I don't believe God lies, and I believe He operates by rules we can't fathom. "My ways are not your ways..." is written.
Now the laws of physics are an interesting matter for you to bring up.
We could talk a long time about this, but I'll keep it brief.
I see the laws of physics as man-made approximations of the physical side of God's setup, which is the natural, 5-senses side, and that these man-made laws are completely blind to the spiritual realm. It is a wonder, though, how much we CAN get to know of this side.
But we only get to know tiny glimpses of the spiritual side. And these glimpses would have to come from, and fit with the scriptures.
I am proposing in this thread that one such glimpse could be what I have described as a limitation on the interventions between the physical and the spiritual, for the purpose of limiting the devil’s ability to mess things up and hurt people.
The limitation can be seen (if you squint a little) in two patterns, which are lightly sprinkled in scripture.
The first pattern is the limitation on the amount of “spiritualities” can flow through an intervention.Don’t ask me what the spiritualities are or mean. Answers like that are not in this glimpse.Like when Elisha asked Elisha for a double portion of spirit, what the heck does THAT mean???We don’t know. The scriptures don’t tell us that, but they do want us to know about the double whammy part.And please don’t ask me what whammies are. The scripture pattern of this is seen in the uses of finite measures, like Elisha did in his request.
The second pattern is the limitation on the time that the “whatevertheyare” can flow by way of the intervention.The scripture pattern of this limitation is double spikes on a flat background on the timeline.
*/*/*
Personally, I get a sense of “flow” from the root “vent” in the word “intervention.”
The first pattern I have not supplied any scriptures for, except the Elisha one just now.They are coming. I just wanted to respond to some comments, and then I will get back to converting them from unreadable to readable.
The second pattern I did supply, and it keeps growing. I found another addition today.
*/*/*
It really is funny how committed you are to rejecting this hunch of mine, even before the first batch of scriptures you and the others were committed.Not just gently biased against it, but fully committed.LoLIt put on a good show for the Read-Only Audience at home, who happen to favor this hunch.
Then I posted my first list, and there was not the tiniest dent in the total bias, with more pure rejection of every point.LoL
I’m laughing, but not surprised, because that is why I brought it here. I knew I’d get a maximally critical audience. This would be the acid test of my hunch. This way I get to see where my argument is weak and where it’s strong.I learn which ways of expressing things works better.
Did you notice that I didn’t use the two analogy words “doors” or “budget” at all in my descriptions of the two patterns a few paragraphs above?You had attached a lot of your bias commitment on those two words, so I thought I’d try another approach.
I wanted to respond to as many comments as I could today.In bits and pieces I am getting the second list of scriptures ready to post.
Two mental patterns “lightly sprinkled” with scriptures.
And sliding terminology to counteract “bias”.
Sure after the hundredth wild goose chase and off the wall mental philosophy maybe your audience is reluctant to get on that roller coaster ride?
The whole thing smacks of Martindale explaining how mans downfall in Eden was due to homosexuality?
"Can you see it? No? Too bad. I do. Ha ha hahahahaha!"
Well, maybe you will see these two patterns, IF you actually look at them. The bias to bash really is disabling for subtle patterns like these.
BTW, one of the lists is still not posted. You seem to be gearing your mind to reject it before I post it.
I think the next funniest thing would be if you or someone else here was to say they can be an unbiased judge. I'm waiting for someone to imply or even state that.
Well, maybe you will see these two patterns, IF you actually look at them. The bias to bash really is disabling for subtle patterns like these.
BTW, one of the lists is still not posted. You seem to be gearing your mind to reject it before I post it.
I think the next funniest thing would be if you or someone else here was to say they can be an unbiased judge. I'm waiting for someone to imply or even state that.
