Sorry to be so absent.
There were a few posts I wanted to respond to from last week.
Que pasa? Your read only audience stop giving you attention so you decided to come here and stir the pot, hoping to squeeze out just a little more attention?
8 hours ago, Mike said:
[][][][][][][][][][][[][[][[][[][[]
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.
Yes you do, or you wouldn't be using proven confusing labels 45 years later.
8 hours ago, Mike said:
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.
So you're actually married to the terms, despite their confusion. You know, as a writer you should be concerned with what best gets your idea across. If the term is confusing, it goes. But you amateurs get married to terms and ideas and refuse to let them go?
What you wrote in these last 26 pages makes you unworthy to carry a professional writer's pencil box.
8 hours ago, Mike said:
[][][][][][][][][][][[][[][[][[][[]
Forty-five years?! And the best you can do is come up with a confusing, half baked theory?
If I had to turn in what you wrote on this subject to anybody I'd be ashamed of myself.
In less than 45 years I'd have a paper so professional it put classical writers to shame.
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.
And what if what you're believing is wrong. Because you have no doubt you have no way of rooting out error.
Doubling down on the idiotic is still being idiotic.
8 hours ago, Mike said:
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.
Yawn! Same bs, different day. So again, if you have no doubt how do you recognize the error of such things as realizing "two doors" and "budget" are confusing terms and need to be clarified?
So critical thinking tools are basically doubt tools. They are tools for systematic doubt.
No, they're tools for recognizing when somebody's trying to con you. Like the con you're attempting to perpetuate now.
8 hours ago, Mike said:
Which is good to do if you are surrounded in sea of fraud and error and deception.
You mean like Saint Vic and PLAF?
8 hours ago, Mike said:
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.
Which is what we've done with Saint Vic and PLAF.
8 hours ago, Mike said:
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.
Again, Saint Vic, PLAF.
8 hours ago, Mike said:
*/*/*
Do you apply your CTTs to things that are presented here?
I apply them to everything in my life, including what's here.
8 hours ago, Mike said:
I suspect many here do not, and swallow whatever is posted that is antiPFAL, antiVPW, etc.
Wrong again?
8 hours ago, Mike said:
With those items, activities here more resemble sports rivalries than academic pursuits.
Here is how I know truth from error: truth works. And it doesn't need a dozen excuses why it doesn't work. This is why the law of believing is error.
...since you brought up the NT Canon and free will threads - I must say your lack of communication skills and supportive evidence frustrate me to the point I feel compelled to frequently pester you for clarification and evidence.
Well, I have to admit this budget/doors idea is not so clear, and the evidence is scant compared to the other two threads.
Part of the problem there may have been all the distractions and the fast pace. If you were to comb through them the main idea for each is simple, and there was evidence of sorts supplied.
For the Canon, the main idea was that all through the Bible God entrusted His revelations to people who would get the revelation accurately into written form, and then distribute those writings in a responsible and even guided way. I gave one big example of this from 2 Timothy, but never got around to showing evidence to the same idea in the OT. I may add that someday.
The Free Will thread was a simple idea that I am proposing: our biologically given free will is not as strong as we like to think, and it is not as instantaneous. By analogy, our biological free will is similar to biological muscles, in that they may need exercising to be sufficiently strong, and that the first times through a coordinated effort there may a lot of failures to perform adequately.
But this budget/door idea is not as clear. I was blown away at how both God and the devil were at work simultaneously in the incident with Paul on the road to Damascus. It seemed related to Moses' rod turning into a snake and then the court magicians did the same thing.
The temporary hindrance "suffered" by God's angels in Daniel 9 was another eye-opener. I thought I saw a pattern in those scriptures, and then thought a few more popped up.
I'll post my second list in the budget side soon, and then I may be done with this topic for a while.
The temporary hindrance "suffered" by God's angels in Daniel 9 was another eye-opener. I thought I saw a pattern in those scriptures, and then thought a few more popped up.
Yah, that makes sense.
An all powerful God is going to limit himself because of a gentlemen's agreement he has with a lesser being, a being he knew at the time he made the agreement that would never keep the agreement. Now tell us the one with the three bears.
Further, you still haven't told me how Cain's murdering Able fits into all this. From your rationalizations so far I might extract that the devil did evil, the "door" opened and God refused to pour out a blessing. Now, would God refuse to pour out a blessing?
Well, I have to admit this budget/doors idea is not so clear, and the evidence is scant compared to the other two threads.
