Wednesday, January 10, 2024
Sunday, January 7, 2024
Conclusions and commentary based on a brief examination of some teachings of pastor Jim Brown of Grace and Truth Ministries, in Hendersonville, TN.
Conclusions and commentary based on a brief examination of some teachings of pastor Jim Brown of Grace and Truth Ministries, in Hendersonville, TN.
First off, let me state that Pastor Jim Brown makes himself difficult to examine and document his teaching, and thus expose his errors, since he presents almost all his teachings via audio and video, and some poor images of tracts. Even his "Statement Of Faith" is a video and I do not even see anything to read from him on the nature of God (Father, Son and Spirit) and eternal punishment.
However based upon what I have read and somewhat heard from what can be readily apprehended, I would partly describe him as a self-appointed guru on Greek who has found his niche in attacking sound beliefs of established evangelical faith (besides some unsound ones), thereby negating any need for affirmation by such, while drawing away disciples after himself," (Acts 20:30) as a crafty rebel with a purported cause. Which discipling he does by often engaging in manipulation of language) which can deceive the simple..
Those who have a spirit of rebellion against authority in general are typically attracted to men such as Brown since he is seen as an ally against leadership and thus accountability to the same.
Like many cult teachers who operate under the same spirit and premise, while he does not actually appeal to another source of Divine revelation, yet he essentially much does the like thru crafting the meaning of texts based upon restrictively selecting a meaning of Greek words as absolutely definitive (including relying on the root word fallacy), and selectively so, while often spiritualizing away literal aspects and meanings of teachings (rejecting, baptism, the Lord's supper for two), while also employing false dichotomies and engaging in logical fallacies, etc.
By which tactics he can force texts to teach some often tortured interpretations (see below on some), while overall majoring on predestination,
Baptism:
Based upon just a search of his tract images, I find that he dismisses baptízō as meaning to "dip, plunge, immerse" though that is just what it describes. Such as "And Jesus, when he was baptized, [baptízō] went up straightway out of the water,"(Mat 3:16) "were all baptized [baptízō] of him in the river of Jordan," (Mark 1:5; cf. John 3:23) "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?, And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized [baptízō] him." (Act 8:36, 38) "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, [baptízō] which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Act 10:47)
Brown's recourse here is to invoke "bapto" as being the original word, and a noun (which become a very in action), but which actually means baptizo is derived from it, and based on that, presuming a word inherently carries one meaning in all of its uses, or can only precisely mean what the word it was derived means, is called the "root word fallacy."
As this commentary attests:
This word [baptízō ] should not be confused with baptô (911). The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (baptô) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizô) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution.
The Lord's supper:
Next, consistent with Browns' hyper anti-literalism, is his utter rejection the ordinance of the Lord's supper, by wholly spiritualizing it. (https://www.graceandtruth.net/images/stories/eatflesh.jpg)
Yet it is manifestly clear that the NT church, fully under grace, literally obeyed the words which Paul states in 1 Co. 11, "And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. "After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthians 11:24-25)
And Paul has much to say in both 1 Corinthians 10 and 11 on the Lord's supper, which "feast of charity" Jude 1:12 alludes to, all as literal observances, effectually remembering the Lord's death via a communal meal which declares/proclaims it, (1 Corinthians 11:26) by manifesting the effects of His death, that of union with Christ and each other as members together, being bought with His sinless shed blood. Which Catholics pervert (as shown here, by the grace of God) while Brown negates it.
Love:
Another example of Brown's follies include reasoning that since "phileo" means "affection" ("For the Father himself loveth [phileo] you, because ye have loved [phileo] me"" - John 16:27) but "love" (agapeo) for neighbor and our enemy does not mean showing affection, therefore to love them means to "give our neighbor and our enemy all that God is - His instruction," and "feed them them the only food that is legal (prescribed) for sheep to consume (the Law - instruction in God's word)." (https://www.graceandtruth.net/images/stories/What%20is%20Love.jpg)
Thus, "Thou shalt love [agapaō] thy neighbour as thyself" would mean just to give instruction to them, as if that is the only way humans love themselves, which is absurd. (See more here on these words."(
"Accept Christ is false doctrine"?:
Another example of his logical fallacies (either-or position, false dilemma) in his polemics is reasoning that since "the natural man receiveth [déxomai] not the things of the Spirit of God, nor can know them since they are spiritually discerned," (1 Co. 2:14) then to "Accept Christ is false doctrine" as he labels it. (https://www.graceandtruth.net/images/stories/Accept%20Christ.jpg)
However, while 1 Co. 2:14 is wholly true, that by nature man cannot receive not the things of the Spirit of God, yet this does not mean that to "accept [déxomai = "warmly receptive, welcoming" and which is usually translated as "receive" including Christ - Mt. 10:40)] Christ" is false doctrine, for God draws souls, opens hearts, grants repentance and gives faith (Jn. 6:44; 12:32; 16:8; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8, 9) and moves us to obey, (Phil.2:13) thus both motivating and enabling us to do what we otherwise could not and would not do. The only thing that man can and must take credit for is that of resisting and disobeying God, which we are warned against doing.
