do you really talk this way with your Facebook friends, grad students and neuroscientist buddies? And do they laugh at your "theories"?
No, I mostly talk this way with 2 of the professors. One of them was a grad student back then, and he actually encouraged me in the direction I took, and then liked what I came up with. We e-mail a lot about it. He sends me ideas and links of related issues. The other professor is retired now, but I still keep in touch and I have gotten encouragement there.
The facebook groups are numerous (like 10) and different; some huge; some tiny. I occasionally encounter some responses, where I've even become good friends with a few postersw. I also get a sizable number of bad reviews. Represented in the groups are are pro free will (2 last count), anti free will (3), pro determinism (2), and Daniel Dennett (3).
No, I mostly talk this way with 2 of the professors. One of them was a grad student back then, and he actually encouraged me in the direction I took, and then liked what I came up with. We e-mail a lot about it. He sends me ideas and links of related issues. The other professor is retired now, but I still keep in touch and I have gotten encouragement there.
The facebook groups are numerous (like 10) and different; some huge; some tiny. I occasionally encounter some responses, where I've even become good friends with a few postersw. I also get a sizable number of bad reviews. Represented in the groups are are pro free will (2 last count), anti free will (3), pro determinism (2), and Daniel Dennett (3).
if that's true - then why do you persist here when folks shoot innumerable holes in your nonsense speculations?
what you say doesn't ring true.
it makes more sense that you act like a troll. that would explain why you persist here.
Those books are all the data I am offering you. Take it or leave it.
No - if indeed you've read those books - you are offering YOUR interpretation of those books. there's a difference - and I don't trust your interpretive skills anyway cuz you believe the Bible interprets itself
you also said when Jesus Christ comes back, He will be holding a copy of the PFAL book. take it or leave it - you said that too.
The facebook groups are numerous (like 10) and different; some huge; some tiny. I occasionally encounter some responses, where I've even become good friends with a few postersw. I also get a sizable number of bad reviews. Represented in the groups are are pro free will (2 last count), anti free will (3), pro determinism (2), and Daniel Dennett (3).
I have little faith in your math skills cuz you believe there were 4 crucified with Jesus.
Mike also said when Jesus Christ comes back, He will be holding a copy of the PFAL book.
Such a grim and horrifying vision of the future. Such a dismal, wretched, hopeless outlook. Why would one would risk incurring, by making this claim, such a spiritual liability?
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?
see how much you waffle
now you question if free will even exists
if free will has been important in science, religion, judicial systems, etc. for thousands of years - what is unsettled about it?
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.
what nonsense!
and you share stuff like this with professors and other great minds on Facebook?
when you say stupid bull$hit like this you show everyone you understand NOTHING about critical thinking.
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?
This text does not question free will's existence.
This text questions the existence of a clear consensus on free will in all 6 of those important areas. The reason for this is the terrible definition that has been foisted on Western civilization for about a thousand years.
I have consistently said that I seriously doubt the existence of free will as it is classically defined. With a definition overhaul, I think that free will can be made clear, and a consensus can some day be possible.
Philosophy didn't "resolve" this- because philosophy NEVER "resolves" anything. It's entirely about the journey, and reaching the destination/RESOLVING something is antithetical to it.
I confirmed that when taking a Philosophy class alongside a friend. He came to conclusions. He saw me write " off-the-cuff" quickly and write that we can't come to a definite conclusion. He spent over an hour on his work, I spent several minutes, and I got a higher grade. (He asked to study with me after that.)
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?
This text does not question free will's existence.
This text questions the existence of a clear consensus on free will in all 6 of those important areas. The reason for this is the terrible definition that has been foisted on Western civilization for about a thousand years.
I have consistently said that I seriously doubt the existence of free will as it is classically defined. With a definition overhaul, I think that free will can be made clear, and a consensus can some day be possible.
You have been consistently nebulous in a vacuous and verbose way
In order to have a consensus folks would have to agree on your terminology and concepts…I don’t think there’s a chance in Gehenna of that happening any time soon.
Philosophy didn't "resolve" this- because philosophy NEVER "resolves" anything. It's entirely about the journey, and reaching the destination/RESOLVING something is antithetical to it.
I confirmed that when taking a Philosophy class alongside a friend. He came to conclusions. He saw me write " off-the-cuff" quickly and write that we can't come to a definite conclusion. He spent over an hour on his work, I spent several minutes, and I got a higher grade. (He asked to study with me after that.)
I agree, but I didn't want to broaden my condemnation of philosophy.
The thing is, in those 6 areas I mentioned above, a clear consensus on free will is NEEDED.
I think one can happen with Neuroscience, and I am merely trying to push it along a tiny bit faster with a more clear definition.