I don’t recall you posting evidence on the other threads.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
Part of the problem there may have been all the distractions and the fast pace. If you were to comb through them the main idea for each is simple, and there was evidence of sorts supplied.
For the Canon, the main idea was that all through the Bible God entrusted His revelations to people who would get the revelation accurately into written form, and then distribute those writings in a responsible and even guided way. I gave one big example of this from 2 Timothy, but never got around to showing evidence to the same idea in the OT. Imay add that someday.
That is speculation on your part. I prefer methods that are grounded - disciplines with academic standards, like textual criticism and historical research on the canon of Scripture.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
The Free Will thread was a simple idea that I am proposing: our biologically given free will is not as strong as we like to think, and it is not as instantaneous. By analogy, our biological free will is similar to biological muscles, in that they may need exercising to be sufficiently strong, and that the first times through a coordinated effort there may a lot of failures to perform adequately.
It sounds like you’re talking about willpower…most of my problems are due to laziness or lack of self-control.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
But this budget/door idea is not as clear. I was blown away at how both God and the devil were at work simultaneously in the incident with Paul on the road to Damascus. It seemed related to Moses' rod turning into a snake and then the court magicians did the same thing.
The temporary hindrance "suffered" by God's angels in Daniel 9 was another eye-opener. I thought I saw a pattern in those scriptures, and then thought a few more popped up.
I'll post my second list in the budget side soon, and then I may be done with this topic for a while.
This all seems like a lot of speculation and leads to unwarranted extrapolation.
An all powerful God is going to limit himself because of a gentlemen's agreement he has with a lesser being, a being he knew at the time he made the agreement that would never keep the agreement. Now tell us the one with the three bears.
Further, you still haven't told me how Cain's murdering Able fits into all this. From your rationalizations so far I might extract that the devil did evil, the "door" opened and God refused to pour out a blessing. Now, would God refuse to pour out a blessing?
I will never understand why Mike doesnt just read and believe what is written instead of trying to squeeze ideas into scripture that simply don't fit. There's really no secret, hidden meanings in there....playing the greek game and letting concordances and lexicons define scripture can become a shell game, and I think that hinders us at times. Then the entire sales pitch that vicster threw out there that the Bible needed to be researched and reinterpreted...God is perfectly able and capable to make himself known without anybody's keys to research and all that jazz....
Oh...ok....I mean because the other ones...ya .... those were clear......
Did you find the two summary paragraphs of those other threads that I gave above to be clear?
Here they are again:
For the Canon, the main idea was that all through the Bible God entrusted His revelations to people who would get the revelation accurately into written form, and then distribute those writings in a responsible and even guided way. I gave one big example of this from 2 Timothy, but never got around to showing evidence to the same idea in the OT. I may add that someday.
The Free Will thread was a simple idea that I am proposing: our biologically given free will is not as strong as we like to think, and it is not as instantaneous. By analogy, our biological free will is similar to biological muscles, in that they may need exercising to be sufficiently strong, and that the first times through a coordinated effort there may a lot of failures to perform adequately.
An all powerful God is going to limit himself because of a gentlemen's agreement he has with a lesser being, a being he knew at the time he made the agreement that would never keep the agreement. Now tell us the one with the three bears.
Further, you still haven't told me how Cain's murdering Able fits into all this.
Well, can you offer an alternative theory as to why the devil seems to be winning most of the time?
How do you handle the scarcity of miracles in your life and the lives of people around you. Do you believe God can answer prayers at all?
How do you answer the biggest question of all time, which is how can a pure loving God sit back while all the incredible amount of evil seems to just increase?
Do you have a better answer than mine?
See, I am trying to make sense of life and the scriptures. It that is too big a challenge for you, or one that seems to promise no pay-out, I would understand.
Well, can you offer an alternative theory as to why the devil seems to be winning most of the time?
who made you the spiritual score keeper?
22 minutes ago, Mike said:
How do you handle the scarcity of miracles in your life and the lives of people around you. Do you believe God can answer prayers at all?
Your assumptions so those are your problems
22 minutes ago, Mike said:
How do you answer the biggest question of all time, which is how can a pure loving God sit back while all the incredible amount of evil seems to just increase?
I do not presume to answer for God
22 minutes ago, Mike said:
Do you have a better answer than mine?
I have no answers - and your theories are too bat-$hit crazy for my taste
22 minutes ago, Mike said:
See, I am trying to make sense of life and the scriptures. It that is too big a challenge for you, or one that seems to promise no pay-out, I would understand.
