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.
You got suckered in by wierwille’s repeating of Bullinger’s error. 4 crucified is NOT even remotely suggested in what’s WRITTEN!
There is no goofy misshapen puzzle that Bullinger/ wierwille cut edges off the pieces so they would “fit” . In my opinion the crucifixion scene is not contradictory if there are 4 different narratives of the same event . Even dumb-a$$ wierwille admits that when he taught on why 4 gospels.
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.
You do realize wierwille screwed up definitions on a regular basis - your re-defining antics on this thread tells me that's how it helped you follow in his ways
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.
your silly “book carrier” misinterpretation on the NT canon thread is based on your childish impression of literary structure and it's probably best for you not to keep drawing attention to your trolling antics
How do you LEARN to SIT? Isn't it something that God gives? Did the Apostles LEARN to SIT on the day of Pentecost? That should be a key lane marker that you have swerved into...welll...bullshonta.
How do you LEARN to SIT? Isn't it something that God gives? Did the Apostles LEARN to SIT on the day of Pentecost? That should be a key lane marker that you have swerved into...welll...bullshonta.
Great question!
something I'm going to get into later on the Why PFAL sucks thread - in The New Dynamic Church chapter 9 I've been reviewing there - wierwille actually teaches followers HOW TO FAKE speaking in tongues. Dat's riiiight...I didn't write the book.
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.
1 hour ago, Nathan_Jr said:
I hope everyone can find the stillness to contemplate this and see clearly what this means.
oh yes - it's another way of describing indoctrination...brainwashing ! yikes !
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?
And a whole lotta-bull-Shonta to you too, Mike.
For a guy who acts like a troll and rattles off a bunch of nonsense you sure do talk a lot.
…Is belief in free will necessary for moral behavior?
One idea proposed in philosophy is that systems of morality would collapse without a common belief that each person is responsible for his actions—and thus deserves reward or punishment for them. In this view, there is value in maintaining belief in free will, even if free will is in fact an illusion. Others argue that morality can exist in the absence of free-will belief, or that belief in free will actually promotes harmful outcomes such as intolerance and revenge-seeking. Some psychology research has been cited as suggesting that disbelief in free will increases dishonest behavior, but subsequent experiments have called this finding into question…
Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.[1][2]
Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, culpability, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not are some of the longest running debates of philosophy and religion. Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes.
Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices undetermined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with a libertarian model of free will.[3]Ancient Greek philosophy identified this issue,[4] which remains a major focus of philosophical debate. The view that conceives free will as incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism (the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible) and hard determinism (the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible). Incompatibilism also encompasses hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but also indeterminism to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case may be regarding determinism.
something I'm going to get into later on the Why PFAL sucks thread - in The New Dynamic Church chapter 9 I've been reviewing there - wierwille actually teaches followers HOW TO FAKE speaking in tongues. Dat's riiiight...I didn't write the book.
You inspired me to check out the chapter and I made it this far:
Quote
Before you can tap any of God’s resources you must know, first of all, what is available.
Is God a keg? Anywho...not gonna derail this lovely little thread on Determinism and Freewill.
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?
I don't think there's too much mystery involved in people having the ability to choose. You never defined CLEARLY what freewill really is in your study, instead talking about it with the expectation that your readers will know YOUR definition. So, clearly, you did that on purpose because you were looking to introduce your own definition and then lead it back to pflap and the same ole gibberish you repeat ad nauseum on other threads youve hijacked.
I can tell I have freewill over, say my dog, because clearly she doesnt'. She works on behavior. It's common sense observation in this case. All throughout the chapters you posted you consistently confuse freewill with concepts that influence free will. Criteria for making a decision in other words. It's not complicated and you are absolutely spinning your wheels with the fantasy you want to prove: that a body soul spirit man will function differently scientifically than body soul man. Except its a joke because spirit is clearly outside the realm of consideration because the rules of science discount the possibility of anything spiritual. It's all matter and what isn't matter doesnt matter.
I was genuinely sincere in getting you to post your book chapters. Now that I have read along for a few days....nah...Ill pass.
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.
= = = ==
1.You have no credibility here – so I see no reason to believe what you say regarding anything!
2.There’s lots of ways to define salvation from Bible texts. Comparing various ways to interpret the Bible to a developing science is comparing metaphysical apples to actual oranges.
As I said in response to your doing a # 2 on your own stupid statement in # 1- your lack of credibility limits the response to your bull-shonta. Your chapters were printed with Kool-Aid for ink cartridges.
Edited by T-Bone editor-in-chief of anything chiefly bull-Shonta
The BIG definition, that of "free will." I spent most of Chapter 1 discussing.
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.
The classical definition for free will was horribly constructed long before modern science was invented, and it was defined to be the opposite of what science would allow. It is an unworkable definition, so I am looking for the right repair job. What I am doing is "de-mystifying" free will.
