Actually, that section of Romans is addressing Israel, those who know the Mosaic Law and is concluding them under dominion of sin along with the nations, or gentiles. Israel held to the righteousnes of the law, which they couldn't live up to. So both Gentile and Israel are shown that the just shall live by faith. While Romans definately shows man under the dominion of sin (both sins he commits and the root cause of sins, the sin nature buried within man in his corrupted state) the problem doesn't just vanish when one is born again. The contrast between Romans 7 and 8 for example shows the warring natures in the child of God. Two natures in the child of God, the old man Adamic one, and the last Adam - Jesus Christ and the new creation he creates in us at the new birth. What's my point? Determinism doesn't fit with scripture. Romans details the choice between walking in the spirit and the old nature. Free will choice.
Also, you keep on with this natural man stuff, like it all just vanishes at the new birth. Thats the essence of the warring natures within the child of God - when given a choice what will a person choose? New birth, new nature, or old man, old nature.
I think I agree with all you just wrote.
Paul was describing the quality of natural men found in Israel, but the same spiritless condition afflicts natural man outside Israel as well.
I realize NONE of the old man nature vanishes with the new birth, but what changes with the new birth is the ability to rise above that spiritless nature, AT TIMES.
Well unfortunately for me I don’t do study groups with intellectuals. Hell I don’t even play chess anymore so there’s that lol.
All I do is sit around work and listen to stupid podcasts like Lex Friedman and Joe Rogan. Once in a while I can enjoy Andrew Huberman but that guy really packs a lot into an episode lol.
What has your brain trust contributed to you?
Mine has me sleeping better and doing deadlifts lol.
Almost all of the brain people I learn from do podcasts now, and have a bunch of You-Tube videos.
I have undergone a series of major changes in my approach to science. I feel I was in error for 45 years on how the brain works. I had idolized it up to a place God had not intended, and it was atheist scientists who straightened me out on this. I was placing soul in the spiritual realm, when Biblically it is in the physical realm. This change was both humbling and exhilarating. It started in 1995 and took 20 years, but by 2015 I was solidly on the other side and writing what I posted here.
THEN, from all that I worked on this I am impressed with how much persistence plays in free will. It's like we are the Tin Man in Oz, and we seek that free will, and with persistence can find it.
I have undergone a series of major changes in my approach to science. I feel I was in error for 45 years on how the brain works.
technically addressing how the brain works and how the mind works involves different disciplines - with some overlap
2 hours ago, Mike said:
I had idolized it up to a place God had not intended, and it was atheist scientists who straightened me out on this.
Your statement doesn’t make sense. You're saying God didn’t intend for you to idolize the brain – but it was atheists - people who disbelieve or who lack belief in the existence of God or gods – they are the ones who straightened you out on this?
2 hours ago, Mike said:
I was placing soul in the spiritual realm, when Biblically it is in the physical realm.
au contraire Scripture uses “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably:
New International Version “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.John 12:27
Whereas in a very similar context in next chapter Jesus is said to be unsettled in the spirit:
New International Version After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “Very truly I tell you, one of you is going to betray me.”John 13:21
~ ~ ~ ~
t death, Scripture says either the “soul” or the “spirit” departs:
King James Bible And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin.Genesis 35:18
New International Version Into your hands I commit my spirit; deliver me, LORD, my faithful God.Psalm 31:5
Man is said to either “body and soul” or “body and spirit”:
New International Version Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.Matthew 10:28
New International Version hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.I Corinthians 5:5
And Paul said that purging ourselves from defilement of the soul or spirit takes care of the metaphysical part of our life:
New International Version But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness.Romans 8:10
New International Version For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is.Colossians 2:5
~ ~ ~ ~
Since they appear to be synonymous, it is said that either soulorspirit can sin:
New International Version Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.II Corinthians 7:1
New International Version and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.I Corinthians 7:34
English Standard Version Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.Acts 17: 16
~ ~ ~ ~
And note the transcendent / immanent Holy Spirit affirms with our spirit – it implies our mind knows:
New International Version The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.Romans 8:16
2 hours ago, Mike said:
This change was both humbling and exhilarating. It started in 1995 and took 20 years, but by 2015 I was solidly on the other side and writing what I posted here.
well good for you
2 hours ago, Mike said:
THEN, from all that I worked on this I am impressed with how much persistence plays in free will. It's like we are the Tin Man in Oz, and we seek that free will, and with persistence can find it.
