As far as "taking over" why not think of it as stirring it up, giving it extra life?
The reason I don't think of it the way you bullshonta suggest is because what you "give it" is a counter purpose to the intended purpose of this site.
You ARE a con artist. Your suggestion above lends credibility to the characterization and corroborates your intent to take it over. Not only have you done so, but you appear to have done so with full intent.
Btw, remember the first rule of holes? When you're in one, stop digging.
His free will was spread out in the days and months before he set out on the Road to Damascus. It can be seen in what he allowed to lodge in his mind. He must have been thinking about what Stephen said, and he also heard witnessing from the people he persecuted. All those influences were accumulating prior to his final decision to believe and act on the Word.
And he could have chosen not to act on those influences, again free will. He could have chosen not to kill Stephen. He could have chosen not to be in the vicinity of Stephen. All reflections of Paul's free will when he was a natural man.
OR another possiblity. It could be that I am right and that you just don't understand the theory yet. Have you read all of the 5 chapters I posted? I have evidence you did not understand vast sections of it. If you started all over and just read the chapters, you may have a different take on it.
And there's the possibility that you're wrong and are trying to bull you way out of it. As they say, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle the with bull.
If this is all on the level, why the need to change definitions? That right there should tell people something is up.
"Influences have nothing to do with your ability to choose, which is free will."
No. There are two different kinds of decisions we can make.
When I decide to sign a contract I use my free will.
When I sign the contract, I use my cerebellum, and it is a robotic reflex.
As I've asserted numerous times, free will is about choosing. You seem to think all natural man is is "robotic reflex." Not so, even natural men can be proactive.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
If we had to use our free will all the time I think we'd run out of gas fast. Robotic actions with no free will are often fine. I have a whole chapter on this.
But we do use our free will all the time: think of how many decisions we make a day.
1 hour ago, Mike said:
*/*/*/*/*/*
"You can always choose to go counter to [strong, evil] influences."
YES. But the only way that can happen is if you harbor good counter-influences in your synapse set. We call a harboring of good counter-influences "character." Character gets built via many, many small free-will decisions (operating minFW) over a long time. It requires teaching of some sort, often teaching by example
No, character is what you do when nobody's looking.
Character is what Saint Vic had a serious lack of.
Out of one side of your mouth you say what we were taught is incorrect.
Then out of the other side you say that VPW stole good material from good people.
That is quite a cognitive dissonance you feed there.
Let’s break this down for the folks at home:
1.Out of one side of your mouth you say what we were taught is incorrect.
I have always specified what parts were incorrect. You paint with a huuuuuge roller!
~ ~ ~ ~
2.Then out of the other side you say that VPW stole good material from good people.
Again with the huuuuuge paint roller!
In many threads in About the Way and in Doctrinal I have analyzed the baloney out of the PFAL material – and have documented wierwille’s incompetency when plagiarizing from sources like Bullinger – some decent material he screwed up and made it worse – check out this thread2nd wave of PFAL - post about Bullinger and wierwilleand
Let's face it - wierwille was an incompetent plagiarist...he didn't know what he was talking about
hmmmm reminds me of someone
~ ~ ~ ~
3.That is quite a cognitive dissonance you feed there.
Cognitive dissonance = the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change; In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information, and the mental toll of it. Relevant items of information include a person's actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment.
Mike, I think you’re projecting – this sounds like a description of the way YOU operate here.
btw - thanks Mike, my counterarguments to your goofball ideas gives me a good opportunity to tie in links to some of my best analytical work on wierwille's baloney. Inquiring disenchanted and dissatisfied PFAL grads need to know this stuff. Hope you're okay with that...all is fair in love and war on cults, right?
1.Out of one side of your mouth you say what we were taught is incorrect.
I have always specified what parts were incorrect. You paint with a huuuuuge roller!
~ ~ ~ ~
2.Then out of the other side you say that VPW stole good material from good people.
Again with the huuuuuge paint roller!
