R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => R/E/P Saloon => Topic started by: Jessica A. Engle on March 23, 2008, 01:57:08 pm

Title: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 23, 2008, 01:57:08 pm
Hey everyone.

We've been sort of squabbling amongst ourselves lately about who should post what, and when, and so forth.  And I want to begin by saying that I really enjoy all of you; you're a very wonderful and amusing bunch of fellows.  

And I suppose there's nothing wrong with a good debate, as long as it doesn't get personal.  A very wise person once told me we all fall on our faces sometimes, tho'.  It's hard to talk about your faith, because it's such an intimate part of you.  It can't be proven; that's why it's faith.  When you share it, it's easy for others to squash you where you stand.  And if your not careful it's easy to squash someone else, too.  Even by accident.  

I don't consider myself very brave, so I can respect anyone who will cry out in the name of Jesus when I don't have a single word to say for myself.  There is a place for people like that in God's grand design.  But I think that isn't my place.  At least not at the moment.

My place is more like a quiet little room into which occasionally someone will walk.  They may or may not know it is in fact My Room, but should they care to speak to me I will respond with what I know to be true and good.  Or, do the best I can in this regard.

But the times when I shine the brightest, when I feel closest to the Lord, and when I feel the deepest significance I've ever felt, are times when I am not speaking, but listening instead.  

When I am spoken to by someone, who is really trying to divulge something about themselves in spite of our collective need to like the song says "hide yourself away", I am being given a gift.  Should someone care to share with me how they are feeling on a given day, why they feel the way they do, or even what they had for lunch and whether or not they enjoyed it.... this is like being graced by God.  Because it means I am important enough to God to just listen, and not to speak.  I am valuable as the reciever of a precious gift, not exclusively a giver.

Jesus wants us to give of ourselves to others, and I'm totally down with that.  But he also wants us to know what real love feels like, which I don't think can come from one sided speech.  God may choose you to speak for him, and if he does then how happy should you be!  But God may choose you to listen to someone, or many people.  And you may find there is more present in the words than what is spoken.  You may start hearing more.  As people of "sound", I am sure you know what I mean.

If you don't believe in Christ, this is not a judgement of you.  If you do believe, this is not a judgement of you, either.  I'm merely saying that there are many kinds of work to be done in the name of the Lord.  And I am very grateful that God has asked me to listen a little, and has blessed me with amazing things to hear.

I hope you all have a wonderful Easter.
Much love,
Jessica

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 23, 2008, 02:05:47 pm
Thanks Jessica for sharing.  I know that it is hard to do, when there are so many different views out there.

You say that God asked you to listen, and I am curious how, in your opinion or belief, he did that?  Do you mean in the bible?  Or some other way?  I am trying to understand how you would define his means of communicating with you.  If it is not easy to put into words, I would accept that as well.

Happy Easter
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 23, 2008, 02:39:01 pm
Jessica,

I love you. And everyone else here... And there. That is not sarcasm. Thank you for your words and I hope that everyone has a very blessed Easter Sunday.

Ps I'm cooking a standing rib roast.

Jason
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Larrchild on March 23, 2008, 03:51:17 pm
Happy Easter.
I think you understand all this.
Very Happy
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 23, 2008, 05:42:40 pm
how pleasant to find this thread coming home from an awesome

service at della reese's church UP

understanding principles for better living

i go there every week but this week was almost all music

merry clayton (brown sugar) was there but did not sing

but those who did were fantastic and i sent back quite a bit of energy to the choir which i sit in front of every week.

i'm not sure why this thread needed to be on it's own thread but i am happy you made it.

continued blessings

HE LIVES in ME and i behold Him in YOU.

studiojimi
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: John Ivan on March 23, 2008, 05:52:36 pm
Jessica,

Your perspective on all this is SO VERY welcome here.. We're lucky to share this space with you.. You ARE brave..

Thanks for posting..