During their journey to see the Wizard of Oz, the Tin Man, the Lion, and the Scarecrow HAD ALREADY exhibited the qualities they thought they need to acquire from the Wizard of Oz…it was little Toto (the barking critter one not the rock band) that pulled back the curtain and exposed the faker. What was cool was that the Wizard now exposed ( metaphorically – his morally corrupt nature was revealed…not literally expose himself like some sexual predator would do in a motor coach) repented over his con and affirmed they already demonstrated that which they thought they lacked…
sorry to inform you of your misfire if you haven't realized where this is going with your OZ analogy:
The sales pitch that suckers people into taking PFAL is a lie because the PFAL class actually sabotages whatever cognitive skills the new student may have already developed.
It takes a brainwashed individual to believe 4 were crucified with Jesus Christ
it takes one mindlessly absorbing a dumb-as-dirt ideology to believe the Bible interprets itself.
I have undergone a series of major changes in my approach to science. I feel I was in error for 45 years on how the brain works. I had idolized it up to a place God had not intended, and it was atheist scientists who straightened me out on this. I was placing soul in the spiritual realm, when Biblically it is in the physical realm. This change was both humbling and exhilarating. It started in 1995 and took 20 years, but by 2015 I was solidly on the other side and writing what I posted here.
THEN, from all that I worked on this I am impressed with how much persistence plays in free will. It's like we are the Tin Man in Oz, and we seek that free will, and with persistence can find it.
Ok I’ll take that as an honest answer to my question.
Regarding how the brain works is pretty complex. Most technology advancements we have today model only one aspect of the brain. Like fast compute. Or memory. Or picture recognition.
One answer is it is a complex bio electrical machine. Also a human muscle. An unending topic of science to explore.
And it’s a reasonable Bullshonta detector if it’s not too bound up with categorization like attempting to separate soul and spirit. If you immerse a detector in the Bullshonta it detects nothing because there is no basis for comparison.
Harari says in his Sapiens book (page 240) …determinism is appealing because it implies that our world and our beliefs are a natural and inevitable product of history…History cannot be explained deterministically, and it cannot be predicted because it is chaotic. So many forces are at work and their interactions are so complex that extremely small variations in the strength of the forces and the way they interact produce huge differences in outcomes.
Now THAT makes sense. Whereas, Mike's arguments are shallow and simplistic, at best.
I can appreciate that Mike has taken a lifelong learning approach and attitude on some things.
However, it's still overwhelmingly clear he has serious blind spots. Additionally, listening to podcasts may not approach the level of depth necessary for him to either understand the subject inherently, or to communicate what he might actually know with clarity.
That was a very small sample of Harari Yuval that you got that quote from.
That quote was very general, and could apply to dozens of scientific situations.
That makes sense in lots of situations.
I have seen other quotes from him, and he strongly denied belief in free will, but that is probably Libertaian FW. I suspect he also strongly believes no other form of FW can exist.
ALSO, he is strongly aligned with one of those globalist billionaires, but I forget which one. His focus is political, and he uses philosophy and science to forge ahead with a political agenda. For these reasons I pay him almost no attention.
That was a very small sample of Harari Yuval that you got that quote from.
That quote was very general, and could apply to dozens of scientific situations.
That makes sense in lots of situations.
I have seen other quotes from him, and he strongly denied belief in free will, but that is probably Libertaian FW. I suspect he also strongly believes no other form of FW can exist.
ALSO, he is strongly aligned with one of those globalist billionaires, but I forget which one. His focus is political, and he uses philosophy and science to forge ahead with a political agenda. For these reasons I pay him almost no attention.
You pay him no attention, but you make allegations without being able to back up your claims. THAT takes it outside the boundaries of acceptable on GSC.
His focus, if you had read Sapiens, is history. And he's hella smarter than me or you.
While I encourage people continuing to learn throughout their lives, and studying informally while they live, it's not the same as getting a degree. You've looked up some science, but you're neither a degreed scientist nor in their weight class. I still remember your passing explanation of something that included an error so big that even Schoolhouse Rock didn't make it. But, if you have to tell yourself you really DO have all the science mastered, then never mind, go right ahead.