In many threads in About the Way and in Doctrinal I have analyzed the baloney out of the PFAL material – and have documented wierwille’s incompetency when plagiarizing from sources like Bullinger – some decent material he screwed up and made it worse – check out this thread2nd wave of PFAL - post about Bullinger and wierwilleand
Let's face it - wierwille was an incompetent plagiarist...he didn't know what he was talking about
hmmmm reminds me of someone
~ ~ ~ ~
3.That is quite a cognitive dissonance you feed there.
Cognitive dissonance = the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change; In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information, and the mental toll of it. Relevant items of information include a person's actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment.
Mike, I think you’re projecting – this sounds like a description of the way YOU operate here.
btw - thanks Mike, my counterarguments to your goofball ideas gives me a good opportunity to tie in links to some of my best analytical work on wierwille's baloney. Inquiring disenchanted and dissatisfied PFAL grads need to know this stuff. Hope you're okay with that...all is fair in love and war on cults, right?
Between this thread and the seditive to the conscience thread, I'm starting to wonder if this determinism schtick is nothing more than another way to claim Saint Vic deserves a pass.
BTW, I don't think you're going to get the Psychologists to go along with any new definitions or new phrases you propose and use, like "synapse set." Especially when they don't agree with previous definitions of either word.
Between this thread and the seditive to the conscience thread, I'm starting to wonder if this determinism schtick is nothing more than another way to claim Saint Vic deserves a pass.
Could be…I’ve often wondered why some folks get so adamant about defending wierwille…and since his bad behavior was well known by many - it really gives one pause for thought – what motivates them to do so?
It just doesn’t ring true when they say they just want to focus on “the Word” that the man taught regardless of his behavior. It hits me as being a phony reason because if they really did love “The Word” they would see how much wierwille desecrates God’s Word with his hypocrisy and malignant narcissism and the hurt he caused to God’s flock with his abusive and dispassionate demeanor when he was just around staff and way corps. What a phony! The Mystery that Christ is in each believer - was indeed a mystery to him.
Even in the secular world I’ve observed in the workplace that people who defend really bad behavior or want to give a free pass to celebrities and politicians in the news over some scandal - tend to exhibit bad morals themselves.
Makes me wonder if some wierwille defenders imagine giving the free pass to him absolves them of some secret sins - - and further, what if they're running an opinion up the flagpole to see how others react.... or are they trying to acclimatize others to the idea that the particular bad behavior isn’t so bad after all? another ploy is the "oh we're all sinners - who are you to judge?" baloney. Uhm - I'm no adulterer - I'm no sexual predator...I'm no thief and pathological liar. There's laws against that stuff.
Don't know - but publicly stated concerns (I just love "the Word" that he taught) seem out of tune with the 2 great commandments - love God and neighbor.
~ ~ ~ ~
Hey all, we watched God Forbid documentary the other night on Hulu...wierwille and TWI are not the only religious hypocrites out there - it's just that with wierwille / TWI and their isolationist / lockbox mentality they're able to keep below the radar of the public eye - here's a couple of articles about God Forbid:
Between this thread and the seditive to the conscience thread, I'm starting to wonder if this determinism schtick is nothing more than another way to claim Saint Vic deserves a pass.
With Mike, that's usually the way to bet. Find a way to relieve him of the responsibility of the decisions he made, of the responsibility for the actions he took.
Adam and Eve had just lost spirit, and things changed to make them feel bad. God had done a lot of previous teaching and He made their biology able to recognize them not obeying.
After them, their children had to be TAUGHT slowly and gradually and naturally. THAT is how the law's essence was written into their hearts. It happened in the months and years after birth, from normal life experiences.
Our DNA ensures that if a child is grown in a civil environment then that child automatically gets these things installed. It is conceivable that there are some children raised in super crazy circumstances and nourishment where this fails, but normally it works, even with unbelievers. Even with cats and dogs, on a much smaller scale.
1. you just described how the conscience works without using the word conscience
2. No - Romans teaches that the law is written in humankind’s heart . Why do you make things do complicated and hard ? What’s with the “slowly and gradually “ business? Guess you’ve never had kids. They can be a trip! Kids know when they’re being bad - and when they’re being really really bad
l
3. You’re talking about the nature/ nurture aspects of man - see my reference to Pinker’s The Blank Slate
BTW, I don't think you're going to get the Psychologists to go along with any new definitions or new phrases you propose and use, like "synapse set." Especially when they don't agree with previous definitions of either word.