Ivan...........................
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 24, 2008, 01:58:04 am
What a beautiful thread with such genuinely loving comments.  It speaks volumes about the goodness in you all.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: ssltech on March 24, 2008, 08:01:48 am
You're all bastard-people.









http://guffman.warnerbros.com/shots/corky.jpg










juss kiddin!  Laughing

Keith
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 24, 2008, 10:42:45 am
http://www.sconefest.com/john/blog/guest2.jpg

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father prepare to die!
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 24, 2008, 11:04:34 am
No.  *This* is Inigo Montoya!




index.php/fa/8235/0/
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 24, 2008, 12:06:00 pm
danickstr wrote on Sun, 23 March 2008 13:05

Thanks Jessica for sharing.  I know that it is hard to do, when there are so many different views out there.

You say that God asked you to listen, and I am curious how, in your opinion or belief, he did that?  Do you mean in the bible?  Or some other way?  I am trying to understand how you would define his means of communicating with you.  If it is not easy to put into words, I would accept that as well.

Happy Easter


Wow Nick, that is an amazing question.  I've actually had to stop and think very hard for the answer.  I've been thinking about it all night (I was awake anyway for unrelated reasons).

If I may be so bold as to broaden your question a little, I think what you are asking is "how do I know what God wants from me".  And I'd wager that many Christians are (or should be) asking themselves the same question.

When I was a new believer, my inclination was that surely God would take my strengths and abilities and use them to do his "work", whatever on earth that was.  My strengths were things like being a writer and a speaker, so I assumed I should be like the people who wrote the gospels and the epistles.  I tried really hard to "reach" people but never felt "comfortable".  It made me feel bossy.  And I hate that.

My family was Catholic, but none of them read the bible.  I was rather ignorant, and when I started reading I didn't know other people read the bible, too.  If they did, why would there still be Catholics?  (Sorry, Catholics)

So I thought I was armed with something other people didn't know.  Which wasn't true.  Because of that, my presumptions about what God wanted from me began to falter.  You don't get to pick what God uses you for, and it might not be what you are strongest at.  It might be something you're terrible at, but God wants you to do it because he wants to see you grow, and become better than you are.

For me, being quiet and learning at the feet of someone wise and caring was a completely new idea.  I thought I knew so much!  And I never expected to find anyone who was worth listening to, and who was gentle and interested.  Eventually, over time (and with many, many nights of prayer) I realized that there were too many beautiful coincidences to my benefit for it to be chance.  God worked through my preconcieved expectations to shut me up, and make me listen to something good for a change!  Things I needed to hear, to build me up.  Right now, I guess God doesn't need me out there changing people's lives.  He's wholly content on changing mine.

This is so valuable to me that I wait and listen with the most anticipation I've ever had for anything.  It is hard for me to understand that I am worth such an investment on the part of someone else.  What a good thing to learn, eh?

So that's my story, sort of.  It is different for everyone.  YDIMV (Your Divine Instuction May Vary)?  Sometimes you have to work really hard to figure out what God means for you, because he doesn't speak very loudly and if the TV is on every night as you fall asleep you might not hear.  But other times he hits you in the face with what he wants from you, like that fish-slapping dance.  

I fear I've said too much...... I thought about PMing you, but reasoned others might like to read the answer to your question too.  
Jessica

PS.  I *love* Inigo Montoya!  But the joke is lost on me, I'm afriad.  Can a sista get a clue??
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Ryan Slowey on March 24, 2008, 12:36:56 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 24 March 2008 11:04

No.  *This* is Inigo Montoya!




index.php/fa/8235/0/


Correct. However, *this* is to whom the message was intended, and inevitably delivered:

http://www.sconefest.com/john/blog/guest2.jpg

EDIT: "INCONCEIVABLE!"  Laughing

http://www.davidlouisedelman.com/images/princess-bride.jpg
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 24, 2008, 01:07:55 pm
EXACTLY! I could CLEARLY not put the picture of Inigo up while referring to the Christopher Guest in front of you... so I reversed it and kept the picture of Inigo in front of ME!

What you don't know is that I've spent a lifetime building up a tolerance for other people trying to be more correct.  Very Happy

http://a.movies.com/images/movies/p/theprincessbride.jpg

GOT IT BUTTERCUP?  Laughing
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: ssltech on March 24, 2008, 01:42:40 pm
As you wish...

http://www.celebrityfox.com/userimages/user2419_1161532929a.jpg

http://twin-x.com/groupdiy/albums/userpics/montoya_nametag.jpg

Keef
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 24, 2008, 01:46:45 pm
Jessica,

We are referring to the very fine film, The Princess Bride, which you MUST watch TODAY.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Larrchild on March 24, 2008, 01:49:07 pm
See, now I'm the out of touch one Barry.
Must investigate.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: ssltech on March 24, 2008, 01:55:34 pm
Barry Hufker wrote:

We are referring to the very fine film, The Princess Bride, which you MUST watch TODAY.


