Trying Hard to Get the T***h
Aug 3, 2022 02:51:27 #
manning5 wrote:
Newspapers: Only thing I believe are the weather ... (show quote)
You say you want the t***h and then you isolate yourself from it. You will never find the t***h when you will only accept the most RW version that is presented to you. You don't want the t***h. You're an ideologue and that's the only acceptance you will take...
Aug 3, 2022 06:30:52 #
soontobeindicted mattoid wrote:
I hope you don't think I am moved by the opinion of a vacuous hypocrite.We don't have to meet you, just observe your crazy rants, to know you're irrational.
Aug 3, 2022 06:42:55 #
PeterS wrote:
Oh come now you didn't start thinking they way you think on your own. Weren't you parroting Levin not too long ago? My bet is you grew up with the likes of Rush Limbaugh during the day and Fox News at night. You didn't hear about liberals stealing the e******n, and believing it, by listening to no one. Someone warped your tiny little brain--because that's how it got so tiny and why you will never ever be able to think for yourself again.
There you go again, never fails, we can count on you for another attempt to convince yourself you know more about strangers than they do of themselves. And you do this with most worn out logical fallacy in the books.
PeterS wrote:
How do "find the t***h", Peter? You say you want the t***h and then you isolate yourself from it. You will never find the t***h when you will only accept the most RW version that is presented to you. You don't want the t***h. You're an ideologue and that's the only acceptance you will take...
What methods do you apply in a search for t***h?
What tools do you use to dig up the t***h?
Do you even know where to look?
Aug 3, 2022 10:34:36 #
manning5
Loc: Richmond, VA
[quote=PeterS]You say you want the t***h and then you isolate yourself from it. You will never find the t***h when you will only accept the most RW version that is presented to you. You don't want the t***h. You're an ideologue and that's the only accept
==========================
You do not know who I am, where I have worked, what I know, where I get my information, or who talks to me. In fact, I believe I know a lot more about what's going on in the government than I should, and it isn't pretty. When I say I do not believe in something, you can bet that I have a considerable dossier on the subject to back it up. Some of what I deal with could be considered classified, or I should say sensitive, which forces me to keep it close, and it is a drawback I cannot avoid. One unfortunate thing in my life is that as I grow older, I lose friends and good contacts, and that is regrettable, but soldiering on is what I do.
As for the media, it is for about 80% driven by ideology, not the full t***h, excepting a lot of who-shot-John and who got married. Or, it is simply repeating what has been put on the wires that every news outlet employs. Following event reporting is obvious at the first level, but there is a lot going on that is never in the media. And it is never going to be published here on OPP.
==========================
You do not know who I am, where I have worked, what I know, where I get my information, or who talks to me. In fact, I believe I know a lot more about what's going on in the government than I should, and it isn't pretty. When I say I do not believe in something, you can bet that I have a considerable dossier on the subject to back it up. Some of what I deal with could be considered classified, or I should say sensitive, which forces me to keep it close, and it is a drawback I cannot avoid. One unfortunate thing in my life is that as I grow older, I lose friends and good contacts, and that is regrettable, but soldiering on is what I do.
As for the media, it is for about 80% driven by ideology, not the full t***h, excepting a lot of who-shot-John and who got married. Or, it is simply repeating what has been put on the wires that every news outlet employs. Following event reporting is obvious at the first level, but there is a lot going on that is never in the media. And it is never going to be published here on OPP.
Aug 3, 2022 12:38:03 #
[quote=manning5]
Not here on OPP, or on our dishonest media. I have a client who worked in broadcast media and changed to sales because she signed up to be a journalist, not get a list of what she could talk about. We are all left to try to put pieces together and try to figure out WTH is going on in our country from what we observe, what we find out anecdotally and what we hear (or DON'T hear) on various media channels and sites. I never thought I'd see such strict censorship and propaganda in our country. Looking back, tho, I realize it's been going on for a long, long timeđȘ
PeterS wrote:
You say you want the t***h and then you isolate yo... (show quote)
Not here on OPP, or on our dishonest media. I have a client who worked in broadcast media and changed to sales because she signed up to be a journalist, not get a list of what she could talk about. We are all left to try to put pieces together and try to figure out WTH is going on in our country from what we observe, what we find out anecdotally and what we hear (or DON'T hear) on various media channels and sites. I never thought I'd see such strict censorship and propaganda in our country. Looking back, tho, I realize it's been going on for a long, long timeđȘ
Aug 3, 2022 12:43:12 #
Aug 6, 2022 01:43:08 #
manning5 wrote:
==========================
I do believe He shares His wisdom with us, and it is our duty and pleasure to search it out. If thinking about thinking helps that process for some, glory to them! A philosophical bent of mind is of great help here too.