It seems to me Escaping the condescending know-it-all mindset is your biggest challenge
Did you find the two summary paragraphs of those other threads that I gave above to be clear?
Here they are again:
For the Canon, the main idea was that all through the Bible God entrusted His revelations to people who would get the revelation accurately into written form, and then distribute those writings in a responsible and even guided way. I gave one big example of this from 2 Timothy, but never got around to showing evidence to the same idea in the OT. I may add that someday.
The Free Will thread was a simple idea that I am proposing: our biologically given free will is not as strong as we like to think, and it is not as instantaneous. By analogy, our biological free will is similar to biological muscles, in that they may need exercising to be sufficiently strong, and that the first times through a coordinated effort there may a lot of failures to perform adequately.
Well, can you offer an alternative theory as to why the devil seems to be winning most of the time?
I thought you said you were a trained scientist. You're about as much a scientist as I am a schnauzer.
Several years back, someone claimed they created cold fusion in their laboratory. Other scientist tried the method and failed to get cold fusion.
Now. It wasn't those other scientists responsibility to offer an alternate way to arrive at cold fusion. Proving the theory false was enough. It was the original scientist whose job it was to go back to the drawing board.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
How do you handle the scarcity of miracles in your life and the lives of people around you.
I define the scarcity of miracles to people in the Way, which is what we're really talking about, as being because Saint Vic was a phony.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
Do you believe God can answer prayers at all?
And that has what to do with Saint Vic being a phony?
2 hours ago, Mike said:
How do you answer the biggest question of all time, which is how can a pure loving God sit back while all the incredible amount of evil seems to just increase?
Read the bible. That's how it's supposed to happen.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
Do you have a better answer than mine?
Yah, Saint Vic was a phony.
2 hours ago, Mike said:
See, I am trying to make sense of life and the scriptures. It that is too big a challenge for you, or one that seems to promise no pay-out, I would understand.
Only those two? How about SAINT VIC WAS A PHONY?
Edited by So_crates Thank you, Raf. Correcting "phony"
Well, can you offer an alternative theory as to why the devil seems to be winning most of the time?
How do you handle the scarcity of miracles in your life and the lives of people around you. Do you believe God can answer prayers at all?
How do you answer the biggest question of all time, which is how can a pure loving God sit back while all the incredible amount of evil seems to just increase?
Do you have a better answer than mine?
See, I am trying to make sense of life and the scriptures. It that is too big a challenge for you, or one that seems to promise no pay-out, I would understand.
I’ll give it a run.
1. Perspective - to me it seems more balanced. 50/50 winning and losing
2. Yes I believe God can answer prayers. Define scarce. Should people drift on clouds and have a genie assistant on hand? The miraculous in any sense including sports references don’t happen that often.
3. I don’t see God as sitting back but involved. In a free will system that means accepting that God can’t step in on a whim but goes with the system rules for a period of time. What if a parent stepped in to pitch or hit every time his kids little league baseball team got behind? And what if it was only allowed for one team? Who would ever play baseball by choice?
4. No I don’t have a “better” answer than yours. I only have the answer I have proven for myself.
Dang. I’ve done back doored myself into an athletes analogy for scripture. And it didn’t even trigger a tights picture.
Well, can you offer an alternative theory as to why the devil seems to be winning most of the time?
How do you handle the scarcity of miracles in your life and the lives of people around you. Do you believe God can answer prayers at all?
How do you answer the biggest question of all time, which is how can a pure loving God sit back while all the incredible amount of evil seems to just increase?
Do you have a better answer than mine?
See, I am trying to make sense of life and the scriptures. It that is too big a challenge for you, or one that seems to promise no pay-out, I would understand.
Do you still remember when PFAL promised to answer these questions?
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.
My comment here on this long diatribe is that your pro Plaffy mindset you say you constructed in 1998 when you arrived at the point you felt you had the truth - sounds remarkably like the logic that RFR used to eliminate the TWI research department and to ramp up the whitewashing (I mean publications) department.
If you already have the truth like it hasn’t been known since the first century there’s no need for further research.
1. Perspective - to me it seems more balanced. 50/50 winning and losing
2. Yes I believe God can answer prayers. Define scarce. Should people drift on clouds and have a genie assistant on hand? The miraculous in any sense including sports references don’t happen that often.