Thus, to "accept/receive Christ" is true doctrine, as meaning by effectual penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith in the Divine Son of God and Lord of all,, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) which is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28)
And
by which faith the redeemed soul is "accepted in the Beloved"
and positionally seated with Him in Heaven, on His account, glory to
God. (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6; cf. Phil. 3:21) And those who die in that
obedient faith will go to be forever with Him at death or His return
(Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff';
1Thess. 4:17)
In contrast to those who were never born of
the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12;
10:25-39)
No demons, only self?:
The last example of Brown's "wresting" of Scripture (2 Pt. 3:18) I will deal with Brown's denial of actual demon possession, teaching that all such descriptions refers to one's own sinful nature (which can be described as demonic, and is to be mortified, but which is not the same as actual demons, unclean spirits).
And which example is from The Doctrine of the Devil audio message (https://www.graceandtruth.net/videos-pdf-mp3s/gematria-series/message/3030-doctrine-of-the-devil-demons-are-self-demons-are-genies-demons-are-fairies-demons-are-guardian-angels-demons-are-totems-self-is-man-s-only-problem, mainly btwn the 4 and 25 minute section).
In which he selectively works with Matthew 8:28-33, Mark 1:23-27, and Luke 4:31-36 yet not all the pertinent verses, and in which he reasons/argues/asserts that,
- since "spirit' as in "unclean spirit" means breath (and you never get all your CO2 out of your body);
- and since the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is Truth (the "Spirit is Truth" in KJV - 1 John 5:6) - thus inferring a denial of the Spirit as an Divine entity/person, while he also denigrated Pentecostals;
- and since the man possessed with the unclean spirit said "we" and "us" and then "I" (Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I [which is not in the Greek] know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God - Mark 1:24) ;
- and since Brown falsely states that Jesus rebuked him [not the demons], saying, "Hold thy peace, and come out of him" (Mark 1:24);
- and since the Greek word for "him" is "auto" which he uses "automobile" as an example for, as in self-propelled;
- and since Brown states that Jesus rebuked "him" (the man, not his demons - upon which false premise Brown much rests his argument on);
then it means that the man possessed with the unclean spirit was lying when he referred to himself in the plural;
and since Brown states the word for "demon" (used in the parallel account in Lk. 4) is " daimonion" which means "seller of fortunes;"
and since the single Greek word in Matthew 8:28 (among other places) for "possessed with devils" is "daimonizomai" which [can] mean insane;
then thus Brown states "unclean spirit" simply refers to self (!) as in "deny himself" in all the accounts(!)
Rather, Brown's contrivance is what is "in-sane" exegetically speaking, being a work of sophistry which conclusion is simply untenable in the light of context as well as the Greek.
First as regards inferring a denial of the Spirit as an Divine entity/person based upon the Holy Spirit being Truth, if Brown is indeed denying this manifest Truth, it would be s another example of his proclivity to engage in false either/or reasoning.
For the Holy "Spirit is Truth" 1 John 5:6) is not a denial of His personhood any more "God is love" in 1 John 4:16 is, nor that a person "which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6) means that such is no longer a person. As with God is love, it means that this is what He consists of as His overall attribute, thanks be to God.
Secondly, the argument Brown majors on here is that since the man possessed with the unclean spirit said "we" and "us" and then "I" (Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God - Mark 1:24);
and since Jesus rebuked him (not the demons. Brown states), saying, "Hold thy peace, and come out of him" (Mark 1:24) then Brown concludes this this means that the man was lying (as regards being many, "us," and "we") with the Bible in recording these prevaricating words, and therefore Brown concludes that this refers to self, not demons.
Yet this is easily refuted by the fact that there is no "I" in the Greek here, despite Greek being what this false teacher relies on so much, no, not in Mark 1:24 nor in Luke 4:34, while Mt. 8:29 leaves out this response.
In addition, the Greek word for "know" here (eidō) is used only in certain past tenses and thus is translated as "knowing," "seeing" "perceiving" which it is collectively translated as over 40 times in the KJV, and neither is there any question mark in the Greek.