No, I mostly talk this way with 2 of the professors. One of them was a grad student back then, and he actually encouraged me in the direction I took, and then liked what I came up with. We e-mail a lot about it. He sends me ideas and links of related issues. The other professor is retired now, but I still keep in touch and I have gotten encouragement there.
The facebook groups are numerous (like 10) and different; some huge; some tiny. I occasionally encounter some responses, where I've even become good friends with a few postersw. I also get a sizable number of bad reviews. Represented in the groups are are pro free will (2 last count), anti free will (3), pro determinism (2), and Daniel Dennett (3).
Do your professor friends and Facebook groups know about you acting like a troll on Grease Spot Cafe for 20 years?
and are they all aware that you believe the Bible interprets itself?
do they know about your devotion to a cult-leader who had claimed he heard from God it was okay to plagiarize other people’s work and sexually molest women?
are any of your professors / Facebook friends published authors? Are any of them women?
I wonder what they would think of someone who defends such a creep like wierwille to the hilt?
you got suckered in by wierwille's tilting at windmills. he used a false premise "Scripture buildup" to piece together an erroneous interpretation of 4 different gospels
He stole that idea from Bullinger as well. Bullinger breaks down the purpose of each gospel in his appendices in the Companion Bible. From there, at some point, the research department put together A Harmony of the Gospels based on Bullinger as well. You likely know this already, but saying it for those who perhaps don't. I enjoyed A Harmony of the Gospels because the syllabus layed out the Gosls in chronological order and you could read it from start to finish and see the chronology and details added from other gospels on the same account. That's about the most value I can ascribe to it. All the other spiritualization that went into it is likely bullshonta based on Bullinger's speculations. Not that Bullinger wasn't brilliant at times. But with Bullinger I feel his approach was throw enough #$%^ against a wall something will stick (old salesman cliche). I look at Bullinger as corrupted by leaven. His hardcore dispensationalism distorts most of what he says, though some of what he says is brilliant at times.
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?
This text does not question free will's existence.
This text questions the existence of a clear consensus on free will in all 6 of those important areas. The reason for this is the terrible definition that has been foisted on Western civilization for about a thousand years.
I have consistently said that I seriously doubt the existence of free will as it is classically defined. With a definition overhaul, I think that free will can be made clear, and a consensus can some day be possible.
There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance
A planet of playthings, we dance on the strings of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren't aligned or the Gods are malign, blame is better to give than receive
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill
There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them they weren't born in Lotus Land
All preordained, a prisoner in chains, a victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face, you can pray for a place, in heaven's unearthly estate
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill
Each of us, a cell of awareness, imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends with uncertain ends on a fortune hunt that's far too fleet
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill
There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance
A planet of playthings, we dance on the strings of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren't aligned or the Gods are malign, blame is better to give than receive
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill
There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them they weren't born in Lotus Land
All preordained, a prisoner in chains, a victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face, you can pray for a place, in heaven's unearthly estate
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill
Each of us, a cell of awareness, imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends with uncertain ends on a fortune hunt that's far too fleet
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill
Explains crystal clear what neuroscientists have searched for years...lol
He stole that idea from Bullinger as well. Bullinger breaks down the purpose of each gospel in his appendices in the Companion Bible. From there, at some point, the research department put together A Harmony of the Gospels based on Bullinger as well. You likely know this already, but saying it for those who perhaps don't. I enjoyed A Harmony of the Gospels because the syllabus layed out the Gosls in chronological order and you could read it from start to finish and see the chronology and details added from other gospels on the same account. That's about the most value I can ascribe to it. All the other spiritualization that went into it is likely bullshonta based on Bullinger's speculations. Not that Bullinger wasn't brilliant at times. But with Bullinger I feel his approach was throw enough #$%^ against a wall something will stick (old salesman cliche). I look at Bullinger as corrupted by leaven. His hardcore dispensationalism distorts most of what he says, though some of what he says is brilliant at times.
Noted on the back by John Kohlenberger III “for any reader who has struggled with the flow of Old Testament and Gospel narrative”
Gospels are interesting - combined – literally just pieced together all 4 into a one narrative – like you’re getting 4 different news feeds – in paragraph form
Has parallel passages arranged in side-by-side columns
~ ~ ~ ~
Concerning Bullinger:
I’ll never forget an interesting comment wierwille said about Bullinger – either at PFAL ’77 or Advanced Class ’79 – he said (in reference to Bullinger) something like if you squeeze The Word too hard you’ll have error run out through your fingers…of all people – it’s really ironic for wierwille the unabashed plagiarist to say that…who knows - maybe even an incompetent fake doctor could spot ittoo! I think there is something to wierwille’s observation anyway.
I like Bullinger’s Companion Bible for the convenience of historical notes, literary structure, noting figures of speech…I like the convenience of Biblical language notes on verses – although I don’t always trust his definitions – so I often use Companion Bible in tandem with reputable authors’ lexicons who have expertise in the language.
