And you know what, there's something there that's important and valid. These folks who are difficult, they're usually difficult because they really care about the church and its life. They were there before whichever cleric is foisted on them, and they will (usually) be there afterwards. We are the ones who come in for a short time and then leave, and there's a level of humility we need to have about that.

It takes grace in both directions...

KevinT said:

I work with medical students, and they tell me that they use similar techniques to learn obscure facts all the time. For example, they will use this site: Make Learning Microbiology Unforgettable with Sketchy Micro. There are other topics also in the "Sketchy" website.

This type of learning technique is called Mnemonic memorization. And here is a good page that discusses it: 10 Mnemonic Techniques to Slay at Memorizing [Tutorial] - Cognition Today . When I was in graduate school, I would spend a lot of time condensing a group of facts into a picture, and I'd draw that in the margins of my class syllabus. My wife, taking the same classes with me, would look at my pictures for about 2 seconds and say, "OK, I got it." It seemed unfair with the difference in time between my creation and her absorption -- but I was happy to share.

In the first week of school, the institution we attended provided a lecturer who specialized in learning come and talk to us. He told us that in the next five minutes, he was going to teach us every state in the the USA, in the order in which they joined the Union, and that we would be able to say it backwards just as easily. No way, was my thought. But then he told us a story where we were walking along the deck of a ship and encountering various features that appeared in some logical order. I can't recall the details right now (the lecture was 30 some years ago), but it was easy to remember at the time. Each feature naturally mapped to the name of a state. At the end of the story, he then had us all follow him in our minds, as we turned around and walked backwards on that ship deck. And he would have us all call out the features we were going to encounter, now in reverse order. It was natural and easy.

So I applaud you for applying this powerful tool to scriptures. There needs to be much more of this!

If I were to work on such a project, I would try to link images directly to concepts. Linking an image to a letter, and then that letter to a concept is an extra mental step. So if trying to remember the sequence: True, Honest, Just, Pure, Lovely, Good report, Virtue, Praise, I would have images to directly demonstrate each point.

I have started working on this with ChatGPT making the images. But it is taking MUCH longer than I thought it would. The AI is impressive, but has a long way to go in terms of following instructions. Ha!

I'll post a followup if I am successful.
Best wishes,
Kevin T

Click to expand...

I used memory mnemonics throughout college. The method worked very well for classes that involved rote memorization. I graduated Suma Cum Laude (4.0) with a degree in Computer Programming and Analysis. It's not as tough as the medical subjects, but I imagine you could apply the system easily.

Dan Perez said:

And. in. Romans 1:1. reads , Paul. , a. slave of. Christ Jesus , a called APOSTLE. having been SEPARATED. //. APHORIZO for

Gods gospel.

APPHORIZO , means Boundaries , and Separated. and LIMITED. to only PREACH. GODS GOSPELS

And the Greek word CALLED //. KLETOS. in. the NOMINATIVE CASE and in. the SIGULAR. AND BEING. SINGULAR. mean

that's Pauls Gospel was only ONE CALLING , called GRACE and not called Law , not the NEW COVENANT and not called

BORN AGAIN , but SAVED BY GRACE , Romans 10:9. and 10 !!

dan p

Click to expand...

Has This Passage Ever Bothered You? – Romans 10:9-10 – Grace Evangelical Society

Justification by Faith and Salvation by Works? — The Key to Understanding Romans 10:9-10 – Grace Evangelical Society

bling said:

.

Click to expand...

I'm no longer going to respond to you, because all you're doing is looking for yet more objections to what I say in complete disregard of the scripture I cite. This means to me that all you want to do is argue about the matter. Consider this my last response.

1. Eph. 2:8 tells us that salvation, grace, and faith all go together. It's a complete package which is the gift of God, and you cannot separate them in reality. If you think you can have one without the other, then you err. Therefore, faith is as much the gift of God as the grace and the salvation.

2. The whole premise of your argument is that a person must yield to a series of influences in which he comes to faith (naturally) in God. But this idea is meritorious by nature, as it assumes that God is looking to the individual to decide on saving them. Then it would be payment or reward for doing something that pleases God or that meets criteria for salvation. Then grace is no longer grace, because NT grace is unmerited. What you are describing is something meritorious. You keep asking the same question repeatedly, "what does God use to determine who He will and will not rescue" which tells me you think God decides who He will save based on what a person does or thinks, which is meritorious by nature.