Aristotle is on your Bad Guy list? Amazing! Tell me why.
I do believe He shares His wisdom with us, and it is our duty and pleasure to search it out. If thinking about thinking helps that process for some, glory to them! A philosophical bent of mind is of great help here too.
Aristotle is on your Bad Guy list? Amazing! Tell me why.
I quoted "God shares His glory with no man," - He created us in His image, i.e., with self will, the ability to reason, to deliberate and make choices.
Those among us who acquire wisdom to any discernible degree, do so through prayer, study, and the resultant knowledge of, and application of the Bible to our own life experiences, accompanied always by a healthy dose of God given common sense.
A "philosophical bent of mind," is simply the five W's instilled within us before birth...
Who? - What? - Where? - When? - Why?
They provide the required impetus to seek out the answers God has already provided through His written revelation to mankind.
The Bible does not find it necessary to attempt to prove the existence of the Creator God who is its originator, author and inspiration, but starts, rather, from the premise that God exists (Gen 1:1); worldly philosophy, in contrast, as man believes he devised and developed it, posits questions concerning the nature of the universe and of existence that do not presume the verity of God.
I have no "Bad Guy" list. Have you?
Should I draw up such a list, which I won't, Aristotle wouldn't even rate an "Honorable Mention." As an unredeemed Greek pagan, he is not responsible for the use to which his suppositions were erroneously subjected after his death.
Aug 6, 2022 02:58:21 #
manning,
After several days in absentia, being preoccupied with life, I am responding to your various inquiries, retorts and responses in the commensurate order of, not their chronological appearance, but their appeal...
I really think the term, "philosophy" could better be defined as man's natural "curiosity" to investigate, - to explore unknown frontiers, "to go where no man has gone before."
"Good on me?"
No, you were condescending to assume I didn't know that worldly wisdom, i.e., street smarts, in addition to biblical
knowledge, is a requirement of navigating this earth on which Christians once felt free to roam.
After several days in absentia, being preoccupied with life, I am responding to your various inquiries, retorts and responses in the commensurate order of, not their chronological appearance, but their appeal...
I really think the term, "philosophy" could better be defined as man's natural "curiosity" to investigate, - to explore unknown frontiers, "to go where no man has gone before."
"Good on me?"
No, you were condescending to assume I didn't know that worldly wisdom, i.e., street smarts, in addition to biblical
knowledge, is a requirement of navigating this earth on which Christians once felt free to roam.
manning5 wrote:
====================== br br Philosophy of religi... (show quote)
Aug 6, 2022 08:50:21 #
I've partially answered this before, but not to my own satisfaction. I find the scholastic imagery of pure Philosophy to be superfluous, unneeded, unnecessary... worthless even. The terminology reeks of elitist self-adoration by man, IMHO, and the Bible has nothing positive to say about the subject.
I think you presented and answered your own question... presumably to your own satisfaction.
All people naturally pursue and embrace some form of what you would label "philosophy," - a love for that particular knowledge approximating wisdom of their chosen career, hobby or obsession, which I would define as being the natural result of being created (even though fallen) in God's image.
Most of us have the innate ability to reason, and to think logically, without submerging ourselves in multi semesters of "Philosophical Inquiry." If we did not, God would have informed us of that fact, in His writing to us.
This room has wall wide bookcases at each end. On the southern wall are five tiers of books on every manner of Physics, Mathematics and Sciences.
They belong to my son - many from his college years studying Biology, Environmental Science, then Soil and Plant Research, Atmospheric Science, Atmospheric Physics, etc., etc., I avoid them at all cost, preferring the opposite wall of books, reflecting my own interests.
I just took down a book titled "Elementary Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems" - couldn't locate anything within it identifiable as Mathematical Philosophy?
