW did with how the major world religions or items like their texts came to be.
I do feel PFAL and The Bible operate (personification) differently. PFAL is very specific to one individual, VPW. And PFAL had to use The Bible to mask itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Back in the day (1990s?) I would go into a Borders bookstore and imagined it as an encyclopedia on steroids... Then there was Amazon. And of course, the interwebs. I'm not so sure it will make human brains shrink but it has made possible massively accelerated innovation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Ask Mike. (j/k)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Haha! No. The cognitive dissonance must be so painful for him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Somehow, I doubt that. Denial is a very powerful emotional defense mechanism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Just refering to the lack of selective pressure for larger brains in an evolutionary time frame. Written communication is one of three reasons cited for this phenomenon, which had been occurring over the past few millenia. It does not necessarily mean less intelligent or less creative . . . But different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And what I presented was/is an alternative perspective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Because the brain has become smaller, it's able to more efficiently use energy. If you need an analogy, just think about how you can use your phone to access information it doesn't have to store.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yep.
When we say scripture we mean a written communication. In this thread we're refering to a book.
Remember when everyone wore masks? You couldn't see smiles or scowls. It was harder to read people. Some folks are better than others at reading eyes for emotional cues. Those face to face interactions were missed, I felt.
When stories are written, that's not a face to face interaction. But ongoing experience might change how you interpret a written story. I have changed my views on some stories over long periods of time, because I had changed.
VPW's idea that scripture interprets itself highlights the static nature of his being. Scripture was supposed to be understood immediately and never change. That's ridiculous. I doubt he as a person changed much at all over his entire life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Yes. It's also a form of gaslighting. It's a control tactic designed to cause self doubt, because everyone is slightly wrong all the time, requiring reproof and correction. One must be "taught" how (H-O-W) scripture interprets itself rightly, otherwise it's man-made private opinion. Don't do it.... Dooon't do it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Yep!
https://www.talkspace.com/blog/narcissistic-gas-lighting/
"When narcissistic abusers or a gaslighter feels threatened, they feel a strong need for acceptance and support. They want others to believe their retelling of events to restore their sense of control.
Gaslighting can also be the result of someone believing that their account is more accurate than yours. By convincing you to question your memory of events, they can regain that sense of superior intellect."
Edited by BolshevikI didn't see an edit . . . you must be crazy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm going to get into jot and tittle mathematical precision nonsense. What interprets what?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Saccades. What a cool, obscure word.
To answer your question, words interpret themselves. But the word in NOT that. The word cat is not the actual cat @ 6:10. The words are NOT the Word.
98% of 1st century Palestine was illiterate. People must have been amazed to see someone read and write. One could persuade anyone to believe ANYTHING, if only they could get it written down and read to an audience.
Sadly, with literacy rates at an all time high, one can persuade anyone to BELIEVE anything, if only they can get it written down and read to an audience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Maybe "teaching The Verd like it hasn't been known since the first century" was simply due to a rise in literacy rates. VPW simply misunderstood.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe "like" was being used in a vernacular sense. Like, you know what I mean?
Teaching the word, like, it hasn't been known since the first century.
(colloquial quotative)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Possibly. It was audible, not written. Was that a deliberate comma or a stutter? Still the Word wasn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Oh, like, for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Our brains detect patterns. This article explains how Ray Kroc stole Victor Paul Wierwille's idea using pattern recognition. (sarcasm)
This video explained how words come from patterns in nature our brains detect.
This link discusses the bottom-up or top-down origin of religion. (also a link in there about religion being literally false but metaphorically true).
VPW was an NPD (imo) and was motivated by what NPDs are motivated by. He came up with nonsensical statements to fulfil his need for narcissistic supply. His followers were victims of pattern recognition . . . reading is pattern recognition from nature repurposed. The Written Word in WayWorld, Scripture Interpreting Itself, is a distortion of seeking real phenomena.
Edited by Bolshevikanother error . . . . I'm seeing a pattern . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Intelligence is partially measured, not only by the ability to detect patterns, but also by the ability to anticipate how the patterns will evolve. I think this might partly explain why some otherwise intelligent people were attracted to the (seemingly) unique approach TWI took toward Bible study. Just my opinion.
Edited by waysiderspelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah – I think you have something there…according to the following article:
"Humans have a tendency to see patterns everywhere. That’s important when making decisions and judgments and acquiring knowledge; we tend to be uneasy with chaos and chance (Gilovich, 1991). Unfortunately, that same tendency to see patterns in everything can lead to seeing things that don’t exist…
…in Shermer’s 2000 book How We Believe, he argues that our brains have evolved as pattern recognition machines. Our brains create meaning from patterns we see or at least think we see in nature (Shermer, 2008). Often, the patterns are real, while other times they are manifestations of chance. Pattern recognition tells us something valuable about the environment from which we can make predictions that help us with survival and reproduction. Pattern recognition is imperative to learning…
…Research studies have demonstrated that when people believe that two variables are correlated, they will see a connection even in data where they are totally unrelated. It is not unusual for clinicians to see correlations “in response patterns because they believe they are there, not because they are actually present in the pattern of responses being observed“ (Stanovich, 2007, p. 169)…
…Our pattern-detecting ability serves us well in many instances, but it also can lead to seeing something when there is nothing there. In the words of Rudolf Flesch:
Instead of the black and-white, single-track, everyone-knows-that-this-is-due-to-that approach, get used to the idea that this is a world of multiple causes, imperfect correlations, and sheer, unpredictable chance. It is true that the scientists, with their statistics and their probabilities, have made a stab at the harnessing of chance. But they know very well that certainty is unattainable. A high degree of probability is the best we can ever get…"
End of excerpts
From: Psych Central - patterns the need for order
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm reminded of confirmation bias. Don't think I'd quite related to validation . . . in a certain way before.
https://psychcentral.com/blog/emotionally-sensitive/2012/02/levels-of-validation#1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_validation
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Certainly want to dissect that last sentence later
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thanks for these excellent articles Bolsh and T-Bone. Much to contemplate here.
Confirmation bias. "Habit patterns." One must be trained, programmed, indoctrinated, "taught" to BELIEVE coincidence is pattern and correlation is causal.
When one can observe freely, free from conditioning, one can see what actually is.
BELIEF is NOT required to see what is true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.