3. God's "arbitrary choice" of who He saves is His own prerogative, but you don't believe it because you haven't carefully read and exegeted Rom. 9. I cite whole chapters because the truth is found in the context, not in a few prooftext verses.

Since you can't agree with what I'm saying, I'm done here.

ThatRobGuy said:

I'll admit, 99% of the opinions I had about him initially were the result of what I read about him, prior ever actually hearing an interview with him.

After hearing various interviews with him, my conclusion is still that he holds some troubling views about race that I wouldn't want to associate with, but nevertheless, he still has friends and business partners that are black and Jewish, and most of the comments that he makes that are labelled as racist, are often pointing out double-standards. (For example, he makes comments about mixed-race couples that I obviously don't agree with -- being a part of a mixed race couple), but the nature of what he's saying is to the effect of "if a Black person said they wanted to only date and have children with other Black people as a means of preserving their racial identity and culture, it wouldn't be controversial, but if a white person says it, it's viewed as racist"

Click to expand...

A racist being able to present themselves as somewhat sane in an interview just proves that they have some knowledge of PR and a degree of self-awareness.

ThatRobGuy said:

And that's true... I know that first hand. I've mentioned on here before that my significant other is Indian. Her parents (and 75% of her family are not a fan lol), she rejected an "arranged" situation to be with me. That didn't go over well. Yet, nobody calls her parents and 2 of her 4 siblings "racists", it gets labelled as some sort of "wanting to uphold a cultural tradition"...

Click to expand...

I think most people recognize that as racism. There's typically some hesitation to call out examples of racism from minority groups, because it's something that an unscrupulous person could turn into a very uncomfortable situation - or just because people want to keep the peace. I've seen plenty of cases of socially-unacceptable behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) being laughed off, handwaved, or ignored because no one wants to rock the boat. That doesn't mean that people don't see it for what it is though.

ThatRobGuy said:

But to hear the way people talk about him, you'd be led to believe that he's a racist on the level of someone like Gypsy Crusader. (which, don't look him up if you're sensitive to offensive rhetoric...but if you want to see what real racism looks like, Gypsy Crusader embodies it)

Click to expand...

To hear people talk about him, you'd think he's the most racist person they're aware of. Which isn't particularly far-fetched - I'd be willing to bet that the number of people who have heard of Nick Fuentes is orders of magnitude greater than the number of people who have heard of Gypsy Crusader (no idea who that is, BTW).

ralliann said:

Oh Yeah, a judge defends murder. Wow.

Click to expand...

That’s some spectacularly bad reading comprehension. Wow.

Very nice. What generator did you use? I like the path concept from one thought/image to the next. That would be good for a progressive story or a chapter of the Bible.
I am a little frustrated with the couple AI generators I use because they seem to generate different images each time using the same script.

d taylor said:

-
​

Paul states he received his gospel from Jesus. Jesus always taught to receive God's free gift of Eternal Life a person must believe in Him Jesus.

If that is not sufficient for you then go and preach your gospel you have constructed. As for me i will continue to tell people to believe in Jesus for God's free gift of Eternal Life.

Click to expand...

And. in. Romans 1:1. reads , Paul. , a. slave of. Christ Jesus , a called APOSTLE. having been SEPARATED. //. APHORIZO for

Gods gospel.

APPHORIZO , means Boundaries , and Separated. and LIMITED. to only PREACH. GODS GOSPELS

And the Greek word CALLED //. KLETOS. in. the NOMINATIVE CASE and in. the SIGULAR. AND BEING. SINGULAR. mean

that's Pauls Gospel was only ONE CALLING , called GRACE and not called Law , not the NEW COVENANT and not called

BORN AGAIN , but SAVED BY GRACE , Romans 10:9. and 10 !!

dan p

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Again... if you want to make such a claim: show the actual machine itself! Stop with this ridiculous game of "Guess the tool!" with each picture you show.

Click to expand...

Thats the idea. But its not all gusessing. Ever heard of reverse engineering. Do you think reverse engineering can tell us anything about the methods used.

It seems your holding me to standard that you don't apply to yourself. You claim that these predynastic vases were made by the simple tools in the records. We have no tools or methods from the predynastics.

So your wanting me to accept your claim that the traditional method is what caused these marks. But you also have no evidence of the tools or method. Looks like we are in a stalemate.

Do you think that if forensics determines a gun was used in a murder by the signature of bullet holes at the crime scene. That not finding the gun means they cannot say that a gun caused the signatures.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you certainly need the evidence for anyone to remotely take you seriously.