Pythagorean theorem is the well-known geometric theorem that the sum of the squares on the legs of a right triangle is equal to the square on the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) - or, in familiar algebraic notation, a2 + b2 = c2.
Although the theorem has long been associated with Greek mathematician-philosopher Pythagoras (c.570â500/490 B.C.), it is actually far older. Four Babylonian tablets from circa 1900â1600 B.C., indicate some knowledge of the theorem, with a very accurate calculation of the square root of 2 (the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle with the length of both legs equal to 1) and lists of special integers known as Pythagorean triples that satisfy it (e.g., 3, 4, and 5; 32 + 42 = 52, 9 + 16 = 25). The theorem is mentioned in the Baudhayana Sulba-sutra of India, which was written between 800 and 400 B.C.. Nevertheless, the theorem came to be credited to Pythagoras. It is also proposition number 47 from Book I of Euclidâs Elements.
According to the Syrian historian Iamblichus (c. 250â330 A.D.), Pythagoras was introduced to mathematics by Thales of Miletus and his pupil Anaximander. In any case, it is known that Pythagoras traveled to Egypt about 535 B.C., to further his study, was captured during an invasion in 525 B.C. by Cambyses II of Persia and taken to Babylon, and may possibly have visited India before returning to the Mediterranean.
Pythagoras soon settled in Croton (now Crotone, Italy) and set up a school, or in modern terms a monastery (see Pythagoreanism), where all members took strict vows of secrecy, and all new mathematical results for several centuries were attributed to his name. Thus, not only is the first proof of the theorem not known, there is also some doubt that Pythagoras himself actually proved the theorem that bears his name. Some scholars suggest that the first proof was the one shown in the figure. It was probably independently discovered in several different cultures.
Book I of the Elements ends with Euclidâs famous âwindmillâ proof of the Pythagorean theorem. Later in Book VI of the Elements, Euclid delivers an even easier demonstration using the proposition that the areas of similar triangles are proportionate to the squares of their corresponding sides. Apparently, Euclid invented the windmill proof so that he could place the Pythagorean theorem as the capstone to Book I. He had not yet demonstrated (as he would in Book V) that line lengths can be manipulated in proportions as if they were commensurable numbers (integers or ratios of integers).
A great many different proofs and extensions of the Pythagorean theorem have been invented. Taking extensions first, Euclid himself showed in a theorem praised in antiquity that any symmetrical regular figures drawn on the sides of a right triangle satisfy the Pythagorean relationship: the figure drawn on the hypotenuse has an area equal to the sum of the areas of the figures drawn on the legs. The semicircles that define Hippocrates of Chiosâs lunes are examples of such an extension.
In the Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Procedures (or Nine Chapters), compiled in the 1st century A.D. in China, several problems are given, along with their solutions, that involve finding the length of one of the sides of a right triangle when given the other two sides. In the Commentary of Liu Hui, from the 3rd century, Liu Hui offered a proof of the Pythagorean theorem that called for cutting up the squares on the legs of the right triangle and rearranging them (âtangram styleâ) to correspond to the square on the hypotenuse.
Pythagorean theorem has fascinated people for nearly 4,000 years; there are now more than 300 different proofs, including ones by the Greek mathematician Pappus of Alexandria (flourished c. 320 A.D.), the Arab mathematician-physician ThÄbit ibn Qurrah (c. 836â901), the Italian artist-inventor Leonardo da Vinci (1452â1519), and even U.S. Pres. James Garfield (1831â81).
Similarly traceable are many of the flashes of wisdom attributed to the Greek Socratic threesome.
I think you presented and answered your own question... presumably to your own satisfaction.
All people naturally pursue and embrace some form of what you would label "philosophy," - a love for that particular knowledge approximating wisdom of their chosen career, hobby or obsession, which I would define as being the natural result of being created (even though fallen) in God's image.
Most of us have the innate ability to reason, and to think logically, without submerging ourselves in multi semesters of "Philosophical Inquiry." If we did not, God would have informed us of that fact, in His writing to us.
This room has wall wide bookcases at each end. On the southern wall are five tiers of books on every manner of Physics, Mathematics and Sciences.
They belong to my son - many from his college years studying Biology, Environmental Science, then Soil and Plant Research, Atmospheric Science, Atmospheric Physics, etc., etc., I avoid them at all cost, preferring the opposite wall of books, reflecting my own interests.