I will be watching it tonight with my 4-year old son.

He's at the age where he LOVES swordfighting, and he recently decided that he doesn't like "girl films"... so the Peter Falk/Fred Savage stuff at the beginning is PERFECT for him!  Twisted Evil

He's seen it many times before and he always enjoyed it, but it's right about time to bust it out on him again.

Larrchild wrote:

See, now I'm the out of touch one Barry.
Must investigate.


It was the in-flight movie on my first ever flight to the USA, and I -reluctantly- began watching it, having never even heard of it. -I thought it was just going to be a kid's movie and that I wouldn't enjoy it, but by the middle I was hooked and I ended up buying it as soon as I could.

It's just magic... that's all there is to it.

If you have a couple of hours:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PlEPq2KEPc0

Keith
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 24, 2008, 02:29:40 pm
ssltech wrote on Mon, 24 March 2008 12:42

As you wish...


KEITH... YOU REALLY LOVE ME?



http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y54/melvin26/carol_kane_billy_crystal_the_princess_bride_001.jpg

Have fun stormin' the castle!

Very Happy
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 24, 2008, 03:29:50 pm
I know Barry.  I've only seen it about twenty times.  

I just don't get why Inigo hijacked my thread!   Very Happy  

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Berolzheimer on March 24, 2008, 03:49:19 pm
Just last week my supervisor said to me, as he sent me off to cut a bunch of fx of a giant demon destroying a city, "Have fun stormin' the castle".  To which I replied, "Bring back bread."
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 24, 2008, 04:14:02 pm
Berolzheimer wrote on Mon, 24 March 2008 12:49

Just last week my supervisor said to me, as he sent me off to cut a bunch of fx of a giant demon destroying a city, "Have fun stormin' the castle".  To which I replied, "Bring back bread."



he's here!  and he ain't loafin'

index.php/fa/8240/0/
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 24, 2008, 04:25:12 pm
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Mon, 24 March 2008 14:29

I know Barry.  I've only seen it about twenty times.  

I just don't get why Inigo hijacked my thread!   Very Happy  

Jessica


http://hugereviews.com/images/Movies/spinal7.jpg

CHRISTOPHER GUEST OF COURSE.

Why don't you just make ten louder and make that the top number...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akaD9v460yI
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 24, 2008, 04:48:35 pm
J-Texas wrote on Mon, 24 March 2008 13:25

CHRISTOPHER GUEST OF COURSE.

Husband of my cousin allegedly, the daughter of Bernie Schwartz.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 24, 2008, 05:39:41 pm
nazarenes?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 24, 2008, 08:00:55 pm
Bernie Schwartz? Tony Curtis!

How did "The Princess Bride" hijack Jessica's thread?  You just can't suppress great art.  "Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come" (again - and in this thread).  Besides, we're easily distracted by movies, sounds and bright shiny objects.

Larry, it does indeed make a great kid's movie but it is written for adults.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 24, 2008, 08:14:34 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 24 March 2008 19:00

Bernie Schwartz? Tony Curtis!

How did "The Princess Bride" hijack Jessica's thread?


What? It said "untitled"... are you supposed to follow an untitled topic? LOL

Bad form Peter.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 24, 2008, 08:17:09 pm
studiojimi wrote on Mon, 24 March 2008 16:39

nazarenes?



I think that is supposed to be capitalized.
Surprised

Tag! You're it Jimi.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 24, 2008, 08:31:05 pm
i rarely use caps

god and i are good widdit

he knows how much i respect him

enough not to spell resurrection funny  in a disrepectful way

some of you need a life.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 24, 2008, 09:21:51 pm
Thanks for taking the time to respond Jessica, amidst all this Princess Bride silliness Laughing

I guess what I get from your response is that you feel god communicates with you subtly, but forecefully so to speak.