Thus (by going to the Greek which Brown does here) the text can read, "saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth, art thou come to destroy us, knowing thee, who thou art, the Holy One of God[?] (Mark 1:24)
In any case, it remains that there is no "I" here, contrary to Brown's recourse, and the fear of the demons is due to their having known that Jesus is the Holy One of God.
And rather than the "And Jesus rebuked him [auto], saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him" (Mark 1:25) referring to the man as just him-self as in self-propelled automobile (as Brown argues in contending that the demons are just one's "selfish self"), and not the sources of the man speaking, Strong's definition of the Greek "auto" is "the reflexive pronoun self [auto] used (alone or in the compound of G1438) of the third person and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons..."
And thus the word "auto" at issue is translated as them 1,081times and as They 125 times, as it is in Mat 8:32 regarding this command plurality, "And he said unto them, Go" and in Luke 8:32 in dealing with the same, "And he suffered them." (KJV)
And of course, the fact that the Lord cast out demons renders the premise that the latter just refers to putting the flesh to death, is simply absurd!
And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him. And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. (Mark 1:25-27)
Would to God that self could be instantly wholly expelled with a word, rather than requiring daily mortification of the sinful nature by yielding to the Spirit, putting on the new man, (Rm. 6-8; Col. 3) though deliverance is to be had from its domination by dying to self, though not eradicated, and thus the warnings against yielding to the flesh.
Daimonion = seller of fortunes = self?:
And as for the word for "demon" " daimonion" " (used in the parallel account in Lk. 4) meaning "seller of fortunes," The root meaning of the Greek word daimon is "knowing" or "intelligence." and and while "the Ancient Greeks had several meanings" for daemon, and consistent with this attribute of "knowing" or "intelligence, the main meaning is said to be,
“he who dispenses fate, a spirit that gives a person his or her personality traits. The word is derived from Proto-Indo-European daimon, which means “provider, divider (of fortunes or destinies),” from the root da- “to divide.” Xenocrates, a Greek philosopher of the Platonic Academy, believed that god is above all, and there are demonical powers intermediate between the divine and the mortal world which consist in conditions of the soul. (https://greekreporter.com/2023/10/20/ancient-greek-demon/#:~:text=Unlike%20today%2C%20the%20Ancient%20Greeks,his%20or%20her%20personality%20traits.%E2%80%9D)
But only by engaging in the aforementioned root word fallacy can one assert that its root meaning MUST be what it means in its later uses. To the contrary, for instance, the English word "nice" comes from the Latin original nescius, which literally means "unknowing, ignorant." "Egregious" originally meant remarkably good, from the Latin egregius, meaning "illustrious, select"—literally, "standing out from the flock. In Old English, “pretty” meant crafty and cunning.
And as regards the single Greek word in Matthew 8:28 (among other places) for "possessed with devils" being "daimonizomai" which [can] mean insane, contrary to Brown, that in no way is contrary to demons being real, since insanity can be an effect of such.
Cast out self?:
In addition, no amount of spinning can spiritualize or explain away the numerous other cases of casting of demons (which is what Brown can be expected to do) as being literally just that. Jesus did not send a legion of selves - whose insanity was the effect of such - from one man into a heard of swine, though it belongs there.
Predestination and other issues:
As regards the issue of predestination which Brown major on, I did not take the time to listen to him one this, but as regards the meaning the basis for it predestination and election, i will comment somewhat on this issue which separates Calvinists and Arminians (named after their respective founders, and both of which varies somewhat in details). Which is one of the 4 major divisions that I see within the body of Christ, yet which are typically somewhat related.
The Arminians understanding of predestination that if know of is that of being "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," (1 Peter 1:2) as meaning God elected souls based upon His of foreknowledge of what they would do with that grace. (https://holyjoys.org/wesleyan-arminians-predestination)
Let me say here that the omniscient (all knowing) omnipotent (all-powerful) Creator-God, who knows what all the effects will be of every action in every place (and all the thoughts motivation of man behind them), not only the effects in this present speck of time in out location but their full extent in time and eternity;
and can and will make them all work out for what is Good, which justice for the impenitent relative to their accountability, and for the good of those who choose Light over darkness by God/s grace, by effectual faith in the risen Lord Jesus;
will be shown to be justified in all his actions.
Calvinists believe in predestination based upon unconditional deterministic election, which a face-value reading of Romans 9-11 can be seen to teach, which is taken to mean that God damned/hated the non-elect before they themselves did any wrong, and not because they did or would;
And thus, being born with an inherited Adamic nature they are not simply unable to effectually believe on the Lord Jesus for salvation, but since (according to Calvinism) "salvlfic grace" is never granted them, and thus they have not other recourse but to l live and die as damned sinners, though they can somewhat choose how sinful and damanable they will be.