The classical definition has been quite mystical and anti-science, and is in the process if being very deliberately abandoned by Neuroscience. I object to that anandonment, and offer instead a major repair job on the seriously broken definition of free will we all inherited from the ancients.
So, not only is Chapter one focused on the problems in the old definition, but the whole book is an attempt to clarify this new definition of weakened and delayed free will.
You have quite an imagination to claim all this.
I’m curious who your intended audience is that are already familiar with your spiel...Have you been preaching to some folks tripping their a$$es off?
and frankly you have no success of people buying your bull-Shonta here - so I don’t believe any legitimate scientist or sensible person would buy your bull-Shonta if they met you in person!!!!
You have zilch knowledge, experience, wisdom, authority, expertise to make any meaningful statements about neuroscience. Go back to your tripping “friends”...They probably like the entertaining bull-Shonta
Everything you posted so far obfuscates what little sense it might make
Back up and punt! And by that, I mean
quit acting like an incessant troll,
ditch the duplicity,
grow a real backbone,
and YOU start a thread about something that makes sense
How do you LEARN to SIT? Isn't it something that God gives? Did the Apostles LEARN to SIT on the day of Pentecost? That should be a key lane marker that you have swerved into...welll...bullshonta.
This should be a key marker to you how much you have swerved away from what we were taught.
Here is a good example of things taught in the class
that were forgotten or that were never fully absorbed.
The things to learn in the HOW of S.I.T. are:
(1) the eleven benefits for doing it, and
(2) that the Father seeks those to do it, and
(3) freedom from the fear of getting it wrong, and
(4) knowing which parts that are God's responsibility (giving the utterance), versus our responsibility (mechanics of speech).
Those are ALL teachable and learnable.
The class taught us those things, and Jesus taught his apostles the same things in the months before Pentecost.
Thebrainis essentially a believing machine. It believes any story you feed purely into it persistently. The following all share the brain described above:
Nazi Youth ...
Thebrainis essentially a believing machine.
It believes any story you feed it.
This works for feeding it bad stuff,
and it works for feeding it good stuff.
I hope everyone can find the stillness to contemplate this and see clearly what this means.
Thebrainis essentially a believing machine.
It believes any story you feed it.
This works for feeding it bad stuff,
and it works for feeding it good stuff.
Oh...it's a recipe for book burning brown shirts....which makes it harder to take Mike seriously....
Thebrainis essentially a believing machine.
It believes any story you feed it.
This works for feeding it bad stuff,
and it works for feeding it good stuff.
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
T-Bone
You got suckered in by wierwille’s repeating of Bullinger’s error. 4 crucified is NOT even remotely suggested in what’s WRITTEN!
There is no goofy misshapen puzzle that Bullinger/ wierwille cut edges off the pieces so they would “fit” . In my opinion the crucifixion scene is not contradictory if there are 4 different narratives of the same event . Even dumb-a$$ wierwille admits that when he taught on why 4 gospels.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
How long does it take? Is 20 years long enough?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
The brain is essentially a believing machine. It believes any story you feed purely into it persistently.
The following all share the brain described above:
Nazi Youth
Nazi Officers
Ku Klux Klan members
Islamic Terrorist Pilots
Flat Earthers
The fathers who willingly gave their daughters over to Warren Jeffs
The fathers who willingly gave their daughters over to Victor Barnard
Followers of and apologists for a priestly class of child fockers
Followers of and apologists for Victor Paul Wierwille
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
For some, it only takes 36 hours.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Oh...it's a recipe for book burning brown shirts....which makes it harder to take Mike seriously....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You do realize wierwille screwed up definitions on a regular basis - your re-defining antics on this thread tells me that's how it helped you follow in his ways
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
your silly “book carrier” misinterpretation on the NT canon thread is based on your childish impression of literary structure and it's probably best for you not to keep drawing attention to your trolling antics
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
How do you LEARN to SIT? Isn't it something that God gives? Did the Apostles LEARN to SIT on the day of Pentecost? That should be a key lane marker that you have swerved into...welll...bullshonta.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great question!
something I'm going to get into later on the Why PFAL sucks thread - in The New Dynamic Church chapter 9 I've been reviewing there - wierwille actually teaches followers HOW TO FAKE speaking in tongues. Dat's riiiight...I didn't write the book.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
oh yes - it's another way of describing indoctrination...brainwashing ! yikes !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
And a whole lotta-bull-Shonta to you too, Mike.
For a guy who acts like a troll and rattles off a bunch of nonsense you sure do talk a lot.
Does science disprove free will?
While there are many reasons to believe that a person’s will is not completely free of influence, there is not a scientific consensus against free will. Some use the term “free will” in a looser sense to reflect that conscious decisions play a role in the outcomes of a person’s life—even if those are shaped by innate dispositions or randomness. (Critics of the concept of free will might simply call this kind of decision-making “will,” or volition.) Even when unconscious processes help determine a person’s conscious behavior, some argue, such processes can still be thought of as part of an individual’s will. …
…Is belief in free will necessary for moral behavior?
