Actually, it is obvious that your anti-idol is choking your IQ off. Nearly everything I say is interrupted by the zeal to keep the anti-idol adequately hated and reviled. If I make any sense whatsoever, the anti-idol starts screaming "Hate me! Hate me more!" and my point gets lost while homage is paid and the promise to hate more is made.
Actually, it is obvious that your anti-idol is choking your IQ off. Nearly everything I say is interrupted by the zeal to keep the anti-idol adequately hated and reviled. If I make any sense whatsoever, the anti-idol starts screaming "Hate me! Hate me more!" and my point gets lost while homage is paid and the promise to hate more is made.
I guess I would say if you have the perception that anti idols in your head are screaming hate me, that could be something you bring up in therapy where a person is more educated and equipped to handle screaming anti idols?
The definition may be horribly constructed by your understanding, but then I can make the same claim about the definition of salvation.
That is not correct on 2 counts
1 The classical definition of free will (LibFW) is so bad, that most hard core microbiologists will say these days that free will is an illusion, and we don't have any of that classical stuff.
2 - You can't make the same claim about the definition of salvation, without backing it up with the authority of God's Word. Since Neuroscience is a developing science, and MOST of the brain/mind is still unknown, there is no real authority (yet) in this matter of the definition of free will.
As I said in #1, the free will definition is in the process of being abandoned by Neuroscience, and my chapters are a plea to them to MODIFY the definition, instead of abandoning it.
I guess I would say if you have the perception that anti idols in your head are screaming hate me, that could be something you bring up in therapy where a person is more educated and equipped to handle screaming anti idols?
1 The classical definition of free will (LibFW) is so bad, that most hard core microbiologists will say these days that free will is an illusion, and we don't have any of that classical stuff.
Bad in your opinion.
22 minutes ago, Mike said:
2 - You can't make the same claim about the definition of salvation, without backing it up with the authority of God's Word.
**Points over Mike's head**
Look, Mike, there goes the point.
22 minutes ago, Mike said:
Since Neuroscience is a developing science, and MOST of the brain/mind is still unknown, there is no real authority (yet) in this matter of the definition of free will
So, in your opinion, the definition of free will is bad, yet there's no authority to define just what free will is, right?
22 minutes ago, Mike said:
As I said in #1, the free will definition is in the process of being abandoned by Neuroscience, and my chapters are a plea to them to MODIFY the definition, instead of abandoning it.
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.
Actually, it is obvious that your anti-idol is choking your IQ off. Nearly everything I say is interrupted by the zeal to keep the anti-idol adequately hated and reviled. If I make any sense whatsoever, the anti-idol starts screaming "Hate me! Hate me more!" and my point gets lost while homage is paid and the promise to hate more is made.
Yo Mike, the English language is calling…wants its words back
You’re like a bullShonta in a glass dictionary
FYI - don't take it personally Mike - I've got nothing against you - it's that damn idol you're
~ ~ ~ ~
Let’s decode Mike’s mishmash dictionary
Anti = a PREPOSITION - opposed to; against.
Idol = a person or thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered
what a goofball! again with the redefinitions! oy vey!
~ ~ ~ ~
Consider me being in the anti-idol group please…
Jonah 2:8Those who cling to worthless idols turn away from God’s love for them.
Galatians 5:19-2119 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions
21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Colossians 3:5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.
John 5:21 Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.
~ ~ ~ ~
Psalm 97:10Hate evil, you who love the Lord,
Psalm 119:104From Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore, I hate every false way.
Proverbs 13:5A righteous man hates falsehood, But a wicked man acts disgustingly and shamefully
Romans 12:9Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good.
Consider me being in the idol haters group please…
well... if you're promoting wierwille / PFAL as something or someone to be greatly admired, loved, or revered - you're asking for trouble anyway. you're an idol-representative...and idol salesman
2 hours ago, Mike said:
Usually an idol is something someone loves.
I see an idol here that people love to hate; an anti-idol.
Same thing as a regular idol, but a different flavor of worship.
48 minutes ago, Mike said:
No, it's a distractionary idol.
It distracts you [rhetorical you] from enjoying the Word;
instead you enjoy ramping up the details and magnitude
of your hate.
Sheesh! It is even distracting a 99% science discussion right here in this thread.
My minFW chapters posted here have hardly any reminders of the Bible or VPW. ...maybe zero?
Oh, maybe a hint here or there...
...that few would detect...