...you keep harping on Job 1 & 2 as depicting a modern-day legal courtroom scene with God as judge and the devil as prosecutor – and you seem to think that is an accurate glimpse into the spiritual realm. I’ve pointed it out to you several times – here and on other threads – the culturalism in Job, depicts a divine council ( a common concept in many ancient cultures) – like the account in I Kings 22 that I shared earlier. The idea is there’s all these deities having a supernatural meeting / conference. The ancient Hebrews adapted that to their religion – so Yahweh is always depicted as the head deity…most high God…the most powerful God over all other divine beings.
I don't buy this shell game at all. You are forgetting that our modern courtrooms are based on the Biblical backgrounds that things like the law of Moses and the courtroom scene in Job. Jesus also helped built this template for our culture with his parable about the widow who repeatedly petitioned a judge.
I think it is right and proper to look at Job as portraying a reluctant judge, who fights for Job and ultimately wins. What other interpretation IS there?
Well, maybe you will see these two patterns, IF you actually look at them. The bias to bash really is disabling for subtle patterns like these.
Maybe if you weren't so intellectually dishonest you'd see where you're off base. Changing definitions of words and filtering facts on the subject by tagging them "anti-cherry" smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
13 minutes ago, Mike said:
BTW, one of the lists is still not posted. You seem to be gearing your mind to reject it before I post it.
As you geared to reject our criticisms before they were posted? Witness how you refused to change "budget" and "two doors" even though they were proven confusing.
13 minutes ago, Mike said:
I think the next funniest thing would be if you or someone else here was to say they can be an unbiased judge. I'm waiting for someone to imply or even state that.
I find it hilarious that you whine about how Martindale and the Corps Nazis ruined the ministry, then you turn around and act just like them.
On this topic, my hunch, I am 60% happy with the idea; happy enough to invest time into it. But with 40% uncertainty, I am always prepared to junk the idea.
I don't buy this shell game at all. You are forgetting that our modern courtrooms are based on the Biblical backgrounds that things like the law of Moses and the courtroom scene in Job. Jesus also helped built this template for our culture with his parable about the widow who repeatedly petitioned a judge.
I think it is right and proper to look at Job as portraying a reluctant judge, who fights for Job and ultimately wins. What other interpretation IS there?
You’re still conflating ideas. Many legal systems and laws have their origin in the Mosaic law. but the motif in Job 1 & 2 resembles a council meeting of dignitaries - with Yahweh presiding over the meeting.
It fails to read as a courtroom scene with God as judge and Satan as prosecutor - because it’s missing some key elements of a court case - such as the existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff, the defendant's breach of that duty, the plaintiff's sufferance of an injury, proof that the defendant's breach caused the injury (typically defined through proximate cause).
On this topic, my hunch, I am 60% happy with the idea; happy enough to invest time into it. But with 40% uncertainty, I am always prepared to junk the idea.
Sure you are. Like you were ready to junk "budget" and "two doors" even though they were proven confusing?
Well, maybe you will see these two patterns, IF you actually look at them. The bias to bash really is disabling for subtle patterns like these.
BTW, one of the lists is still not posted. You seem to be gearing your mind to reject it before I post it.
I think the next funniest thing would be if you or someone else here was to say they can be an unbiased judge. I'm waiting for someone to imply or even state that.
43 minutes ago, Mike said:
There is no "maybe" about it. The active POSTING audience, we all know, is practiced and poised to poke holes in anything I say.
On the other hand - many of your theories are untenable - and you’re mischaracterizing the Socratic method as a bias by others…you’ve had MANY opportunities to provide evidence to support your suppositions - but you have a PATTERN of dodging and redirecting the discussion -
if you have something that is truly of merit it should be able to stand up to the toughest close scrutiny…
this is such a disappointment- when shown you are wrong or negligent in providing evidence for your theory - you whine and complain people are biased - and you seem to shrink from ever admitting you’re wrong…or just say you’ve got the info somewhere…maybe that’s your way of admitting you’re ill-prepared - and that’s okay - but don’t criticize others for inadvertently proving you are merely offering up some half-baked bull-$hit - I want that bull-$hit fully cooked!