Click to expand...

I think I already have provided ample evidence. You have two eyes. You can see for yourself. What do you think these marks in the images look like. Be honest.

childeye 2 said:

It sounds like you're saying that the Thelemic will is the objectively true desire/will in mankind. And it sounds like you're saying the gnomic will is the faculty of reasoning. Is that accurate?

Click to expand...

Not quite, though you're mostly on track with the thelemic will which is a natural inclination to do God's will present in the imago dei...the gnomic will isn't exactly a will at all, just the power to make choices. Reasoning can play into it, but the gnome is principally responsible for our ability to deviate from the thelemic will.

Yeah; did it about 4 PM today.

Stupid. I wish they'd just leave it alone---it serves no useful purpose, and the older I get, the harder it is for me to adjust to it, especially in the spring.

Fervent said:

Not unnatural, but is more the ordinary will. The thelemic will is the will that is pointed towards our natural good, so it is directed toward God. The gnomic will is our basic sense of voluntary choice.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you're saying that the Thelemic will is the objectively true desire/will in mankind. And it sounds like you're saying the gnomic will is the personal faculty of reasoning. Is that accurate?

Apple Sky said:

What I don't understand is that if the earth is turning how come the constellations still remain the same night after night ?

Click to expand...

Same explanation, but this time the mountains are so far away that the distance covered by the speeding train is insignificant in comparison.

Valletta said:

Unfortunately the Democrats again voted against the continuing resolution and there are conflicting court orders. President Trump is not responsible for the behavior of Democrat senators nor the courts. Many seem furious about Trump's successful economic policies and negotiations and know that keeping the government shut down will hurt the U.S. economy.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the reputation of Republicans who say “just pass what we want and we will come back to the table” and then never do has preceded them, and their word is worth less than vapor. Democrats know they won’t come back to the table and the people will suffer, so they have to dig in.

Successful economic policies? The government is shut down, he’s done nothing to ease it but blather on social media, play golf, and fiddle around with a ball room. The American people are rallying together to try and help people who don’t have food, he’s MIA. Successful presidents with successful economic policies don’t have millions of people wondering where their next meal is coming from. Successful economic policies don’t have the government shut down in a month, flirting with breaking the longest shutdown in US history record… One Trump already had, I may add; as it occured over his administration in 2018… The man couldn’t care less about the American people, and yet there are people so hopelessly devoted to him they will congratulate him running a ship aground, saying to ignore that it’s sinking and celebrate the abundance of water previously denied them by the evil Democrats.

I mean, the man just held a Great Gatsby-themed party with the tagline “a little party never killed nobody.” Other than he clearly didn’t get what the book was about, nor did he get what the movie or song he’s quoting from that movie means (which is no surprise TBH, but still), short of him saying “Valletta, I do not care about you or anything you care about,” I’m not sure he could be any more blatant.

Dan Perez said:

Just check the GREEK text and then check VINES GREEK DICTIONARY that covers all the NEW TESAMENT. and then

Check STRONG. that has all Hebrew and Greeks in. the Bible and they Are not there and also NOT. POPE , !!

dan p

Click to expand...

Ugh, still looking for a Latin derived word in Greek and Hebrew text. Keep looking

Oompa Loompa said:

Yeah, show me where Jesus forced people to feed people experiencing poverty behind the barrel of a gun. Which is essentially what happens when you expect the American taxpayer to flip the bill. Why? Because if we refuse to pay, eventually there will be a guy with a gun knocking on my door and dragging me to a courtroom where I either have the choice of paying the tax or going to jail. It may shock you to find out that conservatives, especially Christians, are generally more generous towards the poor and donate more money to help the needy. It is liberals who refuse to spend a dime of their own money only to demand that others pay the cost. There are over 40 million people receiving food stamps. Many of whom do not need it and have been trained by their mothers and their mother's mother to suck as much out of the welfare system as possible. I personally have numerous cousins and a couple of sisters who have multiple baby daddies, and they truly believe that getting a job is for suckers, while simultaneously bragging about all the steak, lobster, and junk food they can receive.. This is why the United States is the only country in the world where the poorest of the poor suffer from obesity. So please do not try to play the game in which you lable others as being sub-christian because we refuse to supplement entitlement.

Click to expand...