You so funny Mike - you make no sense whether you're promoting a nonsensical "thesis" or trying to sell folks on your favorite idols = wierwille/PFAL
you so funny...and unconvincing
but your persistence is something else
I'm sure your posts will get tens of tens views...maybe
Most of my intended audience is already familiar with most definitions, and not that many are needed to introduce this new idea for what freedom means.
Actually, serious intellectual discussion papers do not work that way. At the very least you would provide a well defined list of terms with their definitions and even indicate that you may be proposing a change to the accepted definition with your research. The fact that you don't know this indicates that you have no idea how to write a research/discussion paper.
Actually, serious intellectual discussion papers do not work that way. At the very least you would provide a well defined list of terms with their definitions and even indicate that you may be proposing a change to the accepted definition with your research. The fact that you don't know this indicates that you have no idea how to write a research/discussion paper.
Actually, I know a lot about ontology and all that, but AT THIS STAGE of idea formation that is not necessary... at least to me. And way too much work. If I wanted to publish it somewhere professionally, then definitely, yes, a full ontology is called for, especially for an interdisciplinary item like this.
I thought my full Chapter One on some of the spectrum of definitions out there was enough, and the need for a more rigorous, testable definition. My whole book is on a new definition for freedoms in general. I expand on this in my chapter 6, not yet posted. I'm wondering if I should bother.
I am at the stage where I send my writing to authors of articles that touch on some of the same issues I deal with. I am also networking through old contacts from my UCSD connection. Many young Deadheads have gone into neuro studies of some sort, and some to grad school. They can bring my idea to their professors as it matures. Even professors show up on the Deadhead dancefloors at times, just none in neuroscience yet.
Actually, I know a lot about ontology and all that, but AT THIS STAGE of idea formation that is not necessary... at least to me. And way too much work. If I wanted to publish it somewhere professionally, then definitely, yes, a full ontology is called for, especially for an interdisciplinary item like this.
Dude...don't be lazy. And ontology isn't what I am talking about...Im talking about defining your terms. Plain and simple. That's fundamental to any discussion paper, book, or whatever....you ever think that may be part of the reason people here don't take you seriously? Do it right or don't do it.
Dude...don't be lazy. And ontology isn't what I am talking about...Im talking about defining your terms. Plain and simple. That's fundamental to any discussion paper, book, or whatever....you ever think that may be part of the reason people here don't take you seriously? Do it right or don't do it.
OK, I can take that in. Thanks. A short list at the beginning I can handle, or maybe a pause for each word when things come up to demand it.
This REALLY is the reason I posted it all here. I wanted different points of view.
I am saving all this and I will whittle through it for re-write notes.
Thank you also for being able to compartmentalize your disdain for VPW and PFAL. You can see that I compartmentalized my admiration for same in my chapters. It is an important skill to develop. All those years I was at UCSD I was constantly telling myself to keep quiet unless a glowing door of invitation creaks wide open... which did happen a few times.
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.
Most of the authoritative ones in the hard core sciences are thinking we have no free will these days. They want to abandon the idea altogether.
But no one has sure fire definite things to say on free will. Everyone is theorizing. It is the frontier of science. There's room for amateurs like me. I actually have the ear of two professors in the field, and know how to get more when my chapters are written better.
Most of the authoritative ones in the hard core sciences are thinking we have no free will these days. They want to abandon the idea altogether.
But no one has sure fire definite things to say on free will. Everyone is theorizing. It is the frontier of science. There's room for amateurs like me. I actually have the ear of two professors in the field, and know how to get more when my chapters are written better.
So your going to academia with it, the people who...
On 11/3/2022 at 3:29 PM, Mike said:
If you got the god of academia, you are NOT ALLOWED to have truth or to know if if it lands in your lap.
Most of the authoritative ones in the hard core sciences are thinking we have no free will these days. They want to abandon the idea altogether.
But no one has sure fire definite things to say on free will. Everyone is theorizing. It is the frontier of science. There's room for amateurs like me. I actually have the ear of two professors in the field, and know how to get more when my chapters are written better.
To make a claim about what "the authoritative ones... are thinking, requires links to what so-called authoritative ones have said aloud. Otherwise it's complete and total bullshonta.
You actually have the ear of two professors in the field (a cornfield in OH, right?) is more complete and total bullshonta.
There's no room for amateurs like you when professors of neurology or psychology apparently, according to you, don't even have it figured out.
Why don't you try to get your book published, chapter by chapter, in Popular Science. IF you do, then tell us about it. Until then you're just full of bullshonta.