Not trying to cosign anything here, but - Mike, I before I checked out of this thread for the weekend I was asking why you didn't define your definitions up front and at the beginning. I've helped edit scientific discussion papers with my former wife as the lead editor (cause Im just not conan the grammerian) and one thing that's fairly consistent is terms are defined clearly and defined up front for clarification.
BTW, I don't think you're going to get the Psychologists to go along with any new definitions or new phrases you propose and use, like "synapse set." Especially when they don't agree with previous definitions of either word.
Apparently those psychologists along with the rest of us just don’t quite have enough intelligence to fully comprehend the true genius of what Mike is trying to teach us here.
Not trying to cosign anything here, but - Mike, I before I checked out of this thread for the weekend I was asking why you didn't define your definitions up front and at the beginning. I've helped edit scientific discussion papers with my former wife as the lead editor (cause Im just not conan the grammerian) and one thing that's fairly consistent is terms are defined clearly and defined up front for clarification.
The BIG definition, that of "free will." I spent most of Chapter 1 discussing.
Most of my intended audience is already familiar with most definitions, and not that many are needed to introduce this new idea for what freedom means.
The classical definition for free will was horribly constructed long before modern science was invented, and it was defined to be the opposite of what science would allow. It is an unworkable definition, so I am looking for the right repair job. What I am doing is "de-mystifying" free will.
The classical definition has been quite mystical and anti-science, and is in the process if being very deliberately abandoned by Neuroscience. I object to that anandonment, and offer instead a major repair job on the seriously broken definition of free will we all inherited from the ancients.
So, not only is Chapter one focused on the problems in the old definition, but the whole book is an attempt to clarify this new definition of weakened and delayed free will.
And there's the possibility that you're wrong and are trying to bull you way out of it. As they say, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle the with bull.
If this is all on the level, why the need to change definitions? That right there should tell people something is up.
Only one major change of definitions is in my book, that of the freedom in free will.
It is a broken definition. I just got finished saying this to OldSkool.
The BIG definition, that of "free will." I spent most of Chapter 1 discussing.
Most of my intended audience is already familiar with most definitions, and not that many are needed to introduce this new idea for what freedom means.
The classical definition for free will was horribly constructed long before modern science was invented, and it was defined to be the opposite of what science would allow. It is an unworkable definition, so I am looking for the right repair job. What I am doing is "de-mystifying" free will.
The classical definition has been quite mystical and anti-science, and is in the process if being very deliberately abandoned by Neuroscience. I object to that abandonment, and offer instead a major repair job on the seriously broken definition of free will we all inherited from the ancients.
So, not only is Chapter one focused on the problems in the old definition, but the whole book is an attempt to clarify this new definition of weakened and delayed free will.
Apparently those psychologists along with the rest of us just don’t quite have enough intelligence to fully comprehend the true genius of what Mike is trying to teach us here.
Actually, it is obvious that your anti-idol is choking your IQ off. Nearly everything I say is interrupted by the zeal to keep the anti-idol adequately hated and reviled. If I make any sense whatsoever, the anti-idol starts screaming "Hate me! Hate me more!" and my point gets lost while homage is paid and the promise to hate more is made.
Actually, it is obvious that your anti-idol is choking your IQ off. Nearly everything I say is interrupted by the zeal to keep the anti-idol adequately hated and reviled. If I make any sense whatsoever, the anti-idol starts screaming "Hate me! Hate me more!" and my point gets lost while homage is paid and the promise to hate more is made.
Hilarious.
Explain more about this anti idol concept you have.
Something about if you stand against idolatry for a certain period of time it becomes your idol?
You sound quite butt hurt over the fact that I keep numbers going in the why PFAL sucks thread as opposed to caving in to your troll narcissistic filibustering.
No, character is what you do when nobody's looking.
Character is what Saint Vic had a serious
In the Corps training "class" on Romans in the early 1970s, Loy Craig asked a question. In victor's answer, he had an opportunity to teach this, but he didn't.
victor hated questions. HATED them. Because he was so afraid of being exposed. The narcissist's greatest fear. The truth.