It's not a booming voice in the middle of the night.  But you feel something guiding you from within, just not out loud.

Did I get that right?

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 24, 2008, 11:02:38 pm
studiojimi wrote on Mon, 24 March 2008 19:31

i rarely use caps

god and i are good widdit

he knows how much i respect him

enough not to spell resurrection funny  in a disrepectful way

some of you need a life.


Oh dude... you know I was playing. I was actually hoping for a picture to go along with it!

JEWISH... ALL CAPS!  Very Happy

http://www.judaism.com/gif-bk/12234.gif
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 24, 2008, 11:19:37 pm
i had enough of this place for one day.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 24, 2008, 11:24:25 pm
Jessica,

I heard you say that taking the time to listen for God, without a preconception of how you should witness to others, has gotten you closer to Him. It's really hard to believe sometimes that we are ALL worth it to Him. He knows every second of our lives before we are born and it must frustrate the heck out of Him to give us free will. Just like any child... we learn things the hard way. That's why even a thief on the cross, within his last hours, can be saved. It's not "when", but just that you do it. No one is better than the other in His eyes.

It's funny. I used to try SO HARD to hear God. He didn't talk to me when "I" wanted Him to. I know now that it's because my heart wasn't there. I needed Him when I "needed" Him.

You can call it your conscious or whatever (put on your filter here and call it what you like)... I call it the Holy Spirit living inside of me. For me, it's a voice that is like my own, but nowhere close to it at the same time. It's what I think I would sound like if I lived my life the way I was meant to. Not everything "But" this one thing, I mean completely living Christ-Like. I can only strive for that and realize that I am broken, not perfect and need His grace. The voice I hear answers me in an instant. Before I even finish the thought. It is clear. It is always true (whether I know it right then or even choose not to accept it and find out it was right later). It happens when I ask with all of my heart for the answer. The direction. Ask and you shall receive... you bet. It's like being wrapped in a warm blanket and nothing can take it away.

Goodnight.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 24, 2008, 11:51:01 pm
J-Texas wrote on Mon, 24 March 2008 20:02


Oh dude... you know I was playing. I was actually hoping for a picture to go along with it!

I recall someone not very long ago giving me a huge pile of crap about not capitalizing "the holy name of god". That's a very shiny mirror, or maybe its just highly reflective thin ice.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 25, 2008, 12:30:40 am
mgod wrote on Mon, 24 March 2008 20:51


I recall someone not very long ago giving me a huge pile of crap about not capitalizing "the holy name of god". That's a very shiny mirror, or maybe its just highly reflective thin ice.

DS



so . . .

did you need a face clothe

or a cryin' towel?

get out of the pile.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 25, 2008, 10:33:26 am
OK first of all, let NOONE say that Jessica doesn't totally dig Princess Bride.  I was just missing the Christopher Guest connection.  I'm caught up now.  

Second of all... Jason, I saw what you did there!  Dustin Hoffmann as Captain Hook.  Another great one!
  Laughing

Okay now for Nick:

Yes I think that's kind of the idea, altho' I admit it is hard to put into words, like you say.  God knows what he wants from me and knows what I need to hear, and will find a way to get me to hear it even if I stick my fingers in my ears and say LALALALA NO I CAN'T HEAR YOU.  But he does it from a place of love, not a place of fear or intimidation (tho' he has the power to do this if he wished).

If God spoke to me in that booming voice in the middle of the night,  I would be far too frightened to respond.  He knows the best way to speak to us is quietly, from within.  We can't handle how big God is, so he speaks in ways we can understand (sometimes!)

Jessica

PS Just 'cause my thread is untitled doesn't mean it doesn't have a subject!  So there  :
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: phantom309 on March 25, 2008, 10:42:36 am
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 08:33


If God spoke to me in that booming voice in the middle of the night,  I would be far too frightened to respond.  He knows the best way to speak to us is quietly, from within.  We can't handle how big God is, so he speaks in ways we can understand (sometimes!)




A kind of "thought adjuster"?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 25, 2008, 11:11:23 am
phantom309 wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 09:42

Jessica A. Engle wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 08:33


If God spoke to me in that booming voice in the middle of the night,  I would be far too frightened to respond.  He knows the best way to speak to us is quietly, from within.  We can't handle how big God is, so he speaks in ways we can understand (sometimes!)