Actually, I know a lot about ontology and all that, but AT THIS STAGE of idea formation that is not necessary... at least to me. And way too much work. If I wanted to publish it somewhere professionally, then definitely, yes, a full ontology is called for, especially for an interdisciplinary item like this.
I thought my full Chapter One on some of the spectrum of definitions out there was enough, and the need for a more rigorous, testable definition. My whole book is on a new definition for freedoms in general. I expand on this in my chapter 6, not yet posted. I'm wondering if I should bother.
I am at the stage where I send my writing to authors of articles that touch on some of the same issues I deal with. I am also networking through old contacts from my UCSD connection. Many young Deadheads have gone into neuro studies of some sort, and some to grad school. They can bring my idea to their professors as it matures. Even professors show up on the Deadhead dancefloors at times, just none in neuroscience yet.
So apparently to ontology or not to ontology that is the question?
And the answer is a trip back to the 60s with Grateful Dead fans at UCSD?
Who knows professor Mike maybe some of that LSD will tie together some loose ends for you. We can only hope and pray.
1 The classical definition of free will (LibFW) is so bad, that most hard core microbiologists will say these days that free will is an illusion, and we don't have any of that classical stuff.
2 - You can't make the same claim about the definition of salvation, without backing it up with the authority of God's Word. Since Neuroscience is a developing science, and MOST of the brain/mind is still unknown, there is no real authority (yet) in this matter of the definition of free will.
As I said in #1, the free will definition is in the process of being abandoned by Neuroscience, and my chapters are a plea to themto MODIFY the definition, instead of abandoning it.
No, in brain science and free will, it's the ideas that are important.
If I could think them, then others can think them.
In fact, I have seen several authors thinking fairly close to my ideas, so I contacted one or two already, and plan more.
It's the ideas that are important.
If I have a chance at speeding things up, that would be fun. It is still fun to just be in the race to figure this out.
As for PFAL, lots of people are thinking those important thoughts.
No, in brain science and free will, it's the ideas that are important.
If I could think them, then others can think them.
In fact, I have seen several authors thinking fairly close to my ideas, so I contacted one or two already, and plan more.
It's the ideas that are important.
If I have a chance at speeding things up, that would be fun. It is still fun to just be in the race to figure this out.
As for PFAL, lots of people are thinking those important thoughts.
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?
Four crucified. So you know it, how does that change your life?
This isn’t knowledge. This is belief. Or, more accurately according to usage, BELEEF. Remember, only the lie and the liar require belief. Belief has no place where Truth is concerned.
Four crucified is stupid. How stupid? Four-crucified stupid, that’s how.
Bullinger’s error on this stupidity will be handled once and for all in an upcoming thread.
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 says we live by believing, I would think that would be an important thing to know.
Four crucified. So you know it, how does that change your life?
It was attention getting for me, … once. It showed a disconnect between tradition and what is written, FOR A SUPER SIMPLE CASE. It got me prepared for many more traditions that needed challenging, because of what was written. Nice to see the puzzle fit, going from contradictory Bible to consistent Bible.
*/*/*/*/*/*
The two Greek words for receive. How does that change your life?
Again, once it helped to learn SIT.After I marked all them in my Cambridge wide-margin it was an interesting thing to see when I’d read the scriptures.There were more marked verses in my Bible this way, than there were verses in the class that taught it.So, that marking still helps me to this day.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Knowing what the Aramaic word for "cloak" means. That changes lives, how?
Having “book carrier” at that key spot in 2 Timothy gives the entire epistle a sense of solidity and completion. Everything builds in that ababababa structure to that point for an emergency scripture focused meeting with key authors of the NT, including Timothy who is mention as a helper in the writing of both Thessalonian epistles.
Having “cloak” at that key spot in 2 Timothy is a sudden distraction to that build-up of context, and it deflates the drama of what they were going to do at that critical LAST meeting for Paul, before his execution.
*/*/*/*/*/*
And now updating the definition of "free will."
The details of Free Will and exactly how it works (if it is there at all) are a mystery in (1) science, in (2) religion, in (3) judicial systems, in (4) hospitals and clinics, in (5) addiction treatment programs, and in (6) everyday life.
Free Will is important in all those areas, yet after thousands of years of discussion it is still way up in the air and not settled at all.WHY?
*/*/*/*/*/*
It all boils down to intellectual pursues giving glory to the pursuer by their attempts to look important.
I think you start out with the VERY STRONG bias that I have ignoble interests and intents and goals, and that bias taints how much and how well you read what I post.