I just took down a book titled "Elementary Differential Equations and Boundary Value Problems" - couldn't locate anything within it identifiable as Mathematical Philosophy?
Pythagorean theorem is the well-known geometric theorem that the sum of the squares on the legs of a right triangle is equal to the square on the hypotenuse (the side opposite the right angle) - or, in familiar algebraic notation, a2 + b2 = c2.
Although the theorem has long been associated with Greek mathematician-philosopher Pythagoras (c.570â500/490 B.C.), it is actually far older. Four Babylonian tablets from circa 1900â1600 B.C., indicate some knowledge of the theorem, with a very accurate calculation of the square root of 2 (the length of the hypotenuse of a right triangle with the length of both legs equal to 1) and lists of special integers known as Pythagorean triples that satisfy it (e.g., 3, 4, and 5; 32 + 42 = 52, 9 + 16 = 25). The theorem is mentioned in the Baudhayana Sulba-sutra of India, which was written between 800 and 400 B.C.. Nevertheless, the theorem came to be credited to Pythagoras. It is also proposition number 47 from Book I of Euclidâs Elements.
According to the Syrian historian Iamblichus (c. 250â330 A.D.), Pythagoras was introduced to mathematics by Thales of Miletus and his pupil Anaximander. In any case, it is known that Pythagoras traveled to Egypt about 535 B.C., to further his study, was captured during an invasion in 525 B.C. by Cambyses II of Persia and taken to Babylon, and may possibly have visited India before returning to the Mediterranean.
Pythagoras soon settled in Croton (now Crotone, Italy) and set up a school, or in modern terms a monastery (see Pythagoreanism), where all members took strict vows of secrecy, and all new mathematical results for several centuries were attributed to his name. Thus, not only is the first proof of the theorem not known, there is also some doubt that Pythagoras himself actually proved the theorem that bears his name. Some scholars suggest that the first proof was the one shown in the figure. It was probably independently discovered in several different cultures.
Book I of the Elements ends with Euclidâs famous âwindmillâ proof of the Pythagorean theorem. Later in Book VI of the Elements, Euclid delivers an even easier demonstration using the proposition that the areas of similar triangles are proportionate to the squares of their corresponding sides. Apparently, Euclid invented the windmill proof so that he could place the Pythagorean theorem as the capstone to Book I. He had not yet demonstrated (as he would in Book V) that line lengths can be manipulated in proportions as if they were commensurable numbers (integers or ratios of integers).
A great many different proofs and extensions of the Pythagorean theorem have been invented. Taking extensions first, Euclid himself showed in a theorem praised in antiquity that any symmetrical regular figures drawn on the sides of a right triangle satisfy the Pythagorean relationship: the figure drawn on the hypotenuse has an area equal to the sum of the areas of the figures drawn on the legs. The semicircles that define Hippocrates of Chiosâs lunes are examples of such an extension.
In the Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Procedures (or Nine Chapters), compiled in the 1st century A.D. in China, several problems are given, along with their solutions, that involve finding the length of one of the sides of a right triangle when given the other two sides. In the Commentary of Liu Hui, from the 3rd century, Liu Hui offered a proof of the Pythagorean theorem that called for cutting up the squares on the legs of the right triangle and rearranging them (âtangram styleâ) to correspond to the square on the hypotenuse.
Pythagorean theorem has fascinated people for nearly 4,000 years; there are now more than 300 different proofs, including ones by the Greek mathematician Pappus of Alexandria (flourished c. 320 A.D.), the Arab mathematician-physician ThÄbit ibn Qurrah (c. 836â901), the Italian artist-inventor Leonardo da Vinci (1452â1519), and even U.S. Pres. James Garfield (1831â81).
Similarly traceable are many of the flashes of wisdom attributed to the Greek Socratic threesome.
manning5 wrote:
Zemirah, do you not see that the two things, scrip... (show quote)
Aug 6, 2022 14:54:46 #
manning5
Loc: Richmond, VA
Zemirah wrote:
I quoted "God shares His glory with no man,&q... (show quote)
==============================
Aug 6, 2022 15:11:03 #
manning5
Loc: Richmond, VA
[quote=manning5]
==============================
I appreciate your responses, Zemirah, and I will make a few observations in what follows.