17 minutes ago, Mike said:
On this topic, my hunch, I am 60% happy with the idea; happy enough to invest time into it. But with 40% uncertainty, I am always prepared to junk the idea.
The percentage of your happiness is irrelevant to validation
I find it hilarious that you whine about how Martindale and the Corps Nazis ruined the ministry, then you turn around and act just like them.
Funny and sad. Martindale, Corps and Corps Nazis are of the seed of victor paul wierwille. There is no Corps or Martindale without victor paul wierwille. PERIOD.
I've read accounts from people who knew LCM before he was inseminated by vpw. The difference is a white-heart-black-heart kind of difference. LCM, the Corps, and everyone else were spiritually raped by vpw.
Even the hippies of Rye and the House of Acts were spiritually raped by victor's wicked phallus. I wonder how far they might have gone. I wonder what kind of continued impact they might have had, if they had not been stolen by the thief who came to steal, kill and destroy.
49 minutes ago, So_crates said:
How unbiased are you?
Mike has admitted on other threads that bias is a good thing. He has also admitted to not understanding confirmation bias. He has admitted to clutching and clinging to his bias. He beleeves in his bias.
I think the next funniest thing would be if you or someone else here was to say they can be an unbiased judge. I'm waiting for someone to imply or even state that.
No one here is likely to imply or state that, mostly because it isn't even a reasonable request.
However, I can easily be a FAIR judge. I can give positions with which I disagree a fair hearing, and evaluate them on their merits, or lack thereof.
One should expect a FAIR judge. Naturally, a judge can hold an opinion, but that's not the same as requiring any evidence or side otherwise to be changed to match his opinions or even his convictions. A judge should be able to hear all sides FAIRLY, and proceed accordingly.
On the other hand - many of your theories are untenable - and you’re mischaracterizing the Socratic method as a bias by others…you’ve had MANY opportunities to provide evidence to support your suppositions - but you have a PATTERN of dodging and redirecting the discussion -
if you have something that is truly of merit it should be able to stand up to the toughest close scrutiny…
this is such a disappointment- when shown you are wrong or negligent in providing evidence for your theory - you whine and complain people are biased - and you seem to shrink from ever admitting you’re wrong…or just say you’ve got the info somewhere…maybe that’s your way of admitting you’re ill-prepared - and that’s okay - but don’t criticize others for inadvertently proving you are merely offering up some half-baked bull-$hit - I want that bull-$hit fully cooked!
The percentage of your happiness is irrelevant to validation
Sorry to be so absent.
There were a few posts I wanted to respond to from last week.
[][][][][][][][][][][[][[][[][[][[]
On 3/10/2023 at 8:33 AM, I had written: On this topic, my hunch, I am 60% happy with the idea; happy enough to invest time into it. But with 40% uncertainty, I am always prepared to junk the idea.
So_crates Posted Friday at 08:37 AM: Sure you are. Like you were ready to junk "budget" and "two doors" even though they were proven confusing?
Those labels were of serendipitous origin some 45 years ago, and I have no special interest in them. But if I were to use them again, I would introduce them later in the presentation, and make it clear up-front that they were only rough analogies.
[][][][][][][][][][][[][[][[][[][[]
T-Bone Posted Friday at 08:50 AM: …if you have something that is truly of merit it should be able to stand up to the toughest close scrutiny… this is such a disappointment- when shown you are wrong or negligent in providing evidence for your theory - you whine and complain people are biased - and you seem to shrink from ever admitting you’re wrong…
Well, the reason I brought the budget/doors idea here to GSC was for the toughest of scrutiny.
I wasn’t whining or complaining about the bias that goes along with that scrutiny… just laughing at it, and how it causes people to almost look for ways to misunderstand me, and how the bias is probably invisible to you all. But that’s ok.I expected it.
And BTW, I may very well be wrong on this “budget/door” idea.