*/*/*/*/*/*
If PLAF was so important, why didn't Saint Vic research principles for believing and how to operate it? Considering the bible says we live by believing, I would think that would be an important thing to know.
He did teach a lot of those principles.
Now I get to research it in the scriptures and learn it.
The brain is essentially a believing machine. It believes any story you feed purely into it persistently. Rom 10:17 Believing comes by hearing, so make that hearing the Word of God.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
So_crates
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?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I guess I would say if you have the perception that anti idols in your head are screaming hate me, that could be something you bring up in therapy where a person is more educated and equipped to handle screaming anti idols?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That is not correct on 2 counts
1 The classical definition of free will (LibFW) is so bad, that most hard core microbiologists will say these days that free will is an illusion, and we don't have any of that classical stuff.
2 - You can't make the same claim about the definition of salvation, without backing it up with the authority of God's Word. Since Neuroscience is a developing science, and MOST of the brain/mind is still unknown, there is no real authority (yet) in this matter of the definition of free will.
As I said in #1, the free will definition is in the process of being abandoned by Neuroscience, and my chapters are a plea to them to MODIFY the definition, instead of abandoning it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I was being theatrical; hyperbole.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
How does hyperbole and theater play into a scientific discussion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
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.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yo Mike, the English language is calling…wants its words back
You’re like a bullShonta in a glass dictionary
FYI - don't take it personally Mike - I've got nothing against you - it's that damn idol you're
~ ~ ~ ~
Let’s decode Mike’s mishmash dictionary
Anti = a PREPOSITION - opposed to; against.
Idol = a person or thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered
what a goofball! again with the redefinitions! oy vey!
~ ~ ~ ~
Consider me being in the anti-idol group please…
Jonah 2:8 Those who cling to worthless idols turn away from God’s love for them.
Galatians 5:19-21 19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions
21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Colossians 3:5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry.
John 5:21 Dear children, keep yourselves from idols.
~ ~ ~ ~
Psalm 97:10 Hate evil, you who love the Lord,
Psalm 119:104 From Your precepts I get understanding; Therefore, I hate every false way.
Proverbs 13:5 A righteous man hates falsehood, But a wicked man acts disgustingly and shamefully
Romans 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good.
Consider me being in the idol haters group please…
well... if you're promoting wierwille / PFAL as something or someone to be greatly admired, loved, or revered - you're asking for trouble anyway. you're an idol-representative...and idol salesman
You so funny Mike - you make no sense whether you're promoting a nonsensical "thesis" or trying to sell folks on your favorite idols = wierwille/PFAL
you so funny...and unconvincing
but your persistence is something else
I'm sure your posts will get tens of tens views...maybe
Edited by T-Boneanti-LoSonta editor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Actually, serious intellectual discussion papers do not work that way. At the very least you would provide a well defined list of terms with their definitions and even indicate that you may be proposing a change to the accepted definition with your research. The fact that you don't know this indicates that you have no idea how to write a research/discussion paper.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Actually, I know a lot about ontology and all that, but AT THIS STAGE of idea formation that is not necessary... at least to me. And way too much work. If I wanted to publish it somewhere professionally, then definitely, yes, a full ontology is called for, especially for an interdisciplinary item like this.
I thought my full Chapter One on some of the spectrum of definitions out there was enough, and the need for a more rigorous, testable definition. My whole book is on a new definition for freedoms in general. I expand on this in my chapter 6, not yet posted. I'm wondering if I should bother.
Edited by MikeI am at the stage where I send my writing to authors of articles that touch on some of the same issues I deal with. I am also networking through old contacts from my UCSD connection. Many young Deadheads have gone into neuro studies of some sort, and some to grad school. They can bring my idea to their professors as it matures. Even professors show up on the Deadhead dancefloors at times, just none in neuroscience yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Dude...don't be lazy. And ontology isn't what I am talking about...Im talking about defining your terms. Plain and simple. That's fundamental to any discussion paper, book, or whatever....you ever think that may be part of the reason people here don't take you seriously? Do it right or don't do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
OK, I can take that in. Thanks. A short list at the beginning I can handle, or maybe a pause for each word when things come up to demand it.
This REALLY is the reason I posted it all here. I wanted different points of view.
I am saving all this and I will whittle through it for re-write notes.