But likewise that God loved/elected those predestinated to salvation before they were born, to which He grants "salvlfic grace" (which is a extra-scriptural theological term used to describe a type of grace beyond "common grace," which all souls experience to varying degrees) and which grace is held as being irresistible;
And by which they are regenerated by the Spirit before they even repent/believe (this being two sides of the same coin, for turning to the Lord means due to faith turning from unbelief and its life, according to the Light one has) but which they therefore do in the same experiential moment of conversion.
However this means that the non-elect, who are not simply unable to repent/believe due to being born spiritually dead, but are never granted "salvific grace," then they thus are never enabled to obey the command to all men everywhere to repent and believe for salvation, (Acts 17:30) and thus they are damned.
But which condition and its basic result is effectively due the sin of their father Adam, which left them in a condition which they cannot obtain salvation from.
Which is contrary to the justice of God. reflective of His character, which He Himself states and affirms numerous times, that He will not judicially punish children for what their father's did. "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16; cf. 2Kings 14:5, 6; 2Chron. 25:4; Jer. 31:29, 30; Ezek. 18:20)
That does not mean that we do not experience effects due to the choices of others, esp. fathers, for good and or evil, (cf. John 4:37, 38) but that we are not being punished as guilty or rewarded as meritorious due to what another did.
The only way I see that this contradiction with God's justice might be reconciled, though I do not argue it is true, is to allow that the non-elect are granted unmerited salvific grace, if not unwarranted in the light them being born in a damnable condition over which the had no control, as God is merciful.
And that such grace can be resisted (with the statement of polemical objection in Romans 9:19 "who hath resisted his will?" being understood as ignoring levels of saving grace, one being determinate grace, but also that of a resistible level of saving grace), which resistance is consistent with such texts as Proverbs 1:20.
But that the elect are given more unwarranted grace, like as souls experience varying degrees of common grace, and in this case salvific grace is given to such a degree as to make souls willing whereas otherwise they would not, thru God giving more grace.
Under this system, the non-elect are not effectively dammed because of the sin of Adam leaving them in an inescapable condition, as instead God seeks their salvation, being
"not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance, (2 Pt. 3:9)
and having "no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live," (Ezekiel 33:11)
for God "commandeth all men every where to repent" (Acts 17:30)
for God "will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth, (1 Timothy 2:4)
for Christ became "the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world," (1 John 2:2)
and finally weeping over their stubborn terminal impenitence, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes" (Luke 19:41-42)
as they die in their sins, even in reprobation.
And thus men adding the word "elect" to the sacred text in such verses as above cannot be justified, which Calvinism must do in order to disallow the all-too obvious contradictions of the Calvinistic understanding of Romans 9 thru 11 with so many other clear statements on the justice of God.
Who can indeed do whatever He pleaseth (Psalms 115:3) but it would not please Him to act contrary to His own words, His own standard for justice, as in effectively condemning souls due to a terminal condition which they have no hope of deliverance from.
In contrast, under the alternative conditions described, the non-elect are only judged for what they are accountable for, which is wholly Scriptural, (Romans 14:12; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Matthew 25:31-46; Rev. 10:11-15) not for what they did not do (which is also the case in rewarding faith in 1 Co. 3).
In which it will be manifest that all the verses such as the above applied to them also, but that the lost resisted grace by which they could have been saved, calling "Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you. Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof." (Proverbs 1:23-25)
Eternal security:
Related to Calvinism is that of eternal security - though many Arminians also hold to it - is that of "once saved, always saved" (OSAS) which Calvinism affirms, but only as preserving faith (the "P" in the T.U.L.I.P doctrine), but which is contrary to the many Scriptures which warn believers, as believers, against developing an "evil heart of unbelief in departing from living God," from the faith they once held, falling from grace, making Christ of no effect, to no profit, drawing back to perdition," and yielding to pressure to deny the faith after conversion, so that Paul's labor would be in vain, (Gal. 5:1-5; Heb. 3:12-14; Heb. 10:25-31, Heb. 10: 38-39; 1 Thessalonians 3:5)
Cessationism vs. continuationism:
Also typically related to the two major views on election are those of the perpetuity of supernatural "Pentecostal" gifts, which Calvinists almost all reject (cessationism vs. continuationism), and often cite the rampant grievous aberrations within it in arguing against it. However, despite such there is no argument from Scripture that justifies the premise that all such have ceased and the coming of that which is perfect, (1 Corinthians 13:10) meaning perfect revelation, and thus its knowing, is what 1 John 3:2 refers to.
