So_crates
-
Posts
2,271 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
23
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by So_crates
-
-
48 minutes ago, Mike said:
I just re-read all the dodging responses to loving people's words and wills.
So, the artful dodger wants to critique others on dodging. Are you saying dodging is wrong? Does this mean you'll stop dodging and get down to brass tacks?
48 minutes ago, Mike said:The bottom line of love for a human means to love their words and ultimately their will.
So, you claim to agape us. Does that mean you love our words and our will?
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Mike said:
How do you really love someone deeply?
What is most important thing about someone you love?
Their words; their will.Another point where Saint Vic excelled.
I'm sure he really cared about Mrs. Weirwille's words and her will for her family.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Mike said:
t took me time to locate WHICH words from VPW were the most trustworthy: from words spoken privately, to words spoken on tape, to "it is written."
You see the problem here? It's YOU deciding which of Saint Vic's words are trustworthy. Just as it's YOU deciding which of the collaterals we should believe.
That's like me telling you which passages in The Secret you should follow.
-
16 hours ago, Mike said:
get the impression you want me to lay out in detail the 28 years that I came to accept the collaterals SO THAT you can poke holes in my methods, and cause doubt in me
So you claim to have the truth, yet you refuse to tell us how you arrived at it. Are your methods so flimsy that you're afraid they won't survive scrutiny? Then you only think you have the truth.
Can you poke holes in the law of gravity? The law of aerodynamics? How about the Higgs-Boson particle? They're all true and the people that discover them were no afraid of holes being poked in their methodology.
As a grad student, don't you have to defend a thesis? It's how truth is arrived at.
-
16 hours ago, Mike said:
It isn't anything like that.
It was describing why you are so perplexed that I don't tear up my beliefs with critical thinking skills. You, like all acdemics, hate the idea that I would be FINISHED with that process, because I FOUND the truth. Academics don't like it when some says this. It is anathema to the Academics Creed - We will seek forever.
Your hubris is showing.
16 hours ago, Mike said:
I was a blessed seeker who found.So this is what you use to convince yourself your better than anyone else here?
16 hours ago, Mike said:You say that's impossible.
That's because is. As it's impossible for any one person to know everything in the universe, so it is impossible to know the whole truth. At best we get just a very, very small piece.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Mike said:
Same with free will. If we don't do the work of preparing our synapses for a free will "performance," then we will remain locked in our old, wrong way of deciding on this issue
And who decides what is the right way of deciding and what is the wrong way of deciding?
-
3 minutes ago, OldSkool said:
There is nothing to untangle. Just open it and read it. The Bible is pretty straightforward...the so called research was necessary for the Bible to say what victor paul wierwille wanted it to say thus his phony research.
Most of what Saint Vic wanted to say lead to control
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Nathan_Jr said:
He didn't mean complete the way you or I or billions of others would use it. Not today. Not in 1967. Not in 90 CE.
Somewhere in the collaterals there must be victor's own private definition of complete.
He probably meant parallel.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Mike said:
It was the collaterals that I focused most on for those 20 years.
Just to be clear, do you mean when Paul was blinded and went to get healed by Ananias?
You guessed 'er, chester.
-
59 minutes ago, Mike said:
That story effectively shows how the NORMAL process of language evolution can be fed steroids by LARGE GOVERNMENT for great evil.
Or language can be fed steroids by cults with a hidden agenda for great evil.
59 minutes ago, Mike said:
I was talking about normal, slow evolution, that starts in small groups and rarely ascends to the majority usage.And Nate was probably talking about cults with a hidden agenda. So you were wrong for giving him guff.
59 minutes ago, Mike said:
You need to study how dictionaries are made and edited.You need to stop trying to make reality fit your theories and look objectively at reality and make your theories fit reality.
-
2 minutes ago, Mike said:
I do not know what you are referring to here.
If you give me a few more details and a few key words I can find it in the transcript of the class.
I know for sure that VPW taught that the revelation of the mystery was NOT all at once for the Apostle Paul. He said that was an evolution of revelation there. That seems to contradict your memory of the class that you posted.What you posted does not compute for me at all.
Are you sure it was the foundational class that you heard this?
I believe it was when the person was told to go to Saul in Acts. Saint Vic said that's how you know it's from God, it's complete unlike psychic who give incomplete information.
I thought you studied PLAF for 20 years. And you don't remember that?
-
8 minutes ago, Mike said:
A dictionary tells us how people in the PAST defined words. Most often there are several different ways listed in a big dictionary.
But a dictionary has NO AUTHORITY over us as to how we must use words in the future.
It may be possible to tell us if we will have great or mild difficulty in communicating to people with a new definition, though.
So. If the past has no authority over how we use words in the future, why go back to ancient Greek?
8 minutes ago, Mike said:Neither you nor the OED can forbid anyone from re-defining a word for use in a small group. Trying to forbid me or VPW in this reveals your weak and defective understanding of the whole ball game.
You've shown your weakness and defective understanding of the whole ball game.
To get a clue, read 1984.
-
40 minutes ago, Mike said:
Hello Nathan_Jr.
I'm your friendly, unnamed apologist, I think.
You are getting it right. There is no way the Bible could be untangled by ORDINARY sense knowledge research. God had to step in to give enough revelation to get the ball rolling on such a massive untangling project.
To think that the Bible could be untangled with ORDINARY sense knowledge research is arrogant academia on parade. It demonstrates complete ignorance of the great power that Adam gave to the god of this world. The tangling up of the Bible was done by great spiritual force, and great spiritual force is necessary to untangle it.