3. I don’t see God as sitting back but involved. In a free will system that means accepting that God can’t step in on a whim but goes with the system rules for a period of time. What if a parent stepped in to pitch or hit every time his kids little league baseball team got behind? And what if it was only allowed for one team? Who would ever play baseball by choice?
4. No I don’t have a “better” answer than yours. I only have the answer I have proven for myself.
Thanks much for taking it seriously.
I am not full time thinking this budget idea, nor full-time promoting it. Like I said before, I may drop it entirely.
When I am not thinking within this idea (which is most of the time) you might be surprised at how much I am in agreement with your items 1,2, and 3 above.
*/*/*
The only advantage I see (so far) in this idea is it is a reminder that there is a lot of spiritual stuff going on behind the scenes in the spiritual realm that we do not see.
I think the scriptures largely shelter us from most of the details of this, but every now and then they give us a peak at a few of the details.
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
So_crates
Que pasa? Your read only audience stop giving you attention so you decided to come here and stir the pot, hoping to squeeze out just a little more attention?
Yes you do, or you wouldn't be using proven confusing labels 45 years later.
So you're actually married to the terms, despite their confusion. You know, as a writer you should be concerned with what best gets your idea across. If the term is confusing, it goes. But you amateurs get married to terms and ideas and refuse to let them go?
What you wrote in these last 26 pages makes you unworthy to carry a professional writer's pencil box.
Forty-five years?! And the best you can do is come up with a confusing, half baked theory?
If I had to turn in what you wrote on this subject to anybody I'd be ashamed of myself.
In less than 45 years I'd have a paper so professional it put classical writers to shame.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And what if what you're believing is wrong. Because you have no doubt you have no way of rooting out error.
Doubling down on the idiotic is still being idiotic.
Yawn! Same bs, different day. So again, if you have no doubt how do you recognize the error of such things as realizing "two doors" and "budget" are confusing terms and need to be clarified?
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
No, they're tools for recognizing when somebody's trying to con you. Like the con you're attempting to perpetuate now.
You mean like Saint Vic and PLAF?
Which is what we've done with Saint Vic and PLAF.
Again, Saint Vic, PLAF.
I apply them to everything in my life, including what's here.
Wrong again?
Here is how I know truth from error: truth works. And it doesn't need a dozen excuses why it doesn't work. This is why the law of believing is error.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"You just stand, Baby! Stand and don't budge."
Can you hear it in Wierwille's voice?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Don’t let yourself be confused by facts, evidence, rational thought, common sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
yeah, those things are off da verd
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, I have to admit this budget/doors idea is not so clear, and the evidence is scant compared to the other two threads.
Part of the problem there may have been all the distractions and the fast pace. If you were to comb through them the main idea for each is simple, and there was evidence of sorts supplied.
For the Canon, the main idea was that all through the Bible God entrusted His revelations to people who would get the revelation accurately into written form, and then distribute those writings in a responsible and even guided way. I gave one big example of this from 2 Timothy, but never got around to showing evidence to the same idea in the OT. I may add that someday.
The Free Will thread was a simple idea that I am proposing: our biologically given free will is not as strong as we like to think, and it is not as instantaneous. By analogy, our biological free will is similar to biological muscles, in that they may need exercising to be sufficiently strong, and that the first times through a coordinated effort there may a lot of failures to perform adequately.
But this budget/door idea is not as clear. I was blown away at how both God and the devil were at work simultaneously in the incident with Paul on the road to Damascus. It seemed related to Moses' rod turning into a snake and then the court magicians did the same thing.
The temporary hindrance "suffered" by God's angels in Daniel 9 was another eye-opener. I thought I saw a pattern in those scriptures, and then thought a few more popped up.
I'll post my second list in the budget side soon, and then I may be done with this topic for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Oh...ok....I mean because the other ones...ya .... those were clear......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Clear as mud.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Yah, that makes sense.
An all powerful God is going to limit himself because of a gentlemen's agreement he has with a lesser being, a being he knew at the time he made the agreement that would never keep the agreement. Now tell us the one with the three bears.
Further, you still haven't told me how Cain's murdering Able fits into all this. From your rationalizations so far I might extract that the devil did evil, the "door" opened and God refused to pour out a blessing. Now, would God refuse to pour out a blessing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I don’t recall you posting evidence on the other threads.
That is speculation on your part. I prefer methods that are grounded - disciplines with academic standards, like textual criticism and historical research on the canon of Scripture.
It sounds like you’re talking about willpower…most of my problems are due to laziness or lack of self-control.