A kind of "thought adjuster"?



Perhaps in theory, but in practical application it is more of a "heart adjustment".

J
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: weepit on March 25, 2008, 12:26:45 pm
I never quite understood how the faithful were so certain god is a "He"?  Is it because the stories were written by men?  Is He white too?

Or is there a god light switch as well?  Razz
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: weepit on March 25, 2008, 12:28:45 pm
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 09:33


 We can't handle how big God is, so he speaks in ways we can understand (sometimes!)



Are you certain He is that big?  Or are you perhaps fearful?  Might He have an armadillo stashed upon His personage?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 25, 2008, 12:33:09 pm
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 07:33


If God spoke to me in that booming voice in the middle of the night,  I would be far too frightened to respond.  He knows the best way to speak to us is quietly, from within.  We can't handle how big God is, so he speaks in ways we can understand (sometimes!)





BIG AMEN

(which translates to I AGREE--bigTIME)

if His face appeared in the clouds we'd have a heart attack.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 25, 2008, 01:08:21 pm
weepit wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 11:26

I never quite understood how the faithful were so certain god is a "He"?  Is it because the stories were written by men?  Is He white too?

Or is there a god light switch as well?  Razz



Adam was formed in the likeness of God. Woman was made to be a companion to man... a perfect compliment.

I don't claim to know what He looks like... that's silly. Is He white? Come on... that's REALLY silly. What does that matter except to start an argument. But since you did... I would think that He could look Samoan if he wanted to. But, since Jesus was born in the Middle East... he probably wasn't light skinned with blond hair! IMO ONLY. I don't really think that's the message that's trying to be conveyed in the Bible. Everyone is equal in God's eyes... the race thing (judgment) is a product of HUMAN nature. Along with many other sins.

I'm now in Deuteronomy (starting from the beginning). Talk about God speaking to you in a cloud. God was with the Israelites every day. Right in front of them! In clouds, in fire. His chosen people STILL wanted more. So it really wouldn't matter if you could turn on CNN and see God. People would still deny Him. That's free will. All of that miracle stuff died with Jesus. The only way to the Father is through Him. There's nothing more. Everything was taken care of on the cross. Believe that, and you WILL see the most amazing miracle of all... a place prepared in Heaven for those who believe in Jesus... ETERNITY with God. WOW!

Even though I can't see God in a burning bush... I see Him all around me everyday. When my little boy says "Daddy" and hugs me and gives me a kiss... I see God. I see miracles happening in my life constantly. Is it dumb luck? I don't think it is. It's past coincidence... it's divine. Anyone who is reading this right now and can't relate to it. Well, do you have a void in your life. Everything is good, but you think it can be better? God is knocking at your door, all you have to do is invite Him in and I guarantee that you will see miracles happen.

Does that mean that when you become a Christian that you won't be tempted? That you won't go through dark times in your life? No. It means that it will be harder for you. Persecution, ridicule, temptation, and more. But God will not let you fall. He will be there even when you think He's not. He doesn't do things on YOUR schedule. You may never know "why". He sees the beginning from the end. You just have to listen, trust, and obey.

Nobody said that you can't have fun if you're a Christian. That's crazy. It's just a reminder that all things are permissible, but not all things are good for you. God doesn't want you killing yourself with bad things. That can be anything that doesn't make you feel alive. People think that they can't be themselves... I would argue that you're being more yourself than ever when you're not covering up your feelings with addictions or being a slave to expectations of others, being seduced by temptations.  

I hope you pray right now. Even if you've done it before and you think that God hasn't answered you.

I love you all. Jason
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 25, 2008, 01:14:42 pm
weepit wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 11:28

Jessica A. Engle wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 09:33


 We can't handle how big God is, so he speaks in ways we can understand (sometimes!)



Are you certain He is that big?  Or are you perhaps fearful?  Might He have an armadillo stashed upon His personage?


Well, I am pretty certain of the first two parts.  I admit that the armadillo bit has me stumped!  But I am enjoying your questions!