Futurism; supersessionism:
Also typical within Calvinism is that of the rejection of the futuristic eschatological view of Scripture, which holds that much of Matthew 24 and most all of the book of Revelation has a yet future fulfillment, and that prophetic promises to the Jews as a people group and nation no longer apply to them, but only to the the church (supersessionism, also called replacement theology). Which rejection is problematic (though they say the same about futuristic eschatology) and as regard the Jews, it is contrary to Romans 11.
Rapture"
Along with this is the rejection of two second comings of Christ, meaning the "Rapture" which almost always is held as preceding the Great Tribulation, which itself is Scriptural, though I do not believe the pretrib rapture is, as instead I see this as occurring at the end of the Tribulation, but without going into detail here.
Conclusion:
However, despite my proffered explanation here on Calvinism, besides rejecting the Calvinistic understanding of Romans 9-11 as regards the non-elect being effectively damned due to the sin of Adam, and my rejection Calvinism's exclusion of saving grace being offered to the non-elect, I do not feel any need to reconcile the contradictions, as I can leave them is a state of suspension (see Psalms 131) while awaiting more illumination of the word, while treating souls that way the Bible teaches. Which is as souls called to repent/believe, and as able and responsible to do so.
This being said, all sides on these issue can preach the same basic gospel which in essence is that of effectual penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating (though Calvinists would change the order in that moment of conversion) faith in the Divine Son of God (http://peacebyjesus.net/deityofchrist.html) and Lord of all, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood.
And which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) whom they shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Glory and thanks be to God.
Which is in contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39) which is the only basic aspect here that normally sees in evangelical faith
This is all I am going to write here, having taken many hours to do as one who is 71 years ago and often with mental fatigue, but who was spiritually born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:2-7) thru the aforementioned faith, thanks be to God.
And being in a Catholic dominated area, I then knew of no evangelical church I felt could trust, not knowing much, but was daily fed by evangelical preaching and teaching over evangelical radio. In which I daily heard (being a truck driver with a radio) a consistent basic gospel message and relevant teaching from such men of God as Chuck Smith, John MacArthur, M.R. Dehan, and various others.
And as one very hungry for Bible Truth and seeking to obey it, then I recall having no real problems with certain teachings that were debatable, but I focused on what was clear.
Later I was part of a Fundamental Baptist church due to their commitment to basic Truths and evangelism, and even later was part of a Pentecostal mission (which met in a factory building), as well as a Calvinistic S. Baptist church, but , by the grace of God, I continued to evangelize with the basic gospel all shared.
All these had/have their own strengths and weaknesses and errors (though both preached the same basic gospel, versus that of Rome and cults). But holding to the strengths of both, and rejecting errors, means avoiding a false balance (while rejecting the aberrant distinctive teachings of each) within the intent to be faithful to the Lord.
In our home, we have a FM transmitter randomly broadcasting approx. 14,000 sermons from varied preachers and teachers, and which overall preach the same basic gospel, and minister to those who believe it, and by which we are edified, though not concurring on certain errors such as I referred to above.
Which is in contrast to sitting at the feet of some self-appointed guru on Greek who has found his niche in attacking sound beliefs of established evangelical faith (besides some unsound ones of others), thereby negating any need for affirmation by such, as he engages in manipulation of language in order to deceive the simple.
May God grant all “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)
Friday, January 5, 2024
ChatGPT https://poe.com/, analysis of Genesis 3, of tactics of the devil, and how it relates to political rulers.
ChatGPT https://poe.com/, analysis of Genesis 3, of tactics of the devil, and how it relates to political rulers (asked last night).
[Question] In the Bible, the devil (Lucifer, Satan, the serpent ) is described as a selfish being, seeking dominion and power (Isaiah 14:13, 14; John 10:10) After being cast down from Heaven due to his selfish presumptuous assertion that he would take his place on his creators throne (seat of power), he was cast down to earth where he tempted Eve - the first women, and husband of Adam and who had been given dominion over the earth - to disobey God by consuming fruit which God forbade the humans to eat, least they experience spiritual death, and eventually physical death.
Read the following, and tell me what you think the devil's tactic was using psychology on Eve:
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. (Genesis 3:1-7)
ChatGPT PoeIn the passage you provided from Genesis 3:1-7, the devil, portrayed as the serpent, employs several tactics to deceive and tempt Eve. Let's analyze the tactics and their psychological aspects:
Questioning and Distorting God's Word: The serpent begins by questioning God's command and distorting it. By asking, "Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" the serpent subtly plants doubt and misrepresents God's instructions. This tactic aims to undermine Eve's trust in God's authority and create confusion.