Paul was describing the quality of natural men found in Israel, but the same spiritless condition afflicts natural man outside Israel as well.
sorry...this needs to be said in this context....Ill stop after this post.
Israel didn't exist as a nation by the time Paul penned Romans. Israel, after the kingodom split, was carried away by Assyria and dispersed amongst the gentile nations. God literally did a writ of divorce against them and they never went back to their homeland. (correct me where I am wrong...going from memory here) The southern Kingdom was comprised of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and they were conquered by the Babylonian Empire and Babylon was conquered by the Persians. It was under Persian rule that they were allowed to go back and rebuild the temple. Persia was in turn conquered by Alexander the Great and rulership fell to four of Alexander's main generals. Then along came the Romans and in Pauls time they lived in the province of Judea. It was during these dispersions that Synagogues rose to prominence and scribes became instrumental in gaurding the scrolls because at one point it all came down to a set of scrolls that were found and those were the last known copes..i digress.
When he references Israel he is including all of Israel, so it wasn't people found in a geographical boundary necessarily but included those dispersed amongst the gentile nation from the 10 northern tribes. Jesus Christ was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Israel has forgotten it's identity and mostly is no longer Israel.
So Romans speaks to the gentile nations as being seperate from Mosaic law and then Israel as trying to live the righteousness of the law. Both groups are told to live by faith and accept the righteousness that comes from being identified with Jesus Christ - being born from above, being born again. Obviously there is overlap because some Israelis of biblical Israel adopted the gentiles paganism and are treated as gentiles. Some kept the law.
Im not trying to beat on you with semantics. Im just showing you that the Bible does not just intrepret itself.
There really wasn't another dispersion of Judeans/Israel until the first century. With the rebellion surrounding Masada by the Zealots, Jerusalem was leveled. It was during/after the Bar Kohba revolt that Hadrian joined the Province of Judea with Galilee and called it Syria Palestinia. (sentence quoted from wikipedia) There was a dispersion during this period as well. But this was well after Romans/Hebrews and other letters were written to dispersed Israel and thos tribes Galilee/Judea.
Are you starting to see a tie in with the great mystery including the nations into the promises made to Israel? While some gentiles who are born again are not of the bloodlines of Israel some are. And who know who they are. Only God. So all of Israel shall be saved. The nations are rolled up into the mix as well and here you see the brilliance of the great mystery. Its not so we can walk around and scream about Christ in me with a capitol C on our chests.
We agree on many points though. The main point of Romans is ALL are under sin and ALL are in need of a savior.
...see the brilliance of the great mystery. Its not so we can walk around and scream about Christ in me with a capitol C on our chests.
Yes I have seen such screaming.
For myself, I try to maintain the attitude of service, and not stature, except when facing the adversary. That is when we should walk about and proudly insist the adversary deals with the Christ in us.
When we face humans in need (everyone), then we walk about with the attitude of service, because we know we can effectively serve.
Im not trying to beat on you with semantics. Im just showing you that the Bible does not just intrepret itself.
I don't get the phobia here about the Bible interpreting itself. Why is that such a difficult idea?
Is it because the phrase CAN sound like the Bible mechanically and uniquely unravels all by itself, without any work or insight on our part? Does "Bible interpreting itself" sound like too objective a process, or too easy, when there are actually some subjective turns in working the Word?
What is all the fuss about the Bible interpreting itself?
It is definitely figurative language, and not literal. Is that the problem?
For myself, I try to maintain the attitude of service, and not stature, except when facing the adversary. That is when we should walk about and proudly insist the adversary deals with the Christ in us.
When we face humans in need (everyone), then we walk about with the attitude of service, because we know we can effectively serve.
And who did Saint Vic serve besides little Saint Vic?
My point being: you chose a bad example to teach you what serving other people meant.
And who did Saint Vic serve besides little Saint Vic?
My point being: you chose a bad example to teach you what serving other people meant.
You guessed wrong. My first examples of service were the two brothers and their mom who hosted the first twig I went to. I was never around VPW long enough to get to know him. I got to know Uncle Harry, though, and he was a great servant. I did have the chance to hang out with him some. I never got into long distance admiration except for girls when I was in Jr High.
My first examples of service were the two brothers and their mom who hosted the first twig I went to.