Compared to other projects of mine, this theory has gotten very little, to zero attention from me over the years. I would just occasionally throw small pieces of paper with small notes or scriptures scribbled on them into my folder for decades, without ever looking at the contents of the folder.
This budget/doors idea was very much unlike my "free will" theory, which got worked on daily on several other Facebook websites for years. Also this latest idea is unlike my NT Canon thread, because my old 1970s Canon folder got lots of attention as I worked it with Walter, Bernita, and a few others way back then.
I may be wrong on this budget/doors idea.
So far, I was disappointed with the first scripture list on Double Doors. I was expecting my pile of small scraps of paper to be a longer list, but many of them proved to be unusable (so far) due to being pretty cryptic, or too loose with associations.I was using my critical thinking tools (CTT) on them, and many failed the tests. Maybe I am forgetting some elements in some, and will someday remember them. Some of them may be suddenly understood in the future, if I keep working the topic, so the list may grow.
The second list on the Budgeting side (so far un-posted) seems to be going the same way, and maybe worse.But I have culled out the best entries, though few in number, for posting soon.
If I have to withdraw the idea, I can handle that.
Thank you for your patience.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][[][][][][][[]
Nathan_Jr Posted Friday at 09:04 AM: Mike has admitted on other threads that bias is a good thing. He has also admitted to not understanding confirmation bias. He has admitted to clutching and clinging to his bias. He beleeves in his bias.
As for not understanding confirmation bias, what I don’t understand is how you do not understand the proper use of confirmation bias.You are a one-trick-pony here with your critical thinking tools, or CTTs for short.
I admit that I have a proPFAL bias at times and in places. It was very consciously constructed in 1998 after many years of deliberation back and forth.
My 1998 decision was to stop searching primarily for truth, and switch over to searching for discipline in applying the truths that I had found so far.My deliberate proPFAL bias was not an impulsive emotional reaction to events in my life.It was not the result of extremely negative experiences or trauma.
As a result I am able to switch my proPFAL bias off at times.
This is useful to do when it is necessary for me to not be blind to what someone else is saying.Sometimes the proper way for me to deal with a person, who was hurt in the TWI machinery and/or any individuals, is to drop my proPFAL bias, because it can blind me to the details in their story.
My good experiences in early TWI-1 can blind me to the bad experiences of people who only saw TWI-2 and TWI-3.This has been a slow lesson for me to learn these years, but the last 6 or 8 months have stepped up the pace, as I have been reading a lot of the archives lately.
*/*/*
Of course, I cannot lightly or rightly ask for a suspension of said GSC biases.
I suspect the antiPFAL biased attitudes held and maintained here are not so flexible as to be turned off at will, because they are rather emotion and trauma driven, both first-hand and second. It is understandable to me that people in that category get a bad taste from thinking through the possibility that individual items taught us in PFAL were of God, and worth embracing and being thankful for.
*/*/*
My proPFAL bias is useful for confirmation.
Having confirmation is a good thing at times, assuming that what is being confirmed is true.
In the law of believing, as Jesus instructed, having any doubt in the heart negates the proper operation of that law. I think that “believing without doubt” is a very fine-tuned state of mind.I think this kind of genuine believing often eluded us, and we were content with mental assent.
I seek and find confirmations that help me to believe without doubt and act on the promises of God.Becoming convinced, through diligent use of CTTs that these promises are genuine and worth believing without doubt was a finished job for me in 1998. In the 1970s I started the process of using CTTs to wade through the baloney in the world and in the TVTs. After a few ups and downs I arrived at the end of this process in 1998.I no longer feel a need to apply CTTs to the collaterals.
*/*/*
How do you get rid of all doubts when you want to believe something?
Do you use something else, instead of seeking confirmation, to rid your mind of doubts.