Beginning with the five W's: Who, What, When, Where, and Why. There should be a How in the set.
You are hard over on your belief that philosophy is simply not on as a subject, as a discipline, as a useful tool, and literally has no utility whatsoever.
Plus, you claim that God will not "share His glory", meaning wisdom, I presume. In my view, He already has, by instilling it into every person as they are born, and it is my belief that He does not have any objections to us exploring the whole world of ideas, things, and movements. That is, so long as we are faithful and do not descend into any of the sinful places far enough to be trapped.
Further I remember that Adam and Eve tasted the apple and were given knowledge of good and evil. We have accumulated such knowledge ever since in some cases automatically in the challenges of the day. We need to slot new knowledge into our lexicon all the time, and if philosophy helps to do that, so much for the good.
==============================
I appreciate your responses, Zemirah, and I will make a few observations in what follows.
Beginning with the five W's: Who, What, When, Where, and Why. There should be a How in the set.
You are hard over on your belief that philosophy is simply not on as a subject, as a discipline, as a useful tool, and literally has no utility whatsoever.
Plus, you claim that God will not "share His glory", meaning wisdom, I presume. In my view, He already has, by instilling it into every person as they are born, and it is my belief that He does not have any objections to us exploring the whole world of ideas, things, and movements. That is, so long as we are faithful and do not descend into any of the sinful places far enough to be trapped.
Further I remember that Adam and Eve tasted the apple and were given knowledge of good and evil. We have accumulated such knowledge ever since in some cases automatically in the challenges of the day. We need to slot new knowledge into our lexicon all the time, and if philosophy helps to do that, so much for the good.
Aug 6, 2022 16:01:56 #
manning5
Loc: Richmond, VA
Zemirah wrote:
I quoted "God shares His glory with no man,&q... (show quote)
=========================================
So much for your Aristotle! LOL!
There is no reason that philosophy must begin with the assumption that God doesn't exist. Some philosophers do, of course, but Christian philosophers do not begin there. They begin with exactly Genesis 1.1 and go on...again, I believe Chuck Misler was prescient on these points.
As I alluded to in my last post, I do think you are attempting to live in the Garden of Eden reconstructed around you, and the Bible at your side. Pure as snow. That is your choice, Zemirah, but it isn't mine. For better or worse, I live in the real, sinful world, and keep fighting to stay sane and faithful.
We must agree to disagree now, and go on...
Aug 10, 2022 05:41:45 #
quote=manning5: "you claim that God will not "share His glory", meaning wisdom, I presume.Endquote
The concept of glory, in the bible, does not come from Greek culture but from the Old Testament. The Hebrew word t***slated glory is kabod, meaning grandeur, splendor, beauty, honor, magnificence, dignity, majesty, from a root meaning "weighty, that which makes or leaves an impression."
We can "share His glory" only through His grace, applied through the conduit of our faith. It is not, and can not be earned or self-generated.
The New Testament Greek word t***slated glory is doxa, which in the Greek language means "honor or splendor," not "wisdom" as you suggest. God's glory is His righteousness, His holiness, His perfection. The Bible's standard of human righteousness is God's own perfection in every attribute.
We live in a fallen world where we easily believe our ways are right in our own eyes; it is hard for many to accept that God accepts nothing less than the absolute standard of righteousness. True or false becomes relative, and many believe they can do wh**ever they think or feel is right.
We require the righteousness of Christ imputed to us because we have no righteousness of our own. We are sinners by nature, and we cannot make ourselves righteous - we cannot reconcile ourselves to God. Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, - His holiness credited to our account by God.
Since the death and resurrection of Christ, the purpose of the law has been fulfilled and as a result, everyone who believes in Him is reconciled to God (Romans 3:22, 10:4).
Righteousness is a God-centered attribute: no man can attain it through his own efforts. We, humans, are inclined to follow our own paths and use our own ways, instead of Godâs. This selfish desire for independence from God is in our nature, we need nobody to teach us that.