I know of God's "size" by what I see, the experiences I have with him.  I don't really imagine he is a giant human but he could be if he wanted, I guess.   (Male, because as Jason said, God made Adam in his own image, so therefore he must resemble a man.  Plus it doesn't feel very convivial to refer to God as "it," so maybe "He" is just a concession to the limitations of human speech.)  

"He" can be present wherever he chooses, so in that essence he is "big".  Alternatively, God has existed for all of time, so in that way he is "big".  He is "big" in terms of what he can do (anything), and what he chooses not to do (abandon his children for all the horrible things we say and do).  

We can understand those things only in terms of our physical existence, which, in the grand scheme of the universe, is limited.  God not only understands them, but is them.  Perfectly.  There is no darkness about God, only light (good).  And that also, even at a conceptual level, is big.

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 25, 2008, 01:33:40 pm
weepit wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 09:28

Jessica A. Engle wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 09:33


 We can't handle how big God is, so he speaks in ways we can understand (sometimes!)



Are you certain He is that big?  Or are you perhaps fearful?  Might He have an armadillo stashed upon His personage?



nope...sorry charlie

we are NOT created in a spirit of fear.

also when it comes to God . . ."SHE" transcends gender

we use the male pronoun as a default not as a define
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 25, 2008, 01:50:48 pm
Just to clarify a little bit so we don't get into dumb things such as "can God create a rock so big he can't lift it?"

God CAN'T do all things.  He can only do things within his nature.  For instance, God can not sin.  God can not lie.

God said "let us create man in OUR image".  This is an important distinction.  It recognizes the three persons making up one God.

It is funny to me that movies have the booming voice of God.  As Jessica says, God speaks in a whisper.  That's why you really have to strive to listen.  It is a whole new way of listening.

And I would agree, that in my experience as well as the experience of others posting here, that when God speaks it is a voice like my own but saying things I wouldn't have thought to have said.  It is not a voice I hear with my ears but a voice speaking in my mind.  Again one has to learn to listen for it.  And one shouldn't think this strange at all.  For instance Satan speaks to you in your mind as well.  That's when you're tempted to do something you know you shouldn't.  It is important to learn to discern spirits as even Satan uses scripture to tempt a person to sin.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 25, 2008, 01:58:09 pm
studiojimi wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 11:33

we use the male pronoun as a default not as a define


That's not completely true.

I agree that scripture is not trying to define God as of any specific gender.  In fact, it appears that according to scripture, resurrected glorified people will also not have gender.

The male pronoun and referring to God as Father was of some significance to these ancient patriarchal societies.  Referring to God in male terminology carried numerous connotations which were helpful for people to understand the nature of God.

If for whatever reason (from world view philosophy to personal wounding from our own earthy fathers) we try to remove some of the 'Father' connotations from God's nature as found in scripture, we will lose many essential insights as to God's nature and character.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Berolzheimer on March 25, 2008, 02:20:52 pm
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 10:08



Adam was formed in the likeness of God. Woman was made to be a companion to man... a perfect compliment.




Is nobody going to jump on this?  Jessica?  This is your thread, after all.....Do you feel you were made to be a companion to men?

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: weepit on March 25, 2008, 02:31:39 pm
Thank you all for the replies.  I was not trying to be argumentative but the Christian viewpoint puzzles me greatly.  My better half and her family are all Catholic yet it is difficult to discuss such matters with them without winding up on the couch.  They tend to think that their way is the only way and those that do not believe/agree are wrong or misguided or have yet to 'see the light'.  How anyone could actually believe that they have such answers (from an ancient book with a clear agenda imho) is puzzling to me.    

I tend to agree with my grandpa who, when my 10 year old self asked what happens to us when we die, told me that "the worms get ya".  That is ok with me.  It makes me appreciate my time here and my loved ones all the more.  

Anyhow, I'll let you all get back to your discussion and I'll recommend that if you don't get the  fearful or armadillo references you watch spinal tap.  Princess Bride may be clever but Spinal Tap is stupid.  There is a fine betwixt the two I'm told...

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 25, 2008, 02:42:59 pm
I appreciate all the replies of the "believer-camp" to my questions.

It seems like for many of you that the presence of god is felt inside of you.  I often wonder why some people feel this and others do not.