Denying Consequences: The serpent contradicts God's warning of death, saying, "Ye shall not surely die." By denying the consequences of disobedience, the devil seeks to minimize the seriousness of the act and deceive Eve into believing that disobedience will not bring negative outcomes.
Appeal to Self-Interest and Desire: The serpent appeals to Eve's desires by suggesting that eating the forbidden fruit will make her wise and like a god. This tactic plays on human curiosity, ambition, and the desire for power and knowledge. It creates a sense of self-importance and entices Eve to prioritize her own desires over obedience to God.
Observation and Manipulation: The serpent highlights the visual appeal of the fruit, saying that it was good for food and pleasant to the eyes. By emphasizing these physical attributes, the serpent manipulates Eve's senses and influences her decision-making.
Influence through Social Dynamics: Eve's decision to eat the fruit and share it with Adam may also be influenced by social dynamics and the desire to please others. Seeing that the fruit was desirable, Eve may have felt compelled to conform or to share the experience with Adam.
These psychological tactics employed by the devil in the story aim to exploit human vulnerabilities, such as curiosity, self-interest, and the desire for knowledge and power. By distorting truth, appealing to desires, manipulating perceptions, and leveraging social dynamics, the devil successfully tempts Eve into disobeying God's command.
Good, but you failed to see why the devil would do this, and that the devil appealed the the human's strong innate sense of justice, whereby he inferred that she was being selfishly deprived by God of an attribute of deity due to being forbidden to eat of that enlightening fruit, and thus she was a victim of injustice, and thus she would be justified in consuming it, out of self-interest.
ChatGPT PoeThank you for your additional insight. You are correct that the devil's tactic in appealing to the innate sense of justice is an important aspect to consider. By suggesting that God was unjustly withholding knowledge and power from Eve by forbidding her to eat the fruit, the devil sought to create a sense of perceived injustice and victimhood. This tactic aimed to manipulate Eve's perception of her situation, making her more inclined to act out of self-interest and seek what she believed she deserved.
By framing the situation as an unjust restriction placed upon Eve, the devil aimed to foster a feeling of entitlement and a desire for autonomy. This appeal to justice, combined with the allure of acquiring wisdom and god-like attributes, further enticed Eve to prioritize her own desires over obedience to God's command.
Understanding the psychological tactics employed by the devil, including the appeal to innate senses of justice and self-interest, provides insights into the complexities of human decision-making and vulnerability to manipulation. It serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of discernment and resisting temptations that exploit our innate desires.
Quite astute. Do you see the same psychological tactic basically being employed by persons seeking political power, by inculcating a victim entitlement mentality among classes, by focusing and magnifying (and or imagining) injustices done to them, whereby the political entities obtain power by promising deliverance, to obtain them their due (at the expense of others of who provide income, who are portrayed as oppressors), yet the "victim" do not end up better off overall. Can you think of any historical figures or movements that basically correspond to this description?
ChatGPT PoeYes, the tactic you described of inculcating a victim entitlement mentality, magnifying perceived injustices, and promising deliverance in order to gain political power has been observed throughout history. Several historical figures and movements can be identified as fitting this description. Here are a few examples:
Populist movements: Populist leaders often tap into the grievances and frustrations of certain groups and portray them as victims of an elite or oppressive establishment. They promise to fight for the rights and interests of the common people, presenting themselves as their champion. Examples of populist movements include leaders like Juan Perón in Argentina, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, and more recently, some political movements in various countries around the world.
Nationalist movements: Nationalist leaders sometimes use a similar approach, emphasizing a sense of victimhood or perceived historical injustices inflicted on their nation or ethnic group. They rally support by promising to restore power, pride, and prosperity to their people. Historical figures like Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany and Benito Mussolini in Fascist Italy used nationalist narratives to gain power and control.
Communist movements: Communist revolutions and movements have often framed the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie as a fight for justice and equality. They portray the working class as victims of exploitation, promising to create a fairer society by redistributing wealth and power. Examples include figures like Vladimir Lenin in the Russian Revolution and Mao Zedong in the Chinese Communist Revolution.
It's important to note that while these movements may initially gain support by appealing to a sense of victimhood and promising change, the outcomes and impact on society can vary greatly. Some movements have brought about positive changes, while others have led to authoritarian regimes or worsened socio-economic conditions. Each historical context is complex, and it's important to consider multiple factors when analyzing these movements and their consequences.
Pretty good, but I forgot to add that in contrast to Jesus Christ, who sacrificially worked to delivered the oppressed, and to provide redemption solely on His own expense, and required and enabled moral and productive betterment, the aforementioned political power seekers usually are overall selfish, besides immoral, and keep their voting base much in the same condition there were in before. And 'By their fruit you will know them."