Usually an idol is something someone loves.
I see an idol here that people love to hate; an anti-idol.
Same thing as a regular idol, but a different flavor of worship.
Oh so it’s a reactionary idol. Too much love is bad too much hate is bad.
Or in your case it’s a trigger idol. You can trigger us and bait us into your narcissistic views by calling standing against idolatry as inventing a new idol?
How clever. Is this a Mars hill type debate? Where you’re not allowed to introduce a new idol or you’ll get stoned by a mob?
Only one major change of definitions is in my book, that of the freedom in free will.
It is a broken definition. I just got finished saying this to OldSkool.
The BIG definition, that of "free will." I spent most of Chapter 1 discussing.
Most of my intended audience is already familiar with most definitions, and not that many are needed to introduce this new idea for what freedom means.
The classical definition for free will was horribly constructed long before modern science was invented, and it was defined to be the opposite of what science would allow. It is an unworkable definition, so I am looking for the right repair job. What I am doing is "de-mystifying" free will.
The classical definition has been quite mystical and anti-science, and is in the process if being very deliberately abandoned by Neuroscience. I object to that abandonment, and offer instead a major repair job on the seriously broken definition of free will we all inherited from the ancients.
So, not only is Chapter one focused on the problems in the old definition, but the whole book is an attempt to clarify this new definition of weakened and delayed free will.
There's a story about a guy who went into a diner and ordered a steak and eggs breakfast. When his food arrived he was surprised to see a hamburger patty on his plate instead of steak.
When he complained the waitress told him: "That's our interpretation of steak."
When he went to pay the check, he gave the waitress a bubblegum wrapper.
"This isn't money," she said.
The guy responded: "It's my interpretation of money."/
The point? To paraphrase Saint Vic in the class: You change the definition of free will, then I can change the definition of salvation. What do we have? A lot of nothing.
The definition may be horribly constructed by your understanding, but then I can make the same claim about the definition of salvation.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
330
267
271
186
Popular Days
Nov 12
118
Nov 13
107
Nov 20
105
Nov 9
104
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 330 posts
T-Bone 267 posts
OldSkool 271 posts
Nathan_Jr 186 posts
Popular Days
Nov 12 2022
118 posts
Nov 13 2022
107 posts
Nov 20 2022
105 posts
Nov 9 2022
104 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
I do want to address this Mike. You constantly come at me like I have forgotten, or have been talked out of the truth of wierwille, or that I just don't understand where you are coming from. Personall
waysider
This right here. If you're unable to define and regulate your control factors and variables, your research is worthless. The best you could hope for would be an observational analysis of your collecte
Charity
I agree with So_Crates when he said "Here's a wild idea: why don't YOU become meek and I'll tell you about all the fruit in my life since I stopped making PLAF the center of my life." There have
Posted Images
Rocky
The reason I don't think of it the way you bullshonta suggest is because what you "give it" is a counter purpose to the intended purpose of this site.
You ARE a con artist. Your suggestion above lends credibility to the characterization and corroborates your intent to take it over. Not only have you done so, but you appear to have done so with full intent.
Btw, remember the first rule of holes? When you're in one, stop digging.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And he could have chosen not to act on those influences, again free will. He could have chosen not to kill Stephen. He could have chosen not to be in the vicinity of Stephen. All reflections of Paul's free will when he was a natural man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
And there's the possibility that you're wrong and are trying to bull you way out of it. As they say, if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle the with bull.
If this is all on the level, why the need to change definitions? That right there should tell people something is up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
As I've asserted numerous times, free will is about choosing. You seem to think all natural man is is "robotic reflex." Not so, even natural men can be proactive.
But we do use our free will all the time: think of how many decisions we make a day.
No, character is what you do when nobody's looking.
Character is what Saint Vic had a serious lack of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Let’s break this down for the folks at home:
1. Out of one side of your mouth you say what we were taught is incorrect.
I have always specified what parts were incorrect. You paint with a huuuuuge roller!
~ ~ ~ ~
2. Then out of the other side you say that VPW stole good material from good people.
Again with the huuuuuge paint roller!