Were they "lovingly" condescending like God toward his children? An attitude you seem to think somehow fits into service. Where did that idea come from?
24 minutes ago, Mike said:
I was never around VPW long enough to get to know him.
You don't have to be around him to pick up his attitude, you only need to know his image.
24 minutes ago, Mike said:
I got to know Uncle Harry, though, and he was a great servant. I did have the chance to hang out with him some.
Was he more focused on his needs than the people he was supposedly serving?
24 minutes ago, Mike said:
I never got into long distance admiration except for girls when I was in Jr High.
Really?! Sometimes it seems all you have for Saint Vic is long distance admiration.
I don't get the phobia here about the Bible interpreting itself. Why is that such a difficult idea?
Is it because the phrase CAN sound like the Bible mechanically and uniquely unravels all by itself, without any work or insight on our part? Does "Bible interpreting itself" sound like too objective a process, or too easy, when there are actually some subjective turns in working the Word?
What is all the fuss about the Bible interpreting itself?
It is definitely figurative language, and not literal. Is that the problem?
This is an old trick, let's just claim it's figurative language, then we can get people to accept it.
In the Way, at least the last time I was there, the bible interprets itself was a literal concept.
Refresh my memory, how many hours of the class did Saint Vic spent trying to prove this very thing?
I don't get the phobia here about the Bible interpreting itself.
I think you’re projecting.
I am not afraid of you believing a nonsensical idea.
It’s a free country – praise the nonsensical idol of PFAL!!!!
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Why is that such a difficult idea?
There’s nothing difficult about it
It’s absurdity to the Advanced Class degree of pretentiousness rounded off to the nearest PFAL-in-the-Box !!!!!!!
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Is it because the phrase CAN sound like the Bible mechanically and uniquely unravels all by itself, without any work or insight on our part?
No.
wierwille used the phrase to obfuscate the fact that HEwas slipping in HISinterpretation of a passage – along with the subliminal idea that this is the only way this passage can be understood – see that’s how the Bible interprets itself.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Does "Bible interpreting itself" sound like too objective a process, or too easy, when there are actually some subjective turns in working the Word?
Now you’re attempting to further confuse everyone.
If the Bible were a person interpreting (explaining) his/her self to YOU – it’s not an objective process – it’s an independent process from YOU interpreting the person; they’re doing it and NOT YOU. Do you read this stuff out loud to yourself before you post it?
1 hour ago, Mike said:
What is all the fuss about the Bible interpreting itself?
YOU are the one that is making all the fuss about an absolutely asinine idea!
1 hour ago, Mike said:
It is definitely figurative language, and not literal. Is that the problem?
Mike, you say some really stupid things – that’s the real problem! You can’t seem to argue your way out of a paper bag.
Language is used widely when conversing… Popeye
~ ~ ~ ~
For the folks at home, “following” this nonsense:
Literal and figurative language is a distinction within some fields of language analysis, in particular stylistics, rhetoric, and semantics.
Literal language uses words exactly according to their conventionally accepted meanings or denotation.
Figurative (or non-literal) language uses words in a way that deviates from their conventionally accepted definitions in order to convey a more complicated meaning or heightened effect. Figurative language is often created by presenting words in such a way that they are equated, compared, or associated with normally unrelated meanings.
Literal usage confers meaning to words, in the sense of the meaning they have by themselves, outside any figure of speech. It maintains a consistent meaning regardless of the context, with the intended meaning corresponding exactly to the meaning of the individual words. On the contrary, figurative use of language is the use of words or phrases that implies a non-literal meaning which does make sense or that could [also] be true.
Aristotle and later the Roman Quintilian were among the early analysts of rhetoric who expounded on the differences between literal and figurative language.
In the Way, at least the last time I was there, the bible interprets itself was a literal concept.
I have NEVER taken it to be literal.
The Bible interprets itself.
The Bible, as the subject of the sentence, is not literally capable of doing the action in the verb "interprets." The Bible is a book, and a book cannot do things or perform actions. It just sits there and WE do the action or interpreting WITH MATERIALS that come from within the Bible.
The word "itself" in the sentence refers to those internal materials that WE use when WE do the interpreting.
The Bible, as the subject of the sentence, is not literally capable of doing the action in the verb "interprets." The Bible is a book, and a book cannot do things or perform actions. It just sits there and WE do the action or interpreting WITH MATERIALS that come from within the Bible.