Did it occur to you, when in TWI, that purging the mind of doubts is important in genuine believing? I don't remember the ministry teaching the "no doubt" thing very much, but whenever I'd go to the Gospels for learning, the "no doubt" thing would stand out as important.
*/*/*
Having good critical thinking tools, CTTs, is a good thing. There is a proper time for exercising CTT, and it is when you are seeking something worth believing in a forest of false trees. Separating truth out from lots of surrounding error is the time for using CTTs.
Once that truth is found, then it is time to believe that truth, and believe it with no doubt. When it is time to believe, that is NOT the time for critical thinking tools. They should have been used long before, in the selecting of what you wanted to believe sans-doubt.
If youever get to the point that I got to in 1998, then you have got to put your CTTs aside and work on confirming your beliefs.Catholics even have a sacrament for this called Confirmation. Confirmation is a good thing if it is confirming the truth.
How do you confirm your beliefs with all those CTTs cluttering your mind?In essence, CTTs are really TOOLS OF SYSTEMATIC DOUBT.How do you believe the truth with no doubt with CTTs constantly on your mind?You can’t.
*/*/*
Academia says a seeker cannot really find the pure truth or truths, and a big rule in academia is that CTTs are always necessary. Academia does not recognize that there are truths worth believing to the extent of eradicating all doubts. Academia is wrong here.
*/*/*
So critical thinking tools are basically doubt tools. They are tools for systematic doubt. Which is good to do if you are surrounded in sea of fraud and error and deception.Your CRTs are good for filtering out the good from the bad.
Then once you find the truth, you should want to apply different tools to confirm it, to make that truth stick in your mind.Once you know it’s the truth, then you should really have it set solid in your life so that you don’t flinch on it.. and that’s called confirmation.
And when you seek confirmation, then you need to have to have a bias towards finding it. Otherwise you won’t find much of it.
*/*/*
Do you apply your CTTs to things that are presented here?
I suspect many here do not, and swallow whatever is posted that is antiPFAL, antiVPW, etc.
With those items, activities here more resemble sports rivalries than academic pursuits.
You can't defuse my arguments by saying I got them from VPW. I worked a lot of these things for 50 years with my KJV and I don't care what theology says.
I found these quotes embedded in the Wiki article on confirmation bias. I love Russian literature, and these two sentences from Tolstoy articulate with such exquisite eloquence the inherent problem of confirmation bias.
In his essay (1897) What Is Art?, Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy wrote:
I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.
In his essay (1894) The Kingdom of God Is Within You, Tolstoy had earlier written:
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
358
229
215
220
Popular Days
Mar 4
144
May 2
83
Apr 29
77
Mar 5
70
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 358 posts
So_crates 229 posts
OldSkool 215 posts
Nathan_Jr 220 posts
Popular Days
Mar 4 2023
144 posts
May 2 2023
83 posts
Apr 29 2023
77 posts
Mar 5 2023
70 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
I believe that the real deal is possible and the path toward it is to address and correct all the doctrinal and practical error introduced by VPs box top doctorate research. isolation from other
chockfull
The Corps is a necessary cult element providing free labor at the expense of volunteers lives. Any imagery like the Marines promotes extremist behavior. No other Christian seminary or school use
Nathan_Jr
"Teaching" Romans to the Corps, Q&A: LCM: How much does your behavior that people do not see influence your example to them? VPW: It doesn't, unless you believe it will. LCM: You u
Posted Images
chockfull
Two mental patterns “lightly sprinkled” with scriptures.
And sliding terminology to counteract “bias”.
Sure after the hundredth wild goose chase and off the wall mental philosophy maybe your audience is reluctant to get on that roller coaster ride?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe you could start with the collaterals? I've heard everything you need to know is in them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I definitely am.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I definitely am.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, maybe you will see these two patterns, IF you actually look at them. The bias to bash really is disabling for subtle patterns like these.
BTW, one of the lists is still not posted. You seem to be gearing your mind to reject it before I post it.