In many threads in About the Way and in Doctrinal I have analyzed the baloney out of the PFAL material – and have documented wierwille’s incompetency when plagiarizing from sources like Bullinger – some decent material he screwed up and made it worse – check out this thread 2nd wave of PFAL - post about Bullinger and wierwille and
Origin stories – wierwille’s copying another person’s error and wierwille screwing up what another person got right
Let's face it - wierwille was an incompetent plagiarist...he didn't know what he was talking about
hmmmm reminds me of someone
~ ~ ~ ~
3. That is quite a cognitive dissonance you feed there.
Cognitive dissonance = the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change; In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information, and the mental toll of it. Relevant items of information include a person's actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment.
Mike, I think you’re projecting – this sounds like a description of the way YOU operate here.
btw - thanks Mike, my counterarguments to your goofball ideas gives me a good opportunity to tie in links to some of my best analytical work on wierwille's baloney. Inquiring disenchanted and dissatisfied PFAL grads need to know this stuff. Hope you're okay with that...all is fair in love and war on cults, right?
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Between this thread and the seditive to the conscience thread, I'm starting to wonder if this determinism schtick is nothing more than another way to claim Saint Vic deserves a pass.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
BTW, I don't think you're going to get the Psychologists to go along with any new definitions or new phrases you propose and use, like "synapse set." Especially when they don't agree with previous definitions of either word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Could be…I’ve often wondered why some folks get so adamant about defending wierwille…and since his bad behavior was well known by many - it really gives one pause for thought – what motivates them to do so?
It just doesn’t ring true when they say they just want to focus on “the Word” that the man taught regardless of his behavior. It hits me as being a phony reason because if they really did love “The Word” they would see how much wierwille desecrates God’s Word with his hypocrisy and malignant narcissism and the hurt he caused to God’s flock with his abusive and dispassionate demeanor when he was just around staff and way corps. What a phony! The Mystery that Christ is in each believer - was indeed a mystery to him.
Even in the secular world I’ve observed in the workplace that people who defend really bad behavior or want to give a free pass to celebrities and politicians in the news over some scandal - tend to exhibit bad morals themselves.
Makes me wonder if some wierwille defenders imagine giving the free pass to him absolves them of some secret sins - - and further, what if they're running an opinion up the flagpole to see how others react.... or are they trying to acclimatize others to the idea that the particular bad behavior isn’t so bad after all? another ploy is the "oh we're all sinners - who are you to judge?" baloney. Uhm - I'm no adulterer - I'm no sexual predator...I'm no thief and pathological liar. There's laws against that stuff.
Don't know - but publicly stated concerns (I just love "the Word" that he taught) seem out of tune with the 2 great commandments - love God and neighbor.
~ ~ ~ ~
Hey all, we watched God Forbid documentary the other night on Hulu...wierwille and TWI are not the only religious hypocrites out there - it's just that with wierwille / TWI and their isolationist / lockbox mentality they're able to keep below the radar of the public eye - here's a couple of articles about God Forbid:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/god-forbid-the-sex-scandal-that-brought-down-a-dynasty-review-jerry-falwell-jr-11666908728?mod=latest_headlines
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/god-forbid-jerry-falwell-jr-actually-practiced-what-he-preached-n1300493
Edited by T-Bonerevision
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
With Mike, that's usually the way to bet. Find a way to relieve him of the responsibility of the decisions he made, of the responsibility for the actions he took.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Something caused me to pick up the righteousness you dropped and put it back down right here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
1. you just described how the conscience works without using the word conscience
2. No - Romans teaches that the law is written in humankind’s heart . Why do you make things do complicated and hard ? What’s with the “slowly and gradually “ business? Guess you’ve never had kids. They can be a trip! Kids know when they’re being bad - and when they’re being really really bad
l
3. You’re talking about the nature / nurture aspects of man - see my reference to Pinker’s The Blank Slate
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Thus saith the Lord, there's no new thing under the sun... except for what Mike dreams up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Not trying to cosign anything here, but - Mike, I before I checked out of this thread for the weekend I was asking why you didn't define your definitions up front and at the beginning. I've helped edit scientific discussion papers with my former wife as the lead editor (cause Im just not conan the grammerian) and one thing that's fairly consistent is terms are defined clearly and defined up front for clarification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Apparently those psychologists along with the rest of us just don’t quite have enough intelligence to fully comprehend the true genius of what Mike is trying to teach us here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The BIG definition, that of "free will." I spent most of Chapter 1 discussing.