Right now in the little free library in front of my house, I have 10 loaves of oatmeal molasses bread that I made, five bags of cheddar crackers I made, a dozen individually-wrapped sourdough chocolate chip cookies that I made, 9 boxed mixes, a notice I’m making pizza in my front yard on Tuesday that’s open to all who what it, and I just used Instacart to buy $200 of groceries for a food bank that will be delivered tomorrow. Tomorrow, I’m going to have 24 cinnamon rolls, 30 replacement nutrient cookies, all made by me, two cases of water, and maybe more bread for the library. This is on top of the meals I donate to the children’s hospital care house for family and the homeless shelter that opened up today through spring that I’ve donated to for the last 3 years.

So, how much food have you made and put in your little free library? How many homeless shelters, children’s hospital homes, and food pantry employees know you by name because you are there donating? How many people in need see your car turn in the parking lot and know that breakfast, lunch, dinner, and two snacks are taken care of for today with actual food, not canned stuff from the back of a closet? How many free pizzas have you made this year? How big was your Instacart food run donation today?

Or are you just sitting here begrudgingly complaining about having to pay taxes… The same taxes (or less) that I pay while still doing all the above? Complaining about your money going to feed people who you demand prove their hardship to you so you can thumbs up or down if they deserve food or not, while turning a blind eye to the behavior of millionaires, billionaires, and golf-playing people in authority who get more, and bigger, handouts than the person who’s spending it on food?

I am a happy, safe, secure woman in a happy, safe, secure home who likely won’t ever have to worry about my next meal, and I want to do my part in helping others feel the same. What’s the excuse for not doing the same? From where I sit, it seems like for most it’s either apathy (at best) and at worst a belief that because they’re unsatisfied with how hard they have to work, they want to know others are just as or more miserable as they are, and resentment that anybody they feel isn’t as worthy as them has any part of their life “easy.”

Oh, and as for where does Jesus say we need to feed people? Matthew 25:35–40 which includes ““Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?’ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’”” Or Luke 14:13–14 “But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” Or Mark 10:21 “Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”” Or Luke 12:33-34. Or Luke 11:39-41. Or Matthew 6:1-4.

Notice none of those passages talk about going out and ranking the hardships of the poor or verifying they’re “actually” poor or “actually” need food or find out if they live in poverty that seems abject enough… He says go do it. Why? Because what you do to help is your virtue, your relationship with God and faith, your spiritual test. How other people use it is their virtue, relationship with God and faith, and their spiritual test, and exactly none of your business.

BobRyan said:

True.

But details in Christ's life were specifically identified in the OT as applying to none other than the Messiah. A single individual.

Click to expand...

That's just not true in my understanding. The Passover is representative of men who sinned, but repented and placed the "Life" (Blood) of the Messiah, in their minds (Lintel) and in their walks and deeds (2 door posts). When the Christ's Life was seen on these men, God's wrath passes over them. Isn't this the meaning of Passover, "to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood" of the ONE perfect human who offered Himself to God for us?

1 Cor. 10: 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

How can you say Abraham or Noah or Caleb didn't have the Spirit of Christ in them that prompted them to say in their heart, "Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies. 5 Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered. 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. 7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, (Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.)

8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

I believe the Poster make a wonderful point about those whose refuge in the Lord, like David.

I don't want to argue, and will not address all your post, but would like to address just a few, and then respectfully disagree because I'm sure we are at an impasse.

BobRyan said:

It is unclear to me that Jesus needed to be born again.

Click to expand...

Well HE died a mortal human, but was raised an immortal Priest, "after the order of Melchizedek". That seems like being born again to me.

BobRyan said:

True of lost sinners, but Christ was the God man, and did not need to be born again.

Click to expand...

And yet HE was raised with a different Body than HE was born with.

BobRyan said:

true

True, Jesus obeyed and Abraham obeyed, but Abraham needed salvation, Jesus did not

Click to expand...

So what? Should Abraham then tell God, "You are lying to me regarding your promises because I have already sinned". or "The Spirit of Christ is powerless to cleanse me and teach me in the way that I should go because I have already sinned, and HE didn't?

So would you then have Abraham say, "leave me alone, I am forever without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:" because I have already sinned?

Of course not Ryan, and I don't think you would say these things either.

Shouldn't we say instead;

4 Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.

5 Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered.

6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, (Every Example of Faithful man in the Bible followed the Christ's Example of Yielding themselves to God in obedience. Every one of them)

8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

How is this not what EVERY man will say in his heart, whose ears have been opened concerning the Mercy and Lovingkindness God has shown us.

And it is not them or their will, but Christ in them by Faith.