The word "itself" in the sentence refers to those internal materials that WE use when WE do the interpreting.
Get out the hip waders, it's starting to get deep.
Let's just ignore clipped English.
So then wanting us to take PLAF, you wanted us to take a class that had inaccuracies in it. As Saint Vic himself claimed the bible interprets itself.
You mean you forgot the bible interprets itself in the context and how the word was used before?
And just what do you think the remonstrance is about? The very thing in your definition, they just stated it the way it's stated in the class.
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
I think I agree with all you just wrote.
Paul was describing the quality of natural men found in Israel, but the same spiritless condition afflicts natural man outside Israel as well.
I realize NONE of the old man nature vanishes with the new birth, but what changes with the new birth is the ability to rise above that spiritless nature, AT TIMES.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Almost all of the brain people I learn from do podcasts now, and have a bunch of You-Tube videos.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
What have they done for you personally? How have you come out better?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I have undergone a series of major changes in my approach to science. I feel I was in error for 45 years on how the brain works. I had idolized it up to a place God had not intended, and it was atheist scientists who straightened me out on this. I was placing soul in the spiritual realm, when Biblically it is in the physical realm. This change was both humbling and exhilarating. It started in 1995 and took 20 years, but by 2015 I was solidly on the other side and writing what I posted here.
THEN, from all that I worked on this I am impressed with how much persistence plays in free will. It's like we are the Tin Man in Oz, and we seek that free will, and with persistence can find it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
technically addressing how the brain works and how the mind works involves different disciplines - with some overlap
Your statement doesn’t make sense. You're saying God didn’t intend for you to idolize the brain – but it was atheists - people who disbelieve or who lack belief in the existence of God or gods – they are the ones who straightened you out on this?
au contraire Scripture uses “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably:
New International Version
“Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. John 12:27
Whereas in a very similar context in next chapter Jesus is said to be unsettled in the spirit:
New International Version
After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, “Very truly I tell you, one of you is going to betray me.” John 13:21
~ ~ ~ ~
t death, Scripture says either the “soul” or the “spirit” departs:
King James Bible
And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin. Genesis 35:18
New International Version
Into your hands I commit my spirit; deliver me, LORD, my faithful God. Psalm 31:5
Man is said to either “body and soul” or “body and spirit”:
New International Version
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:28
New International Version
hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord. I Corinthians 5:5
And Paul said that purging ourselves from defilement of the soul or spirit takes care of the metaphysical part of our life:
New International Version
But if Christ is in you, then even though your body is subject to death because of sin, the Spirit gives life because of righteousness. Romans 8:10
New International Version
For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is. Colossians 2:5
~ ~ ~ ~
Since they appear to be synonymous, it is said that either soul or spirit can sin:
New International Version
Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God. II Corinthians 7:1
New International Version
and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I Corinthians 7:34
English Standard Version
Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. Acts 17: 16
~ ~ ~ ~
And note the transcendent / immanent Holy Spirit affirms with our spirit – it implies our mind knows:
New International Version
The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Romans 8:16
well good for you
During their journey to see the Wizard of Oz, the Tin Man, the Lion, and the Scarecrow HAD ALREADY exhibited the qualities they thought they need to acquire from the Wizard of Oz…it was little Toto (the barking critter one not the rock band
) that pulled back the curtain and exposed the faker. What was cool was that the Wizard now exposed ( metaphorically – his morally corrupt nature was revealed…not literally expose himself like some sexual predator would do in a motor coach 
) repented over his con and affirmed they already demonstrated that which they thought they lacked…
sorry to inform you of your misfire if you haven't realized where this is going with your OZ analogy:
The sales pitch that suckers people into taking PFAL is a lie because the PFAL class actually sabotages whatever cognitive skills the new student may have already developed.
It takes a brainwashed individual to believe 4 were crucified with Jesus Christ
it takes one mindlessly absorbing a dumb-as-dirt ideology to believe the Bible interprets itself.
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
"Superstar scientists"
Kinda like a knock-knock joke, but not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Ok I’ll take that as an honest answer to my question.
Regarding how the brain works is pretty complex. Most technology advancements we have today model only one aspect of the brain. Like fast compute. Or memory. Or picture recognition.