This all seems like a lot of speculation and leads to unwarranted extrapolation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I will never understand why Mike doesnt just read and believe what is written instead of trying to squeeze ideas into scripture that simply don't fit. There's really no secret, hidden meanings in there....playing the greek game and letting concordances and lexicons define scripture can become a shell game, and I think that hinders us at times. Then the entire sales pitch that vicster threw out there that the Bible needed to be researched and reinterpreted...God is perfectly able and capable to make himself known without anybody's keys to research and all that jazz....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Did you find the two summary paragraphs of those other threads that I gave above to be clear?
Here they are again:
For the Canon, the main idea was that all through the Bible God entrusted His revelations to people who would get the revelation accurately into written form, and then distribute those writings in a responsible and even guided way. I gave one big example of this from 2 Timothy, but never got around to showing evidence to the same idea in the OT. I may add that someday.
The Free Will thread was a simple idea that I am proposing: our biologically given free will is not as strong as we like to think, and it is not as instantaneous. By analogy, our biological free will is similar to biological muscles, in that they may need exercising to be sufficiently strong, and that the first times through a coordinated effort there may a lot of failures to perform adequately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, can you offer an alternative theory as to why the devil seems to be winning most of the time?
How do you handle the scarcity of miracles in your life and the lives of people around you. Do you believe God can answer prayers at all?
How do you answer the biggest question of all time, which is how can a pure loving God sit back while all the incredible amount of evil seems to just increase?
Do you have a better answer than mine?
See, I am trying to make sense of life and the scriptures. It that is too big a challenge for you, or one that seems to promise no pay-out, I would understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
who made you the spiritual score keeper?
Your assumptions so those are your problems
I do not presume to answer for God
I have no answers - and your theories are too bat-$hit crazy for my taste
It seems to me Escaping the condescending know-it-all mindset is your biggest challenge
Edited by T-BoneTypos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I'm not doing this again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I thought you said you were a trained scientist. You're about as much a scientist as I am a schnauzer.
Several years back, someone claimed they created cold fusion in their laboratory. Other scientist tried the method and failed to get cold fusion.
Now. It wasn't those other scientists responsibility to offer an alternate way to arrive at cold fusion. Proving the theory false was enough. It was the original scientist whose job it was to go back to the drawing board.
I define the scarcity of miracles to people in the Way, which is what we're really talking about, as being because Saint Vic was a phony.
And that has what to do with Saint Vic being a phony?
Read the bible. That's how it's supposed to happen.
Yah, Saint Vic was a phony.
Only those two? How about SAINT VIC WAS A PHONY?
Edited by So_cratesThank you, Raf. Correcting "phony"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Come on, get it right!
It's spelled "phony."
You are welcome
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I’ll give it a run.
1. Perspective - to me it seems more balanced. 50/50 winning and losing
2. Yes I believe God can answer prayers. Define scarce. Should people drift on clouds and have a genie assistant on hand? The miraculous in any sense including sports references don’t happen that often.
3. I don’t see God as sitting back but involved. In a free will system that means accepting that God can’t step in on a whim but goes with the system rules for a period of time. What if a parent stepped in to pitch or hit every time his kids little league baseball team got behind? And what if it was only allowed for one team? Who would ever play baseball by choice?
4. No I don’t have a “better” answer than yours. I only have the answer I have proven for myself.
Edited by chockfullDang. I’ve done back doored myself into an athletes analogy for scripture. And it didn’t even trigger a tights picture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Do you still remember when PFAL promised to answer these questions?
Pepperidge Farms remembers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
My comment here on this long diatribe is that your pro Plaffy mindset you say you constructed in 1998 when you arrived at the point you felt you had the truth - sounds remarkably like the logic that RFR used to eliminate the TWI research department and to ramp up the whitewashing (I mean publications) department.
If you already have the truth like it hasn’t been known since the first century there’s no need for further research.
Just re-search.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
But if we were following your "two doors" theory more evil in the world would mean more miracles, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks much for taking it seriously.
I am not full time thinking this budget idea, nor full-time promoting it. Like I said before, I may drop it entirely.
When I am not thinking within this idea (which is most of the time) you might be surprised at how much I am in agreement with your items 1,2, and 3 above.
*/*/*
The only advantage I see (so far) in this idea is it is a reminder that there is a lot of spiritual stuff going on behind the scenes in the spiritual realm that we do not see.
I think the scriptures largely shelter us from most of the details of this, but every now and then they give us a peak at a few of the details.
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.