ChatGPT PoeThank you for highlighting the contrast between the approach of Jesus Christ and some political power seekers. Indeed, Jesus Christ is often depicted as a selfless figure who worked to deliver the oppressed and provide redemption through his sacrificial actions. His teachings emphasized moral values and personal transformation.
In contrast, some political power seekers may prioritize their own interests and maintain their voting base in a dependent or disadvantaged condition rather than promoting genuine improvement. This can be seen as a manipulation tactic to secure their own power and control. The quote "By their fruit, you will know them" from the Bible (Matthew 7:20) encourages evaluating individuals or movements based on their actions and outcomes rather than their words or promises alone.
Examining the impact and results of political movements and leaders is essential in understanding their true intentions and their commitment to the betterment of society. It's important to assess whether their actions align with their stated goals and whether they genuinely empower and uplift those they claim to represent.
Good analysis. Thanks
You're welcome! I'm glad you found the analysis helpful. If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask.Operated by Poe @poe 113K followers New chat Powered by gpt-3.5-turbo.
This bot is powered by OpenAI. Learn more See all chats with this bot
Sunday, November 5, 2023
Response to a Quora post: I’m currently in the middle of the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate....Being pro-choice, why are you one and what’s the scientific evidence that defends your arguments?
I’m currently in the middle of the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate....Being pro-choice, why are you one and what’s the scientific evidence that defends your arguments? .quora.com ^ | Daniel1212
Posted on 10/29/2023, 2:28:22 PM by daniel1212
As expressed in a comment and somewhat revised here, the premise behind the typical justificatory arguments for abortion (“respecting individual autonomy and the right to make decisions about one's own body,” “negative consequences on public health,” “the freedom to choose what's best for them”) is that the unborn at any time of abortion is not a human person, even though it will be rather quickly very manifest to be one indeed.
Even if someone you invited into your car or house secretly brings a child with them without your consent, then you simply do not have the right to exterminate that life, which is not a lethal threat to you. In some states, you cannot even shoot suspected burglars unless they manifestly endanger lives, much less a lost vulnerable child who finds a way into your house since you left the door open.
And even more unjustifiable is to kill a child resulting from your choice to engage in a behavior which most naturally produces offspring.
And 98% of abortions are due to reasons other than rape, incest:
And a study of approx. 64,000 out of 3,664,000 births in 2021 found that only 1.7% may be due to ectopic pregnancies, and with a total of approx 4% being due to health reasons:
"Risk to the woman’s life or a major bodily function: 0.2%[6] Other physical health concerns: 2.5%[7] Abnormality in the unborn baby: 1.3%[8] - Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion - Lozier Institute (and accommodating doctors can use "Other physical health concerns" liberally).
So in order to justify the “pro-choice” position - which is denying the subject of extermination any choice in the matter, and is contrary to the normal course of nature - then one must deny that what is inside the womb is a human person (unless pro-choice promoters are willing to be classed as murderers, which they are).
And thus the pro anti-infant choice promoter must justify their basis for determining that.
Will it be the ability to function on its own, though it rather shortly will be able to? If so, then you had best not be laid up for a while if needing life-sustaining support.
And of course, most aged in nursing homes could thus be turned into sources of protein.
Will it be based upon location, meaning outside the womb killing the infant would be murder, but before that it is open game?
Or will the unborn human life be valued at least as much as protected migratory birds are, for due to the procreating nature of the egg of a protected migratory bird and the value placed upon it, then crushing the life of such is outlawed.
The fact is that, as a 1.6 birth rate testifies, children overall are increasingly not desired nor seen as needed, or at least not if they require much sacrifice, while typically spoiling the one or maybe two children parents have on average, and with children being often replaced by pets, which are seen as more worthy of care and cost.
Meanwhile, fornication costs the country greatly.
Biblically, and as a Christian, you either live a celibate, continent life in devotion and service to God and to others, (1 Corinthians 7:32–34) or you prayerfully marry an eligible spouse of the opposite sex, for life. And together, in joint devotion to God and His word, you have all the children God will give you, with temperance being the only birth control. (Genesis 1:28; Psalms 127:3; Psalms 128:3–5; 1 Corinthians 9:25)
And in which stable family the children usually have a few siblings, with whom, as with parents, they can learn to share, communicate, resolve conflicts, and delay gratification, and overcome difficulties, thus better preparing them for life in this world.
And for service in which God will reward in the next, by His grace, for those who effectually believe on the Lord of all, in addition to salvation which is a pure gift, on God/Christ’s expense, by His sinless shed blood, and to His glory.