One answer is it is a complex bio electrical machine. Also a human muscle. An unending topic of science to explore.
And it’s a reasonable Bullshonta detector if it’s not too bound up with categorization like attempting to separate soul and spirit. If you immerse a detector in the Bullshonta it detects nothing because there is no basis for comparison.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
This is why the Bible does not intrepret itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Now THAT makes sense. Whereas, Mike's arguments are shallow and simplistic, at best.
Edited by RockyI can appreciate that Mike has taken a lifelong learning approach and attitude on some things.
However, it's still overwhelmingly clear he has serious blind spots. Additionally, listening to podcasts may not approach the level of depth necessary for him to either understand the subject inherently, or to communicate what he might actually know with clarity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That was a very small sample of Harari Yuval that you got that quote from.
That quote was very general, and could apply to dozens of scientific situations.
That makes sense in lots of situations.
I have seen other quotes from him, and he strongly denied belief in free will, but that is probably Libertaian FW. I suspect he also strongly believes no other form of FW can exist.
ALSO, he is strongly aligned with one of those globalist billionaires, but I forget which one. His focus is political, and he uses philosophy and science to forge ahead with a political agenda. For these reasons I pay him almost no attention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You pay him no attention, but you make allegations without being able to back up your claims. THAT takes it outside the boundaries of acceptable on GSC.
His focus, if you had read Sapiens, is history. And he's hella smarter than me or you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
While I encourage people continuing to learn throughout their lives, and studying informally while they live, it's not the same as getting a degree. You've looked up some science, but you're neither a degreed scientist nor in their weight class. I still remember your passing explanation of something that included an error so big that even Schoolhouse Rock didn't make it. But, if you have to tell yourself you really DO have all the science mastered, then never mind, go right ahead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Israel didn't exist as a nation by the time Paul penned Romans. Israel, after the kingodom split, was carried away by Assyria and dispersed amongst the gentile nations. God literally did a writ of divorce against them and they never went back to their homeland. (correct me where I am wrong...going from memory here) The southern Kingdom was comprised of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and they were conquered by the Babylonian Empire and Babylon was conquered by the Persians. It was under Persian rule that they were allowed to go back and rebuild the temple. Persia was in turn conquered by Alexander the Great and rulership fell to four of Alexander's main generals. Then along came the Romans and in Pauls time they lived in the province of Judea. It was during these dispersions that Synagogues rose to prominence and scribes became instrumental in gaurding the scrolls because at one point it all came down to a set of scrolls that were found and those were the last known copes..i digress.
When he references Israel he is including all of Israel, so it wasn't people found in a geographical boundary necessarily but included those dispersed amongst the gentile nation from the 10 northern tribes. Jesus Christ was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Israel has forgotten it's identity and mostly is no longer Israel.
So Romans speaks to the gentile nations as being seperate from Mosaic law and then Israel as trying to live the righteousness of the law. Both groups are told to live by faith and accept the righteousness that comes from being identified with Jesus Christ - being born from above, being born again. Obviously there is overlap because some Israelis of biblical Israel adopted the gentiles paganism and are treated as gentiles. Some kept the law.
Im not trying to beat on you with semantics. Im just showing you that the Bible does not just intrepret itself.
There really wasn't another dispersion of Judeans/Israel until the first century. With the rebellion surrounding Masada by the Zealots, Jerusalem was leveled. It was during/after the Bar Kohba revolt that Hadrian joined the Province of Judea with Galilee and called it Syria Palestinia. (sentence quoted from wikipedia) There was a dispersion during this period as well. But this was well after Romans/Hebrews and other letters were written to dispersed Israel and thos tribes Galilee/Judea.
Are you starting to see a tie in with the great mystery including the nations into the promises made to Israel? While some gentiles who are born again are not of the bloodlines of Israel some are. And who know who they are. Only God. So all of Israel shall be saved. The nations are rolled up into the mix as well and here you see the brilliance of the great mystery. Its not so we can walk around and scream about Christ in me with a capitol C on our chests.
We agree on many points though. The main point of Romans is ALL are under sin and ALL are in need of a savior.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Yes I have seen such screaming.
For myself, I try to maintain the attitude of service, and not stature, except when facing the adversary. That is when we should walk about and proudly insist the adversary deals with the Christ in us.