Most of my intended audience is already familiar with most definitions, and not that many are needed to introduce this new idea for what freedom means.
The classical definition for free will was horribly constructed long before modern science was invented, and it was defined to be the opposite of what science would allow. It is an unworkable definition, so I am looking for the right repair job. What I am doing is "de-mystifying" free will.
The classical definition has been quite mystical and anti-science, and is in the process if being very deliberately abandoned by Neuroscience. I object to that anandonment, and offer instead a major repair job on the seriously broken definition of free will we all inherited from the ancients.
So, not only is Chapter one focused on the problems in the old definition, but the whole book is an attempt to clarify this new definition of weakened and delayed free will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Only one major change of definitions is in my book, that of the freedom in free will.
It is a broken definition. I just got finished saying this to OldSkool.
The BIG definition, that of "free will." I spent most of Chapter 1 discussing.
Most of my intended audience is already familiar with most definitions, and not that many are needed to introduce this new idea for what freedom means.
The classical definition for free will was horribly constructed long before modern science was invented, and it was defined to be the opposite of what science would allow. It is an unworkable definition, so I am looking for the right repair job. What I am doing is "de-mystifying" free will.
The classical definition has been quite mystical and anti-science, and is in the process if being very deliberately abandoned by Neuroscience. I object to that abandonment, and offer instead a major repair job on the seriously broken definition of free will we all inherited from the ancients.
So, not only is Chapter one focused on the problems in the old definition, but the whole book is an attempt to clarify this new definition of weakened and delayed free will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Actually, it is obvious that your anti-idol is choking your IQ off. Nearly everything I say is interrupted by the zeal to keep the anti-idol adequately hated and reviled. If I make any sense whatsoever, the anti-idol starts screaming "Hate me! Hate me more!" and my point gets lost while homage is paid and the promise to hate more is made.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
delusions of grandeur...I'm just sayin'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hilarious.
Explain more about this anti idol concept you have.
Something about if you stand against idolatry for a certain period of time it becomes your idol?
You sound quite butt hurt over the fact that I keep numbers going in the why PFAL sucks thread as opposed to caving in to your troll narcissistic filibustering.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Usually an idol is something someone loves.
I see an idol here that people love to hate; an anti-idol.
Same thing as a regular idol, but a different flavor of worship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
In the Corps training "class" on Romans in the early 1970s, Loy Craig asked a question. In victor's answer, he had an opportunity to teach this, but he didn't.
victor hated questions. HATED them. Because he was so afraid of being exposed. The narcissist's greatest fear. The truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Oh so it’s a reactionary idol. Too much love is bad too much hate is bad.
Or in your case it’s a trigger idol. You can trigger us and bait us into your narcissistic views by calling standing against idolatry as inventing a new idol?
How clever. Is this a Mars hill type debate? Where you’re not allowed to introduce a new idol or you’ll get stoned by a mob?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
No, it's a distractionary idol.
It distracts you [rhetorical you] from enjoying the Word;
instead you enjoy ramping up the details and magnitude
of your hate.
Sheesh! It is even distracting a 99% science discussion right here in this thread.
My minFW chapters posted here have hardly any reminders of the Bible or VPW. ...maybe zero?
Oh, maybe a hint here or there...
...that few would detect...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
There's a story about a guy who went into a diner and ordered a steak and eggs breakfast. When his food arrived he was surprised to see a hamburger patty on his plate instead of steak.
When he complained the waitress told him: "That's our interpretation of steak."
When he went to pay the check, he gave the waitress a bubblegum wrapper.
"This isn't money," she said.
The guy responded: "It's my interpretation of money."/
The point? To paraphrase Saint Vic in the class: You change the definition of free will, then I can change the definition of salvation. What do we have? A lot of nothing.
The definition may be horribly constructed by your understanding, but then I can make the same claim about the definition of salvation.
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.