The following are responses made by a liberal Quora poster (which
began in response to my original reproof of her), a one Amy Gorin (in red italics). May God have mercy on her in enabling her to see her need for salvation thru the risen
Lord Jesus, the giver of life.
Lord Jesus, the giver of life.
Here's your real problem Daniel. You don't understand the difference between trespassing and rape.
Women aren't buildings or cars. Women are people. And using a *person’s body* without their consent is rape, not trespassing.
Every time you use the trespassing analogy, you are admitting that you don't see women as people.
Daniel Hamilton · Oct 23 Here's real problem here in your attempted deflection, Amy. you still don't understand the difference between unlawful trespassing versus some lost vulnerable child innocently ending up on your property, and thus how they are not to be killed, nor btwn rape victims (which approx 1% I never mentioned), versus a child being in your body DUE to your choices/actions of consensual sexual relation - despite knowing the risks! (
And [it is] who you justify killing.
And rather than me admitting that you don't see women as people (due to your limited idea of analogy), it remains that it is You who refuses to see the unborn as people, which you desperately attempt to justify murdering.
Again, I think it is best to just give this up. The more you attempt to defend your infanticide here, then the more it becomes an argument against it.
However, let me say that I am not angry at you, though I do contend against your arguments. And may God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” ((2 Timothy 2:25)
.Oct 23 It doesn’t matter if the entry is “unlawful” or if it’s a “ lost vulnerable child.” Women are still people, not buildings, and I still don’t have to “justify” a person’s right to not have their body used without their consent. Even if she had consensual sex. Even if someone will die.
You’re responding to the arguments you’ve memorized, not to the things I’m actually saying.
Profile photo for Daniel Hamilton Daniel Hamilton · Oct 23 Now this is becoming irrational. How can you compare a child living within her body, due to her choices - and without the consent of the occupant - knowing of the risk of pregnancy, with someone who uses her body without her consent, as if this was like a case of being bought as a slave? “Property rights?”
Her “consent” was that of engaging in an activity knowing the risk, and she has no justification for making herself out to be a victim and murdering the actual “victim.”
I ask you for photos of your foster children and organ donation scars, and instead you give me quotes from your bible. That really says it all.
I never knew what photos you referred to, but I no longer have receipts toward the support of foster children, though I provide free repair work for bikes, and dispense food (pregnant women may go first) , and I at 71 I am willing to risk my life today to save my neighbors, But I would not murder my organs which are to be used for good.
Yet even if your attempted deflection of assigning a hypocrite label to me worked, for that also fails to prevail as justification for murdering the child in a mother's wombs, which is due to her consent to couple with another person, who was once in a womb himself, and shares responsibility of support.
Finally, I actually only provided one quote from the Bible you also murder, which is more than any justification for murder that you have or can provide. And which responses I am saving, perhaps to post elsewhere, properly attributed. Thanks.
But I would still fix your bike, etc.
Oct 23 People have the right to not be pregnant without consent. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Even if someone will die. But you are certainly to be lauded for providing food to the needy.
“Finally, I actually only provided one quote from the Bible you also murder, which is more than any justification for murder that you have or can provide”
I have no idea what this means.
Profile photo for Daniel Hamilton Daniel Hamilton · Oct 23 Which is the same old refuted polemic you tried before, which is no more valid than it was then.
People do not have the right to not realize consequences of actions they consented to. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, but it is consent to the risk of pregnancy. and moral responsibility to such is to be consented to. . Especially if someone will die. For no one has the right to escape responsibility for the consequences of actions they chose, which risk they choose to take.
And when the consequences involve life, then responsibility does not mean taking innocent life, but caring for it.
And thus it remains that the one quote from the Bible is more (in number) than any justification for murder that you have or can provide.
In conclusion, while I affirm both the unborn and the mother as human persons, and who thus are to be respected, cared for, etc. and with rights to such.
But as such, then insomuch as they are morally cognizant and capable, then such are responsible for consequences of their volitional actions.
And since the unborn are not morally responsible for their conception, location, nor needs, but are (in the cases at issue) the result of persons choosing to engage in actions, knowing of the risks, then they are not victims, but perpetrators, which are morally responsible for the care of the unborn, which is the “victim” party.
In addition, even though you do not like analogies which works against you via correspondence of principles, just as in the case of a lost vulnerable innocent child who seeks finds shelter in your house the door being opened, then you are obliged to provide care for such until another can. Even if you did not invite them.
For children of any age are not cars.
But again, may God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.” (2 Timothy 2:25)
Good bye.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)