Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Mike

Members
  • Posts

    5,432
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Mike last won the day on November 5

Mike had the most liked content!

About Mike

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Mike's Achievements

Mentor

Mentor (12/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

13

Reputation

  1. Not really. I'm not done inventing it. That was version 1.0 of the "self referential mnemonic." Version 2.0 gets a new name "self-referential mnem-selfic" Once it gets heavy use, we can call it a SRMS. That's the nature of figures of speech. They not only are attention getters themselves, but even their names can be attention getting. If it weren't against my religion, I'd have copyrighted it before posting.
  2. Mike in purple . Back when I was in TWI … .WHEN? TWI was so segmented by history, and changes in the BOT that it helps to know when, when I hear stories of how things went wrong or stale or evil. One major segment to consider is the change-over to Craig, which was gradual in practice, from grooming in 1981, to installation in 1982, to VPW’s physical fading in early 1985. Another thing that is important for TWI stories is whether it was before the 1986 meltdown or after it. ANOTHER major segment that I ask myself when I hear a TWI story (of how things went wrong, usually) is whether the story takes place within the Corps or outside the Corps. most of us had a cookie-cutter approach to evangelizing and counseling. The PFAL class was considered a guaranteed formula for resolving any problem. Yes, that was the FOUNDATION. Some people I knew in TWI (I was 72-88nonCorps) built some good structures on that foundation, and some did not. I think in later years, and within the Corps, that trend I saw continued, and the cookie-cutter approach grew in the early 80s, and went insane after 1986. Yes, that cookie-cutter approach is how things would start out sometimes, until the people would get some experience and progress to greater learning from the Bible directly. We believed the PFAL class was the best way to get someone born again. Not all of us, and not all of the time… or segments. My experiences and beliefs back in the 70s and early 80s were that by the time a person arrived at Session One, all the hoops they jumped through to sign up probably got any empties filled to capacity. */*/*/* Definitely “we” believed the PFAL class was the best way to help people inexperienced with the Bible (like me at age 22) to be able to read it myself and grow from it. It was a good way to get someone born again, but the foundation it gave us was sound and many built good renewed minds for years on it, and still are. And once a person was a grad of the class in many one-on-one counseling situations a typical solution to propose would often be some pat answer from the PFAL class. ... Not everyone was that shallow in my 70s-early80s experience. Some got good at it. In the crazy post-1986 years, I don’t know, but I heard stories…
  3. YES! He did say that phrase, and then he moved on to the details. VPW used the figure of speech "The Bible interprets itself" to summarize the topic, and to make it memorable. That that phrase NOT to supply the details, but to summarize them, figuratively. It is a self referential mnemonic, easy to remember, and signifies great importance, being a figure of speech. He then spends lots of time in the film class explaining what he means by that catchy phrase. He spends many pages on it in the book. It is a highly detailed topic, and it served me well. I don't focus on the summary at the beginning of the topic, the figure of speech, the self referential mnemonic. That has a limited purpose; the meat comes later in the details.
  4. HOWEVER, we want to avoid private (one's own) interpretation in the process. And how do we do that? Hint: Remember the figure of speech includes the word "itself."
  5. Here is the literal: The Bible can get interpreted properly when we do that interpreting by using material that comes from within the Bible itself.
  6. I have NEVER taken it to be literal. The Bible interprets itself. The Bible, as the subject of the sentence, is not literally capable of doing the action in the verb "interprets." The Bible is a book, and a book cannot do things or perform actions. It just sits there and WE do the action or interpreting WITH MATERIALS that come from within the Bible. The word "itself" in the sentence refers to those internal materials that WE use when WE do the interpreting.
  7. You guessed wrong. My first examples of service were the two brothers and their mom who hosted the first twig I went to. I was never around VPW long enough to get to know him. I got to know Uncle Harry, though, and he was a great servant. I did have the chance to hang out with him some. I never got into long distance admiration except for girls when I was in Jr High.
  8. I don't get the phobia here about the Bible interpreting itself. Why is that such a difficult idea? Is it because the phrase CAN sound like the Bible mechanically and uniquely unravels all by itself, without any work or insight on our part? Does "Bible interpreting itself" sound like too objective a process, or too easy, when there are actually some subjective turns in working the Word? What is all the fuss about the Bible interpreting itself? It is definitely figurative language, and not literal. Is that the problem?
  9. Yes I have seen such screaming. For myself, I try to maintain the attitude of service, and not stature, except when facing the adversary. That is when we should walk about and proudly insist the adversary deals with the Christ in us. When we face humans in need (everyone), then we walk about with the attitude of service, because we know we can effectively serve.
  10. That was a very small sample of Harari Yuval that you got that quote from. That quote was very general, and could apply to dozens of scientific situations. That makes sense in lots of situations. I have seen other quotes from him, and he strongly denied belief in free will, but that is probably Libertaian FW. I suspect he also strongly believes no other form of FW can exist. ALSO, he is strongly aligned with one of those globalist billionaires, but I forget which one. His focus is political, and he uses philosophy and science to forge ahead with a political agenda. For these reasons I pay him almost no attention.
  11. I have undergone a series of major changes in my approach to science. I feel I was in error for 45 years on how the brain works. I had idolized it up to a place God had not intended, and it was atheist scientists who straightened me out on this. I was placing soul in the spiritual realm, when Biblically it is in the physical realm. This change was both humbling and exhilarating. It started in 1995 and took 20 years, but by 2015 I was solidly on the other side and writing what I posted here. THEN, from all that I worked on this I am impressed with how much persistence plays in free will. It's like we are the Tin Man in Oz, and we seek that free will, and with persistence can find it.
  12. I think I agree with all you just wrote. Paul was describing the quality of natural men found in Israel, but the same spiritless condition afflicts natural man outside Israel as well. I realize NONE of the old man nature vanishes with the new birth, but what changes with the new birth is the ability to rise above that spiritless nature, AT TIMES.
  13. I disagree that VPW downplayed emotions in THAT way. That is a whole other topic, though. Maybe some other time we could discuss it. I just want to note that UNLIKE Harari Yuval, the two scholars you just mentioned are closely aligned with the UCSD hard core determinism school of thought I have talked about, and that I align myself with. Dennett was a visitor to the group I attended around 1995, where I had a chance to meet and talk with him. I later discussed some of my work with him by e-mails. Domasio and his wife (another superstar) visited us twice, but I didn't get a chance to talk with them close-up. The Domasio team has written several of the best books in the field of brain science, IMO.
  14. Late additions to my post above: I see the ORIGINAL state of man as being in that image of God. In the image of God was the INTENDED quality of mankind. Then the fall and loss of that image. I see the ORIGINAL state of man as being in that image of God. Then the fall and loss of that image, and the loss of dominion over the animals.
×
×
  • Create New...