It is true that David is being bold, and in my understanding, this is why the Hebrews author quoted him.

Servus said:

Okay. I'm not going to debate someone's own personal homespun theology.

Click to expand...

If you are not, why say anything and continue even. Should have said nothing. Because in reality, that is what you saying.

Why not just show from scripture whether his beliefs are true or not?

Not that studyman is right or wrong, but Jesus was viewed as unorthodox by the majority, the learned and unlearned.

partinobodycular said:

In my twisted little head I can't help but think that that was what @Bradskii was alluding to all along. That the conclusion as to whether something is immoral or not is never present in the premises no matter how exhaustive they are. This includes the ever vaunted rape scenarios. The use of the word 'rape' may elicit a moral judgment, but that moral judgment isn't intrinsic to the word rape unless one personally defines it as such, which we in western societies almost universally do. But it's simply a clever way of sneaking the conclusion into the premises.

Click to expand...

You're off base with this, it's not that the terms are loaded. It's that the only way to get from premises about a state of affairs to a moral evaluation is to include the moral evaluation into the premises themselves.

partinobodycular said:

Thus the argument that rape is always immoral falls under your either/or characterization. You either sneak the conclusion into the premises, or it's a non sequitur.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether we're talking absolutes or specific cases.

partinobodycular said:

Which inevitably leads to the 'gap' problem, but methinks that @Bradskii has already addressed this problem, you just weren't paying attention.

Click to expand...

He's stated facts and a feeling, neither of which relates the premises to the moral conclusion. He's presented a non-sequitor trying to get an emotional response to do heavy lifting, but emotions don't relate to moral statementss any more than simple facts do. His "reassoning" remains a non-sequitor, unless he begins with a moral value hidden in his premises.

Hentenza said:

Nah. It’s the first day of the week celebrating Jesus resurrection which marks the beginning of the new covenant that does not include the requirement for Christians to keep the 4th commandment.

Of course, you could always post a post resurrection verse that requires the Christian to keep the 4th commandment.

Click to expand...

Says nowhere in the New Testament.

Do not add what is not.

concretecamper said:

I remember listening to Frank Turek explain to a student how, in his mind, the canon of Scripture was determined. He went through this lengthy process and couldn't see that all he was doing was agreeing with man made ideas and processes.

I like Frank when he argues for God's existence, but when he starts against the Catholic Church, he sounds like a 1st grader.

Click to expand...

Just check the GREEK text and then check VINES GREEK DICTIONARY that covers all the NEW TESAMENT. and then

Check STRONG. that has all Hebrew and Greeks in. the Bible and they Are not there and also NOT. POPE , !!

dan p

ralliann said:

They could have continued government spending, but the Democrats refused. And you know it. They are strong arming to get their way.

Click to expand...

The Republicans could have agreed to the Democrats plan but they refused, and you know it. They are strong arming to get their way.

BobRyan said:

My question was about this

Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Ps 40:6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.
Ps 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book [it is] written of me,
Ps 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law [is] within my heart.

those statements in Heb 10 and Ps 40 uniquely apply to Christ, literally, individually , personally

So then we often go to non-believers show how the OT text specifically predict Jesus as Messiah, Savior of mankind etc.

If the unbeliever could say "those OT predictions are so generic you make them apply to anyone so then they actually prove nothing unique about the person of Jesus in the first century" , our whole case would be shot.

Click to expand...

Hentenza said:

No. In verse 7 David starts with “then I said” which is what David will say. The rest of verses 7 is about the Messiah so the second ”I” is not David.

If you are referring to the Mosaic law then Jesus fulfilled (completed) the law by His sacrifice on the cross for propitiation of our sins. The faith we preach does not include the works of the law. Not even Abraham was saved by his works.

Verse 9 does not include the pronoun “he”. It continues with “I”.

And?

Click to expand...

Read the whole psalm.
It is David speaking of himself, not knowing that some of it was in regard to Christ and himself.

The following isn't about Jesus,

Ps 40:12 For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me.

The writer of Hebrews speaks of Jesus in verse 5. We know this because the writer uses the word He

Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and [sacrifices] for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Then the writer uses the word I like David did. Here as David he is saying that He came to do God's will as it is written in the volume of the Book of him. That Book being the Book of the Law.

Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

Then the writer goes back to verse 5 in verse 8 and in doing so the writer goes back to referring to Jesus in regard to the same verse that he claimed for himself as David did. How do we know? Because the writer uses the word he again.

Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and [offering] for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure [therein]; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.