I think the next funniest thing would be if you or someone else here was to say they can be an unbiased judge. I'm waiting for someone to imply or even state that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
You heard wrong.
It's everything you need to get started in really reading the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Is this called building dramatic tension ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
There is no "maybe" about it. The active POSTING audience, we all know, is practiced and poised to poke holes in anything I say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I don't buy this shell game at all. You are forgetting that our modern courtrooms are based on the Biblical backgrounds that things like the law of Moses and the courtroom scene in Job. Jesus also helped built this template for our culture with his parable about the widow who repeatedly petitioned a judge.
I think it is right and proper to look at Job as portraying a reluctant judge, who fights for Job and ultimately wins. What other interpretation IS there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Really? I must have missed that part.
HERE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Maybe if you weren't so intellectually dishonest you'd see where you're off base. Changing definitions of words and filtering facts on the subject by tagging them "anti-cherry" smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
As you geared to reject our criticisms before they were posted? Witness how you refused to change "budget" and "two doors" even though they were proven confusing.
I find it hilarious that you whine about how Martindale and the Corps Nazis ruined the ministry, then you turn around and act just like them.
How unbiased are you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
That's because you make it so easy. Stevie Wonder could see the glaring errors in the half baked theories you post.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
On this topic, my hunch, I am 60% happy with the idea; happy enough to invest time into it. But with 40% uncertainty, I am always prepared to junk the idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You’re still conflating ideas. Many legal systems and laws have their origin in the Mosaic law. but the motif in Job 1 & 2 resembles a council meeting of dignitaries - with Yahweh presiding over the meeting.
It fails to read as a courtroom scene with God as judge and Satan as prosecutor - because it’s missing some key elements of a court case - such as the existence of a legal duty that the defendant owed to the plaintiff, the defendant's breach of that duty, the plaintiff's sufferance of an injury, proof that the defendant's breach caused the injury (typically defined through proximate cause).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Sure you are. Like you were ready to junk "budget" and "two doors" even though they were proven confusing?
Now tell me the one with the three bears.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I do not believe this statement and since you introduced it please provide historical documentation that what you say is true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
On the other hand - many of your theories are untenable - and you’re mischaracterizing the Socratic method as a bias by others…you’ve had MANY opportunities to provide evidence to support your suppositions - but you have a PATTERN of dodging and redirecting the discussion -
if you have something that is truly of merit it should be able to stand up to the toughest close scrutiny…
this is such a disappointment- when shown you are wrong or negligent in providing evidence for your theory - you whine and complain people are biased - and you seem to shrink from ever admitting you’re wrong…or just say you’ve got the info somewhere…maybe that’s your way of admitting you’re ill-prepared - and that’s okay - but don’t criticize others for inadvertently proving you are merely offering up some half-baked bull-$hit - I want that bull-$hit fully cooked!
The percentage of your happiness is irrelevant to validation
Edited by T-BoneClarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Funny and sad. Martindale, Corps and Corps Nazis are of the seed of victor paul wierwille. There is no Corps or Martindale without victor paul wierwille. PERIOD.
I've read accounts from people who knew LCM before he was inseminated by vpw. The difference is a white-heart-black-heart kind of difference. LCM, the Corps, and everyone else were spiritually raped by vpw.
Even the hippies of Rye and the House of Acts were spiritually raped by victor's wicked phallus. I wonder how far they might have gone. I wonder what kind of continued impact they might have had, if they had not been stolen by the thief who came to steal, kill and destroy.
Mike has admitted on other threads that bias is a good thing. He has also admitted to not understanding confirmation bias. He has admitted to clutching and clinging to his bias. He beleeves in his bias.
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
And whose fault is that?
you are the author of your reputation
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
No one here is likely to imply or state that, mostly because it isn't even a reasonable request.
However, I can easily be a FAIR judge. I can give positions with which I disagree a fair hearing, and evaluate them on their merits, or lack thereof.