Thank you also for being able to compartmentalize your disdain for VPW and PFAL. You can see that I compartmentalized my admiration for same in my chapters. It is an important skill to develop. All those years I was at UCSD I was constantly telling myself to keep quiet unless a glowing door of invitation creaks wide open... which did happen a few times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
More evidence of addiction to vain babblings.
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
― Mark Twain
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
guys I gotta confess I did join this club when I was younger please don’t judge me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Most of the authoritative ones in the hard core sciences are thinking we have no free will these days. They want to abandon the idea altogether.
But no one has sure fire definite things to say on free will. Everyone is theorizing. It is the frontier of science. There's room for amateurs like me. I actually have the ear of two professors in the field, and know how to get more when my chapters are written better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
So your going to academia with it, the people who...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
To make a claim about what "the authoritative ones... are thinking, requires links to what so-called authoritative ones have said aloud. Otherwise it's complete and total bullshonta.
You actually have the ear of two professors in the field (a cornfield in OH, right?) is more complete and total bullshonta.
There's no room for amateurs like you when professors of neurology or psychology apparently, according to you, don't even have it figured out.
Why don't you try to get your book published, chapter by chapter, in Popular Science. IF you do, then tell us about it. Until then you're just full of bullshonta.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So apparently to ontology or not to ontology that is the question?
And the answer is a trip back to the 60s with Grateful Dead fans at UCSD?
Who knows professor Mike maybe some of that LSD will tie together some loose ends for you. We can only hope and pray.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
So,
Mike is pfal's last chance,
and Mike is free will's last chance.
Mike is amazingly important- according to Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, in brain science and free will, it's the ideas that are important.
If I could think them, then others can think them.
In fact, I have seen several authors thinking fairly close to my ideas, so I contacted one or two already, and plan more.
It's the ideas that are important.
If I have a chance at speeding things up, that would be fun. It is still fun to just be in the race to figure this out.
As for PFAL, lots of people are thinking those important thoughts.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
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?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
This isn’t knowledge. This is belief. Or, more accurately according to usage, BELEEF. Remember, only the lie and the liar require belief. Belief has no place where Truth is concerned.
Four crucified is stupid. How stupid? Four-crucified stupid, that’s how.
Bullinger’s error on this stupidity will be handled once and for all in an upcoming thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Four crucified. So you know it, how does that change your life?
It was attention getting for me, … once. It showed a disconnect between tradition and what is written, FOR A SUPER SIMPLE CASE. It got me prepared for many more traditions that needed challenging, because of what was written. Nice to see the puzzle fit, going from contradictory Bible to consistent Bible.
*/*/*/*/*/*
The two Greek words for receive. How does that change your life?
Again, once it helped to learn SIT. After I marked all them in my Cambridge wide-margin it was an interesting thing to see when I’d read the scriptures. There were more marked verses in my Bible this way, than there were verses in the class that taught it. So, that marking still helps me to this day.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Knowing what the Aramaic word for "cloak" means. That changes lives, how?
Having “book carrier” at that key spot in 2 Timothy gives the entire epistle a sense of solidity and completion. Everything builds in that ababababa structure to that point for an emergency scripture focused meeting with key authors of the NT, including Timothy who is mention as a helper in the writing of both Thessalonian epistles.
Having “cloak” at that key spot in 2 Timothy is a sudden distraction to that build-up of context, and it deflates the drama of what they were going to do at that critical LAST meeting for Paul, before his execution.
*/*/*/*/*/*
And now updating the definition of "free will."
The details of Free Will and exactly how it works (if it is there at all) are a mystery in (1) science, in (2) religion, in (3) judicial systems, in (4) hospitals and clinics, in (5) addiction treatment programs, and in (6) everyday life.
Free Will is important in all those areas, yet after thousands of years of discussion it is still way up in the air and not settled at all. WHY?
*/*/*/*/*/*
It all boils down to intellectual pursues giving glory to the pursuer by their attempts to look important.
I think you start out with the VERY STRONG bias that I have ignoble interests and intents and goals, and that bias taints how much and how well you read what I post.
*/*/*/*/*/*
If PLAF was so important, why didn't Saint Vic research principles for believing and how to operate it? Considering the bible says we live by believing, I would think that would be an important thing to know.
He did teach a lot of those principles.
Now I get to research it in the scriptures and learn it.
The brain is essentially a believing machine. It believes any story you feed purely into it persistently. Rom 10:17 Believing comes by hearing, so make that hearing the Word of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I hope everyone can find the stillness to contemplate this and see clearly what this means.
Edited by Nathan_JrThe greatest existential danger to mankind is belief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
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.