Isaiah 42:8 "I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols."
quote=manning5: "Beginning with the five W's: Who, What, When, Where, and Why. There should be a How in the set."Endquote
The living Logos is a name or title of Jesus Christ, seen as the pre-existent second person of the Trinity. In the DouayâRheims, King James, New International, and other versions of the Bible, the first verse of the Gospel of John reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The "How is in Genesis:
1 In the beginning God created (God the Father)
2 And the Spirit of God moved (God the Holy Spirit)
3 And God said (Jesus, the Son of God)
quote=manning5 "In my view, He already has, by instilling it into every person as they are born, and it is my belief that He does not have any objections to us exploring the whole world of ideas, things, and movements. That is, so long as we are faithful and do not descend into any of the sinful places far enough to be trapped."Endquote
I told you I would call what you call philosophy, man's natural curiosity.
How far into the "sinful places" is far enough, in your estimate to be trapped, and by what and whose rule of measurement are you measuring?
The concept of glory, in the bible, does not come from Greek culture but from the Old Testament. The Hebrew word t***slated glory is kabod, meaning grandeur, splendor, beauty, honor, magnificence, dignity, majesty, from a root meaning "weighty, that which makes or leaves an impression."
We can "share His glory" only through His grace, applied through the conduit of our faith. It is not, and can not be earned or self-generated.
The New Testament Greek word t***slated glory is doxa, which in the Greek language means "honor or splendor," not "wisdom" as you suggest. God's glory is His righteousness, His holiness, His perfection. The Bible's standard of human righteousness is God's own perfection in every attribute.
We live in a fallen world where we easily believe our ways are right in our own eyes; it is hard for many to accept that God accepts nothing less than the absolute standard of righteousness. True or false becomes relative, and many believe they can do wh**ever they think or feel is right.
We require the righteousness of Christ imputed to us because we have no righteousness of our own. We are sinners by nature, and we cannot make ourselves righteous - we cannot reconcile ourselves to God. Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, - His holiness credited to our account by God.
Since the death and resurrection of Christ, the purpose of the law has been fulfilled and as a result, everyone who believes in Him is reconciled to God (Romans 3:22, 10:4).
Righteousness is a God-centered attribute: no man can attain it through his own efforts. We, humans, are inclined to follow our own paths and use our own ways, instead of Godâs. This selfish desire for independence from God is in our nature, we need nobody to teach us that.
Isaiah 42:8 "I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols."
quote=manning5: "Beginning with the five W's: Who, What, When, Where, and Why. There should be a How in the set."Endquote
The living Logos is a name or title of Jesus Christ, seen as the pre-existent second person of the Trinity. In the DouayâRheims, King James, New International, and other versions of the Bible, the first verse of the Gospel of John reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The "How is in Genesis:
1 In the beginning God created (God the Father)
2 And the Spirit of God moved (God the Holy Spirit)
3 And God said (Jesus, the Son of God)
quote=manning5 "In my view, He already has, by instilling it into every person as they are born, and it is my belief that He does not have any objections to us exploring the whole world of ideas, things, and movements. That is, so long as we are faithful and do not descend into any of the sinful places far enough to be trapped."Endquote
I told you I would call what you call philosophy, man's natural curiosity.
How far into the "sinful places" is far enough, in your estimate to be trapped, and by what and whose rule of measurement are you measuring?
Aug 10, 2022 07:16:53 #
I haven't watched television since December of 2018, however, there are surprisingly well informed online resources available...
News-analysis radio program on current events, world history, global politics and natural sciences. Based in New York City - has traveled to report, from Middle East to South Caucasus to Arabian Peninsula and East Asia.
http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com/
A Romanian physician (with law degree) pithy comments on the west:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RSPLZGd0sE
Styxhexenhammer666 - Vermont pagan residing in the Netherlands (He renounced Satanism years ago) great economic insight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxjoHKtNQqE
Muslim emigrant to Sweden from the Baltics (surprisingly lucid understanding of the west's cultural problems - unsure if presently broadcasting)
https://angryforeigner.substack.com/
News-analysis radio program on current events, world history, global politics and natural sciences. Based in New York City - has traveled to report, from Middle East to South Caucasus to Arabian Peninsula and East Asia.
http://www.johnbatchelorshow.com/
A Romanian physician (with law degree) pithy comments on the west:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RSPLZGd0sE
Styxhexenhammer666 - Vermont pagan residing in the Netherlands (He renounced Satanism years ago) great economic insight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxjoHKtNQqE
Muslim emigrant to Sweden from the Baltics (surprisingly lucid understanding of the west's cultural problems - unsure if presently broadcasting)
https://angryforeigner.substack.com/
manning5 wrote:
Newspapers: Only thing I believe are the weather ... (show quote)
Aug 10, 2022 07:44:10 #
As to Aristotle, the allegorical method of reinterpretation is a dangerous way to misinterpret the Bible. The allegorical method suggests that there is a deeper spiritual meaning hidden beneath the literal text - which God did not place there.