There ARE many times where ordinary senses research IS sufficient, once the spiritual untangling (PFAL) is used.So both methods were to be used in the Research Dept, best as I can see. But it seems this was not well understood by all members of the staff. I remember talking with 2 of them in 1978 and they were bent out of shape over the spiritual part of the research.
The next year the Jul/Aug Way Magazine had some corrections to this, and VPW again explained the way research was supposed to be re-searching what God had taught him. None of us got it. It took me another 20 years to see this circa 1998.
Several times VPW put out strong hints that I never followed up on with questions. Several times VPW said on the weeklyt SNT tapes that someday he expected to find a manuscript that would VERIFY what God had taught him. Once he said that we probably would NOT find a manuscript, but that we should still believe what he was teaching.
He tried to tell us, but we did not hear it.First off, Saint Vic said in PLAF when God gives revelation it's complete. So, if God told him there was a manuscript I would think, to make the revelation complete, he would also tell him where to find it.
Second. I would think if God had anything to say to Saint Vic he would say, "What are you doing to my daughters?"
-
49 minutes ago, Mike said:
It is a mistake to think that when a person makes a choice, that the choice must automatically be a FREE choice. It could be a FORCED choice. We don't have the ability to sort those out when we observe others. It is very difficult (sometimes impossible) to sort that out just for ourselves.
What would FORCE a choice in a decision? The synapse set the person brings to the decision.
Babies are born with muscles and nerves just learning to function. The baby's skeletal muscles are very weak at birth.
Muscles and nerves have nothing to do with free will, the brain does, as it's were decisions are made. A babies brain thinks things like, "Am I hungary?" then I'll cry, "Am I happy?" then I'll coo.
Scientist will tell babies watch for the response of the mother so they can begin to persuade her, an act of free will.
49 minutes ago, Mike said:
I see adult free will to be LIKE a muscle.A normal baby has all the parts needed for free will at birth, but no strength has yet been built up for making free choices. That takes time and effort. Many developing children never get this kind of "free will" exercise, and they become problem adults, unable to conform to function well with others.
Adult have had plenty of time to exorcise their free will. What do you think that toddler's no is? What do you think that teenager's rebellion is? Both are acts of them exerting free will.
49 minutes ago, Mike said:Since the Sixties, our culture has encouraged less and less "free will" exercising for children and young adults, and it is falling apart for the distinction of pitifully weak wills. More and more people are being "blown about with every wind of doctrine" both spiritual and practical.
What your seeing is the result of too much choice. Science has proven the more choice you have the unhappier you are.
-
4 hours ago, Mike said:
YES ! YES ! YES !
We start out having only a very minor influence on our behavior, but with persistence that self-influence can grow.Free will exists in babies, as they can choose their course of action from coming out of the womb. They just don't exercise their free will.
Babies have free will, as they can choose to feed or not, cy or coo.
About the terrible twos, about the time the child learns to say no, free will sharply increases.
Then there's another sharp increase when the child heads into the rebellious teen years.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, OldSkool said:
Conversely, we could start out having a major influence on our behaviour and we would still have free will.
YES! YES! YES!
We still have the ability to choose whether or not to bend with the influence, hence we still have free will.
As Cuddy shows us the postures and body languages that influence our life, we can move from happenstance (pun intended) to being in control of our posture and body language through our free will, and thereby change our life.
Awareness + Choice = Free Will
-
1
-
-
Many things influence us, including ourselves
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Mike said:
Whoever wins the trophy in sports, keeps the trophy, except in hockey.
So, it's a spiritual competition. Well, you've shown times the home team has shown up late. Shouldn't they have forfeited?
-
34 minutes ago, Mike said:
I cannot cause the confusion that blinds you.Too funny.
It's like if I tried to explain tree surgery using checkers moves and when you told me you were confused, I blamed you for the confusion.
Everybody, repeat after me, the communicator is responsible for their communication. It's not my responsibility to guess what you mean. Thank you.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, waysider said:
scriptural reference?
Book of Saint Vic 19:42
-
2
-
-
17 minutes ago, Mike said:
Note: you are ALWAYS in confusion over everything I say.
I cannot cause the confusion that blinds you.So you say.
That's why others, in this very thread, have complained about the terminology, right?
-
13 minutes ago, Mike said:
He has the budget planned to accomplish that job, but just barely.
You didn't answer the question, just repeted yourself.
A dead give away for you not knowing what you're talking about.
-
11 minutes ago, Mike said:
You are not paying attention.
The angels have a budget, plus the angels themselves are God's budget here on earth, while God in heaven has no limitations.Your not making a whole lot of sense.
Angels are separate sentient beings and not a part of anyone's balance sheet That would be like saying we're a part of God's budget.
-
58 minutes ago, Mike said:
When it comes to free will and the workings of the brain, Philosophy is to be regarded as folklore. See Patricia Churchland's MacArthur Award winning book "Neurophilosophy."
Example: Aristotle thought that the brain was like a car radiator, and used to cool down the blood.
So?
Saint Vic claimed he was getting revelation from God when he was actually repeating what he heard from a conspiracy phone in site (the then version of QAnon).
Shall we say Saint Vic was an "impractical egghead"? I guess then the yolk would be on him.
New John Juedes video debunking Wierwille books
in About The Way
Posted
It's simple: we don't steal others works and claim them as our own and we keep our paws off of the ministry women, reserving our passions for our wife.