One idea proposed in philosophy is that systems of morality would collapse without a common belief that each person is responsible for his actions—and thus deserves reward or punishment for them. In this view, there is value in maintaining belief in free will, even if free will is in fact an illusion. Others argue that morality can exist in the absence of free-will belief, or that belief in free will actually promotes harmful outcomes such as intolerance and revenge-seeking. Some psychology research has been cited as suggesting that disbelief in free will increases dishonest behavior, but subsequent experiments have called this finding into question…
From: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/free-will
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.[1][2]
Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, culpability, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not are some of the longest running debates of philosophy and religion. Some conceive of free will as the right to act outside of external influences or wishes.
Some conceive free will to be the capacity to make choices undetermined by past events. Determinism suggests that only one course of events is possible, which is inconsistent with a libertarian model of free will.[3] Ancient Greek philosophy identified this issue,[4] which remains a major focus of philosophical debate. The view that conceives free will as incompatible with determinism is called incompatibilism and encompasses both metaphysical libertarianism (the claim that determinism is false and thus free will is at least possible) and hard determinism (the claim that determinism is true and thus free will is not possible). Incompatibilism also encompasses hard incompatibilism, which holds not only determinism but also indeterminism to be incompatible with free will and thus free will to be impossible whatever the case may be regarding determinism.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
Edited by T-Bonewith freedom of will I do edit thee
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
You inspired me to check out the chapter and I made it this far:
Is God a keg? Anywho...not gonna derail this lovely little thread on Determinism and Freewill.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I don't think there's too much mystery involved in people having the ability to choose. You never defined CLEARLY what freewill really is in your study, instead talking about it with the expectation that your readers will know YOUR definition. So, clearly, you did that on purpose because you were looking to introduce your own definition and then lead it back to pflap and the same ole gibberish you repeat ad nauseum on other threads youve hijacked.
I can tell I have freewill over, say my dog, because clearly she doesnt'. She works on behavior. It's common sense observation in this case. All throughout the chapters you posted you consistently confuse freewill with concepts that influence free will. Criteria for making a decision in other words. It's not complicated and you are absolutely spinning your wheels with the fantasy you want to prove: that a body soul spirit man will function differently scientifically than body soul man. Except its a joke because spirit is clearly outside the realm of consideration because the rules of science discount the possibility of anything spiritual. It's all matter and what isn't matter doesnt matter.
I was genuinely sincere in getting you to post your book chapters. Now that I have read along for a few days....nah...Ill pass.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
don't worry about that now - it's got tracks all over the place!
and some places where there aren't any tracks...go figure
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
= = = = =
1. You have no credibility here – so I see no reason to believe what you say regarding anything!
2. There’s lots of ways to define salvation from Bible texts. Comparing various ways to interpret the Bible to a developing science is comparing metaphysical apples to actual oranges.
As I said in response to your doing a # 2 on your own stupid statement in # 1- your lack of credibility limits the response to your bull-shonta. Your chapters were printed with Kool-Aid for ink cartridges.
Edited by T-Boneeditor-in-chief of anything chiefly bull-Shonta
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You have quite an imagination to claim all this.
I’m curious who your intended audience is that are already familiar with your spiel...Have you been preaching to some folks tripping their a$$es off?
and frankly you have no success of people buying your bull-Shonta here - so I don’t believe any legitimate scientist or sensible person would buy your bull-Shonta if they met you in person!!!!
You have zilch knowledge, experience, wisdom, authority, expertise to make any meaningful statements about neuroscience. Go back to your tripping “friends”...They probably like the entertaining bull-Shonta
Everything you posted so far obfuscates what little sense it might make
Back up and punt! And by that, I mean
quit acting like an incessant troll,
ditch the duplicity,
grow a real backbone,
and YOU start a thread about something that makes sense
and STAY on topic
Edited by T-Boneentertaining bull-Shonta
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
This should be a key marker to you how much you have swerved away from what we were taught.
Here is a good example of things taught in the class
that were forgotten or that were never fully absorbed.
The things to learn in the HOW of S.I.T. are:
(1) the eleven benefits for doing it, and
(2) that the Father seeks those to do it, and
(3) freedom from the fear of getting it wrong, and
(4) knowing which parts that are God's responsibility (giving the utterance), versus our responsibility (mechanics of speech).
Those are ALL teachable and learnable.
The class taught us those things, and Jesus taught his apostles the same things in the months before Pentecost.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
He did?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
ANOTHER thing you forgot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Remind me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Come back to PFAL and find out the many other things you forgot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The brain is essentially a believing machine.
It believes any story you feed it.
This works for feeding it bad stuff,
and it works for feeding it good stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The brain is essentially a believing machine.
It believes any story you feed it.
This works for feeding it bad stuff,
and it works for feeding it good stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The brain is essentially a believing machine.
It believes any story you feed it.
This works for feeding it bad stuff,
and it works for feeding it good stuff.
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.