One should expect a FAIR judge. Naturally, a judge can hold an opinion, but that's not the same as requiring any evidence or side otherwise to be changed to match his opinions or even his convictions. A judge should be able to hear all sides FAIRLY, and proceed accordingly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Sorry to be so absent.
There were a few posts I wanted to respond to from last week.
[][][][][][][][][][][[][[][[][[][[]
On 3/10/2023 at 8:33 AM, I had written:
On this topic, my hunch, I am 60% happy with the idea; happy enough to invest time into it. But with 40% uncertainty, I am always prepared to junk the idea.
So_crates Posted Friday at 08:37 AM:
Sure you are. Like you were ready to junk "budget" and "two doors" even though they were proven confusing?
Those labels were of serendipitous origin some 45 years ago, and I have no special interest in them. But if I were to use them again, I would introduce them later in the presentation, and make it clear up-front that they were only rough analogies.
[][][][][][][][][][][[][[][[][[][[]
T-Bone Posted Friday at 08:50 AM:
…if you have something that is truly of merit it should be able to stand up to the toughest close scrutiny… this is such a disappointment- when shown you are wrong or negligent in providing evidence for your theory - you whine and complain people are biased - and you seem to shrink from ever admitting you’re wrong…
Well, the reason I brought the budget/doors idea here to GSC was for the toughest of scrutiny.
I wasn’t whining or complaining about the bias that goes along with that scrutiny… just laughing at it, and how it causes people to almost look for ways to misunderstand me, and how the bias is probably invisible to you all. But that’s ok. I expected it.
And BTW, I may very well be wrong on this “budget/door” idea.
Compared to other projects of mine, this theory has gotten very little, to zero attention from me over the years. I would just occasionally throw small pieces of paper with small notes or scriptures scribbled on them into my folder for decades, without ever looking at the contents of the folder.
This budget/doors idea was very much unlike my "free will" theory, which got worked on daily on several other Facebook websites for years. Also this latest idea is unlike my NT Canon thread, because my old 1970s Canon folder got lots of attention as I worked it with Walter, Bernita, and a few others way back then.
I may be wrong on this budget/doors idea.
So far, I was disappointed with the first scripture list on Double Doors. I was expecting my pile of small scraps of paper to be a longer list, but many of them proved to be unusable (so far) due to being pretty cryptic, or too loose with associations. I was using my critical thinking tools (CTT) on them, and many failed the tests. Maybe I am forgetting some elements in some, and will someday remember them. Some of them may be suddenly understood in the future, if I keep working the topic, so the list may grow.
The second list on the Budgeting side (so far un-posted) seems to be going the same way, and maybe worse. But I have culled out the best entries, though few in number, for posting soon.
If I have to withdraw the idea, I can handle that.
Thank you for your patience.
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][[][][][][][[]
Nathan_Jr Posted Friday at 09:04 AM:
Mike has admitted on other threads that bias is a good thing. He has also admitted to not understanding confirmation bias. He has admitted to clutching and clinging to his bias. He beleeves in his bias.
As for not understanding confirmation bias, what I don’t understand is how you do not understand the proper use of confirmation bias. You are a one-trick-pony here with your critical thinking tools, or CTTs for short.
I admit that I have a proPFAL bias at times and in places. It was very consciously constructed in 1998 after many years of deliberation back and forth.
My 1998 decision was to stop searching primarily for truth, and switch over to searching for discipline in applying the truths that I had found so far. My deliberate proPFAL bias was not an impulsive emotional reaction to events in my life. It was not the result of extremely negative experiences or trauma.
As a result I am able to switch my proPFAL bias off at times.
This is useful to do when it is necessary for me to not be blind to what someone else is saying. Sometimes the proper way for me to deal with a person, who was hurt in the TWI machinery and/or any individuals, is to drop my proPFAL bias, because it can blind me to the details in their story.