It began with the Greek philosophical allegory of the Socratic threesome (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle) after they were deceased, and is foreign to the way people in the Old Testament interpreted Scripture.
It opens up the Scriptures to far-fetched, contradicting, and even heretical interpretations. Its usage was, more than from any other of the ancient "church leaders," derived from Augustine's (13 November 354 â 28 August 430 A.D.) enrapturement with the philosophy of the Greeks, and then (10 July 1509 â 27 May 1564) the Frenchman Jean Cauvin, whom we know as John Calvin a French theologian, pastor, and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation.
He was a principal figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called Calvinism, including its doctrines of predestination and of God's absolute sovereignty in the salvation of the human soul from death and eternal damnation. Calvinist doctrines were influenced by and elaborated upon by Augustinian theology and his dependence upon Greek philosophical allegory.
What drew men to allegory is denial and rejection of the literal meaning of God's words. It happened by going beyond the plain, obvious meaning of Scripture, and looking instead for a hidden, deeper meaning. It, to this day, changed the theology of mainline denominations (seeking special elitist knowledge) from the literal understanding of Scripture to the fanciful, Satanically inspired imaginations of self-professed Christian men... made handily available by long deceased blind guides - pagan Greek philosophers to whom no light had been given.
As to your last paragraph, manning, the depth of blind staggering presumptuous ignorance displayed is truly breathtaking.
Worshiping Jesus in no way resembles behaving as Jesus. I have been forgiven far more than you could even contemplate.
âto he who is forgiven much, much is requiredâ
quote=manning5: "So much for your Aristotle! LOL!
As I alluded to in my last post, I do think you are attempting to live in the Garden of Eden reconstructed around you, and the Bible at your side. Pure as snow. That is your choice, Zemirah, but it isn't mine. For better or worse, I live in the real, sinful world, and keep fighting to stay sane and faithful.
We must agree to disagree now, and go on...[/quote]
It began with the Greek philosophical allegory of the Socratic threesome (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle) after they were deceased, and is foreign to the way people in the Old Testament interpreted Scripture.
It opens up the Scriptures to far-fetched, contradicting, and even heretical interpretations. Its usage was, more than from any other of the ancient "church leaders," derived from Augustine's (13 November 354 â 28 August 430 A.D.) enrapturement with the philosophy of the Greeks, and then (10 July 1509 â 27 May 1564) the Frenchman Jean Cauvin, whom we know as John Calvin a French theologian, pastor, and reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation.
He was a principal figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called Calvinism, including its doctrines of predestination and of God's absolute sovereignty in the salvation of the human soul from death and eternal damnation. Calvinist doctrines were influenced by and elaborated upon by Augustinian theology and his dependence upon Greek philosophical allegory.
What drew men to allegory is denial and rejection of the literal meaning of God's words. It happened by going beyond the plain, obvious meaning of Scripture, and looking instead for a hidden, deeper meaning. It, to this day, changed the theology of mainline denominations (seeking special elitist knowledge) from the literal understanding of Scripture to the fanciful, Satanically inspired imaginations of self-professed Christian men... made handily available by long deceased blind guides - pagan Greek philosophers to whom no light had been given.
As to your last paragraph, manning, the depth of blind staggering presumptuous ignorance displayed is truly breathtaking.
Worshiping Jesus in no way resembles behaving as Jesus. I have been forgiven far more than you could even contemplate.
âto he who is forgiven much, much is requiredâ
quote=manning5: "So much for your Aristotle! LOL!
As I alluded to in my last post, I do think you are attempting to live in the Garden of Eden reconstructed around you, and the Bible at your side. Pure as snow. That is your choice, Zemirah, but it isn't mine. For better or worse, I live in the real, sinful world, and keep fighting to stay sane and faithful.
We must agree to disagree now, and go on...[/quote]
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.