Bullinger’s dispensationalism, 4 crucified, NT canon comments, numbers in scripture, witness of the stars, giver and the gifts do not appeal to me – I think that’s where Bullinger squeezed the Word too hard – reminds me of that Hidden Bible Codesthat came out a while back – by selecting equidistant letter sequences from within the 3,300 year old Hebrew Bible that form words and phrases they demonstrated foreknowledge and prophecy… ...My take? There could be something to it…
...but personally I’ve got no problem believing the Bible is the Word of God and frankly though this stuff didn’t get into decoding any still future events in the book of Rev. like the gazillion other books on Bible prophecy - I’m sticking with the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the here and now – I think that’s the best prep for any “impending doom” – geez I already freaked out of end times stuff when 9/11 happened – wife and I were in California on vacation when that happened – actually thought I must have missed something and we’re in tribulation mode now
- and fyi I don’t get hung up in pre mid or post trib or when this or that is gonna happen. I already told you my game plan I’m sticking with the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the here and now – I think that’s the best prep for any “impending doom”. There I’ve said it twice – it’s established!
Along with the tasty licks of Alex Lifeson and the best live drummer I have ever heard live on the planet earth Neil Peart - so tight!
I'm a huge fan. Alex guitar style is incredible. So.e of his chord patterns hurt just thinking about how he plays...lol...Neil is hands down one of, if not the, best drummer of all time.
I'm a huge fan. Alex guitar style is incredible. So.e of his chord patterns hurt just thinking about how he plays...lol...Neil is hands down one of, if not the, best drummer of all time.
I’ve seen them a few times back in the day when Peart had a big u shaped setup and a gong, and more recently he had a rotating kit half skins half electronics and he switched back and forth in his solo. One of the few true masters.
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
Mike
No, I mostly talk this way with 2 of the professors. One of them was a grad student back then, and he actually encouraged me in the direction I took, and then liked what I came up with. We e-mail a lot about it. He sends me ideas and links of related issues. The other professor is retired now, but I still keep in touch and I have gotten encouragement there.
The facebook groups are numerous (like 10) and different; some huge; some tiny. I occasionally encounter some responses, where I've even become good friends with a few postersw. I also get a sizable number of bad reviews. Represented in the groups are are pro free will (2 last count), anti free will (3), pro determinism (2), and Daniel Dennett (3).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Those books are all the data I am offering you. Take it or leave it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
if that's true - then why do you persist here when folks shoot innumerable holes in your nonsense speculations?
what you say doesn't ring true.
it makes more sense that you act like a troll. that would explain why you persist here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
No - if indeed you've read those books - you are offering YOUR interpretation of those books. there's a difference - and I don't trust your interpretive skills anyway cuz you believe the Bible interprets itself
you also said when Jesus Christ comes back, He will be holding a copy of the PFAL book. take it or leave it - you said that too.
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I have little faith in your math skills cuz you believe there were 4 crucified with Jesus.
what a stupid doctrine!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Such a grim and horrifying vision of the future. Such a dismal, wretched, hopeless outlook. Why would one would risk incurring, by making this claim, such a spiritual liability?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Not just stupid. Four crucified stupid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
see how much you waffle
now you question if free will even exists
if free will has been important in science, religion, judicial systems, etc. for thousands of years - what is unsettled about it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
what nonsense!
and you share stuff like this with professors and other great minds on Facebook?
when you say stupid bull$hit like this you show everyone you understand NOTHING about critical thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
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?
This text does not question free will's existence.
This text questions the existence of a clear consensus on free will in all 6 of those important areas. The reason for this is the terrible definition that has been foisted on Western civilization for about a thousand years.
I have consistently said that I seriously doubt the existence of free will as it is classically defined. With a definition overhaul, I think that free will can be made clear, and a consensus can some day be possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Philosophy didn't "resolve" this- because philosophy NEVER "resolves" anything. It's entirely about the journey, and reaching the destination/RESOLVING something is antithetical to it.
I confirmed that when taking a Philosophy class alongside a friend. He came to conclusions. He saw me write " off-the-cuff" quickly and write that we can't come to a definite conclusion. He spent over an hour on his work, I spent several minutes, and I got a higher grade. (He asked to study with me after that.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You have been consistently nebulous in a vacuous and verbose way
In order to have a consensus folks would have to agree on your terminology and concepts…I don’t think there’s a chance in Gehenna of that happening any time soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I agree, but I didn't want to broaden my condemnation of philosophy.
The thing is, in those 6 areas I mentioned above, a clear consensus on free will is NEEDED.
I think one can happen with Neuroscience, and I am merely trying to push it along a tiny bit faster with a more clear definition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Do your professor friends and Facebook groups know about you acting like a troll on Grease Spot Cafe for 20 years?
and are they all aware that you believe the Bible interprets itself?
do they know about your devotion to a cult-leader who had claimed he heard from God it was okay to plagiarize other people’s work and sexually molest women?
are any of your professors / Facebook friends published authors? Are any of them women?