When we face humans in need (everyone), then we walk about with the attitude of service, because we know we can effectively serve.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I don't get the phobia here about the Bible interpreting itself. Why is that such a difficult idea?
Is it because the phrase CAN sound like the Bible mechanically and uniquely unravels all by itself, without any work or insight on our part? Does "Bible interpreting itself" sound like too objective a process, or too easy, when there are actually some subjective turns in working the Word?
What is all the fuss about the Bible interpreting itself?
It is definitely figurative language, and not literal. Is that the problem?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And who did Saint Vic serve besides little Saint Vic?
My point being: you chose a bad example to teach you what serving other people meant.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You guessed wrong. My first examples of service were the two brothers and their mom who hosted the first twig I went to. I was never around VPW long enough to get to know him. I got to know Uncle Harry, though, and he was a great servant. I did have the chance to hang out with him some. I never got into long distance admiration except for girls when I was in Jr High.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Cause it's not true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Did I now?
Were they "lovingly" condescending like God toward his children? An attitude you seem to think somehow fits into service. Where did that idea come from?
You don't have to be around him to pick up his attitude, you only need to know his image.
Was he more focused on his needs than the people he was supposedly serving?
Really?! Sometimes it seems all you have for Saint Vic is long distance admiration.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
This is an old trick, let's just claim it's figurative language, then we can get people to accept it.
In the Way, at least the last time I was there, the bible interprets itself was a literal concept.
Refresh my memory, how many hours of the class did Saint Vic spent trying to prove this very thing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
It still is. Mike's moving the boundaries again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think you’re projecting.
I am not afraid of you believing a nonsensical idea.
It’s a free country – praise the nonsensical idol of PFAL!!!!
There’s nothing difficult about it
It’s absurdity to the Advanced Class degree of pretentiousness rounded off to the nearest PFAL-in-the-Box !!!!!!!
No.
wierwille used the phrase to obfuscate the fact that HE was slipping in HIS interpretation of a passage – along with the subliminal idea that this is the only way this passage can be understood – see that’s how the Bible interprets itself.
Now you’re attempting to further confuse everyone.
If the Bible were a person interpreting (explaining) his/her self to YOU – it’s not an objective process – it’s an independent process from YOU interpreting the person; they’re doing it and NOT YOU. Do you read this stuff out loud to yourself before you post it?
YOU are the one that is making all the fuss about an absolutely asinine idea!
Mike, you say some really stupid things – that’s the real problem! You can’t seem to argue your way out of a paper bag.
Language is used widely when conversing… Popeye
~ ~ ~ ~
For the folks at home, “following” this nonsense:
Literal and figurative language is a distinction within some fields of language analysis, in particular stylistics, rhetoric, and semantics.
Literal language uses words exactly according to their conventionally accepted meanings or denotation.
Figurative (or non-literal) language uses words in a way that deviates from their conventionally accepted definitions in order to convey a more complicated meaning or heightened effect. Figurative language is often created by presenting words in such a way that they are equated, compared, or associated with normally unrelated meanings.
Literal usage confers meaning to words, in the sense of the meaning they have by themselves, outside any figure of speech. It maintains a consistent meaning regardless of the context, with the intended meaning corresponding exactly to the meaning of the individual words. On the contrary, figurative use of language is the use of words or phrases that implies a non-literal meaning which does make sense or that could [also] be true.
Aristotle and later the Roman Quintilian were among the early analysts of rhetoric who expounded on the differences between literal and figurative language.
from: Literal and figurative language - Wikipedia
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I have NEVER taken it to be literal.
Edited by MikeThe Bible interprets itself.
The Bible, as the subject of the sentence, is not literally capable of doing the action in the verb "interprets." The Bible is a book, and a book cannot do things or perform actions. It just sits there and WE do the action or interpreting WITH MATERIALS that come from within the Bible.
The word "itself" in the sentence refers to those internal materials that WE use when WE do the interpreting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Get out the hip waders, it's starting to get deep.
Let's just ignore clipped English.
So then wanting us to take PLAF, you wanted us to take a class that had inaccuracies in it. As Saint Vic himself claimed the bible interprets itself.
You mean you forgot the bible interprets itself in the context and how the word was used before?
And just what do you think the remonstrance is about? The very thing in your definition, they just stated it the way it's stated in the class.
Edited by So_cratesLink 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.