My good experiences in early TWI-1 can blind me to the bad experiences of people who only saw TWI-2 and TWI-3. This has been a slow lesson for me to learn these years, but the last 6 or 8 months have stepped up the pace, as I have been reading a lot of the archives lately.
*/*/*
Of course, I cannot lightly or rightly ask for a suspension of said GSC biases.
I suspect the antiPFAL biased attitudes held and maintained here are not so flexible as to be turned off at will, because they are rather emotion and trauma driven, both first-hand and second. It is understandable to me that people in that category get a bad taste from thinking through the possibility that individual items taught us in PFAL were of God, and worth embracing and being thankful for.
*/*/*
My proPFAL bias is useful for confirmation.
Having confirmation is a good thing at times, assuming that what is being confirmed is true.
In the law of believing, as Jesus instructed, having any doubt in the heart negates the proper operation of that law. I think that “believing without doubt” is a very fine-tuned state of mind. I think this kind of genuine believing often eluded us, and we were content with mental assent.
I seek and find confirmations that help me to believe without doubt and act on the promises of God. Becoming convinced, through diligent use of CTTs that these promises are genuine and worth believing without doubt was a finished job for me in 1998. In the 1970s I started the process of using CTTs to wade through the baloney in the world and in the TVTs. After a few ups and downs I arrived at the end of this process in 1998. I no longer feel a need to apply CTTs to the collaterals.
*/*/*
How do you get rid of all doubts when you want to believe something?
Do you use something else, instead of seeking confirmation, to rid your mind of doubts.
Did it occur to you, when in TWI, that purging the mind of doubts is important in genuine believing? I don't remember the ministry teaching the "no doubt" thing very much, but whenever I'd go to the Gospels for learning, the "no doubt" thing would stand out as important.
*/*/*
Having good critical thinking tools, CTTs, is a good thing. There is a proper time for exercising CTT, and it is when you are seeking something worth believing in a forest of false trees. Separating truth out from lots of surrounding error is the time for using CTTs.
Once that truth is found, then it is time to believe that truth, and believe it with no doubt. When it is time to believe, that is NOT the time for critical thinking tools. They should have been used long before, in the selecting of what you wanted to believe sans-doubt.
If you ever get to the point that I got to in 1998, then you have got to put your CTTs aside and work on confirming your beliefs. Catholics even have a sacrament for this called Confirmation. Confirmation is a good thing if it is confirming the truth.
How do you confirm your beliefs with all those CTTs cluttering your mind? In essence, CTTs are really TOOLS OF SYSTEMATIC DOUBT. How do you believe the truth with no doubt with CTTs constantly on your mind? You can’t.
*/*/*
Academia says a seeker cannot really find the pure truth or truths, and a big rule in academia is that CTTs are always necessary. Academia does not recognize that there are truths worth believing to the extent of eradicating all doubts. Academia is wrong here.
*/*/*
So critical thinking tools are basically doubt tools. They are tools for systematic doubt. Which is good to do if you are surrounded in sea of fraud and error and deception. Your CRTs are good for filtering out the good from the bad.
Then once you find the truth, you should want to apply different tools to confirm it, to make that truth stick in your mind. Once you know it’s the truth, then you should really have it set solid in your life so that you don’t flinch on it.. and that’s called confirmation.
And when you seek confirmation, then you need to have to have a bias towards finding it. Otherwise you won’t find much of it.
*/*/*
Do you apply your CTTs to things that are presented here?
I suspect many here do not, and swallow whatever is posted that is antiPFAL, antiVPW, etc.
With those items, activities here more resemble sports rivalries than academic pursuits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I found these quotes embedded in the Wiki article on confirmation bias. I love Russian literature, and these two sentences from Tolstoy articulate with such exquisite eloquence the inherent problem of confirmation bias.
In his essay (1897) What Is Art?, Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy wrote:
I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.
In his essay (1894) The Kingdom of God Is Within You, Tolstoy had earlier written:
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.
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.