I wonder what they would think of someone who defends such a creep like wierwille to the hilt?
Edited by T-BoneRevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
He stole that idea from Bullinger as well. Bullinger breaks down the purpose of each gospel in his appendices in the Companion Bible. From there, at some point, the research department put together A Harmony of the Gospels based on Bullinger as well. You likely know this already, but saying it for those who perhaps don't. I enjoyed A Harmony of the Gospels because the syllabus layed out the Gosls in chronological order and you could read it from start to finish and see the chronology and details added from other gospels on the same account. That's about the most value I can ascribe to it. All the other spiritualization that went into it is likely bullshonta based on Bullinger's speculations. Not that Bullinger wasn't brilliant at times. But with Bullinger I feel his approach was throw enough #$%^ against a wall something will stick (old salesman cliche). I look at Bullinger as corrupted by leaven. His hardcore dispensationalism distorts most of what he says, though some of what he says is brilliant at times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
If anything can save this thread it’s these guys
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Getty to the rescue!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
a most excellent post ! thanks!
here be the lyrics:
There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance
A host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance
A planet of playthings, we dance on the strings of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren't aligned or the Gods are malign, blame is better to give than receive
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill
There are those who think that they were dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them they weren't born in Lotus Land
All preordained, a prisoner in chains, a victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face, you can pray for a place, in heaven's unearthly estate
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill
Each of us, a cell of awareness, imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends with uncertain ends on a fortune hunt that's far too fleet
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear, I will choose Freewill
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Explains crystal clear what neuroscientists have searched for years...lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’ve got a couple of fun Bibles for harmonizing:
The Narrated Bible in Chronological Order (NIV) by F. LaGard Smith
Noted on the back by John Kohlenberger III “for any reader who has struggled with the flow of Old Testament and Gospel narrative”
Gospels are interesting - combined – literally just pieced together all 4 into a one narrative – like you’re getting 4 different news feeds – in paragraph form
~ ~ ~ ~
NIV, Integrated Study Bible, Hardcover: A New Chronological Approach for Exploring Scripture, editor John R. Kohlenberger III
Has parallel passages arranged in side-by-side columns
~ ~ ~ ~
Concerning Bullinger:
I’ll never forget an interesting comment wierwille said about Bullinger – either at PFAL ’77 or Advanced Class ’79 – he said (in reference to Bullinger) something like if you squeeze The Word too hard you’ll have error run out through your fingers…of all people – it’s really ironic for wierwille the unabashed plagiarist to say that…who knows - maybe even an incompetent fake doctor could spot it too ! I think there is something to wierwille’s observation anyway.
I like Bullinger’s Companion Bible for the convenience of historical notes, literary structure, noting figures of speech…I like the convenience of Biblical language notes on verses – although I don’t always trust his definitions – so I often use Companion Bible in tandem with reputable authors’ lexicons who have expertise in the language.
Bullinger’s dispensationalism, 4 crucified, NT canon comments, numbers in scripture, witness of the stars, giver and the gifts do not appeal to me – I think that’s where Bullinger squeezed the Word too hard – reminds me of that Hidden Bible Codes that came out a while back – by selecting equidistant letter sequences from within the 3,300 year old Hebrew Bible that form words and phrases they demonstrated foreknowledge and prophecy… ...My take? There could be something to it…
...but personally I’ve got no problem believing the Bible is the Word of God and frankly though this stuff didn’t get into decoding any still future events in the book of Rev. like the gazillion other books on Bible prophecy
- I’m sticking with the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the here and now – I think that’s the best prep for any “impending doom” – geez I already freaked out of end times stuff when 9/11 happened – wife and I were in California on vacation when that happened – actually thought I must have missed something and we’re in tribulation mode now 
- and fyi I don’t get hung up in pre mid or post trib or when this or that is gonna happen. I already told you my game plan I’m sticking with the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the here and now – I think that’s the best prep for any “impending doom”. There I’ve said it twice – it’s established!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think Rush’s other song is more relevant here:
Today's Tom Sawyer, he gets high on you
And the threads he invades, he gets by on you
And what we say about neuroscientists
Will have some Grease Spotters throwing big fits
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Along with the tasty licks of Alex Lifeson and the best live drummer I have ever heard live on the planet earth Neil Peart - so tight!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I'm a huge fan. Alex guitar style is incredible. So.e of his chord patterns hurt just thinking about how he plays...lol...Neil is hands down one of, if not the, best drummer of all time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I’ve seen them a few times back in the day when Peart had a big u shaped setup and a gong, and more recently he had a rotating kit half skins half electronics and he switched back and forth in his solo. One of the few true masters.
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.