I guess it will remain a mystery.  I have certainly never felt or heard god.  That much is not open for discussion, because it is a simple statement of fact.

I hope you people who are more important to god than me, and have the voice and spirit of god in you will relish in it. I am sure it is a happy place.  

You will have to forgive me for not believing in a thing that has nothing to do with me.  

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 25, 2008, 02:54:09 pm
Berolzheimer wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 13:20

J-Texas wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 10:08



Adam was formed in the likeness of God. Woman was made to be a companion to man... a perfect compliment.




Is nobody going to jump on this?  Jessica?  This is your thread, after all.....Do you feel you were made to be a companion to men?





OK, I'll bite.  

First of all, not a companion to "men" plural.   A companion to one man.  If that is what I choose.

What Jason says is what is in the Bible.  It's true!  

I'll admit up front I am not the best person to ask about this, as I'm not a Bible scholar.  But the idea behind this is that if you marry (nowhere in the Bible does it say you have to) you should be confident enough and have enough faith in the person you marry that you can trust their decisions.  Ideally, this person should be a man of God, and (try to) make Godly decisions about your family and such.  

This doesn't mean that the woman doesn't have a say, or can't make decisions, or has to have long hair or wear a dress or anything.  It just means that the first created man was alone and God made a way to help.  God said "It is not good for the man to be alone."

I will say that what Jason said doesn't bother me at all.  Not even a little.  I also know that if you choose the wrong person to marry really bad things can happen.  God just wants you (woman or man) to make a good choice if you marry, a choice that will build you up and make you better.

If I venture more of an opinion than this.... it will require a great deal of research!  



danickstr wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 13:42

I appreciate all the replies of the "believer-camp" to my questions.

It seems like for many of you that the presence of god is felt inside of you.  I often wonder why some people feel this and others do not.

I guess it will remain a mystery.  I have certainly never felt or heard god.  That much is not open for discussion, because it is a simple statement of fact.

I hope you people who are more important to god than me, and have the voice and spirit of god in you will relish in it. I am sure it is a happy place.  

You will have to forgive me for not believing in a thing that has nothing to do with me.  




Thank you for sharing a little about your view, Nick.  I won't contest what you say, except the part about others being more important to God than you are.  Feelings come and go, and sometimes being loved by God is very unemotional or even angering and lonely.  But at those moments you have to rely on what you've read and what you remember.  Such is faith.  

You don't owe an apology to anyone here for what you believe.  I'm glad you're discussing it with us.

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 25, 2008, 03:18:43 pm
Thanks for your kind response Jessica.

I often think the hardest part for the faithful in understanding the non-believers is that we non-believers can imagine a world with god, but the believers can never seem to imagine a world without god.  I can't blame you for that, since it is a bleak place for a believer to go.

Makes perspective difficult.

But you have been nice enough to share your views and I thank you.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 25, 2008, 03:50:24 pm
Berolzheimer wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 11:20

J-Texas wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 10:08



Adam was formed in the likeness of God. Woman was made to be a companion to man... a perfect compliment.




Is nobody going to jump on this?  Jessica?  This is your thread, after all.....Do you feel you were made to be a companion to men?





what about adam and steve?

no hold up. . . . or was it . . .

david and jonathan

ya think God loves them?

i think She does.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 25, 2008, 04:12:10 pm
danickstr wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 13:42

I appreciate all the replies of the "believer-camp" to my questions.

It seems like for many of you that the presence of god is felt inside of you.  I often wonder why some people feel this and others do not.

I guess it will remain a mystery.  I have certainly never felt or heard god.  That much is not open for discussion, because it is a simple statement of fact.

I hope you people who are more important to god than me, and have the voice and spirit of god in you will relish in it. I am sure it is a happy place.  

You will have to forgive me for not believing in a thing that has nothing to do with me.  




Man, I think you share the same view as a lot of people. The reason you haven't felt His presence... you haven't invited Him into your life. Once you let God into your life and seek Him in all things, He WILL speak to you.

He won't impose on you. He needs to be invited. It's free will and it's up to you.


By the way. My God thinks that you are just as important as ANYONE else.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 25, 2008, 04:14:22 pm
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 13:12



Man, I think you share the same view as a lot of people. The reason you haven't felt His presence... you haven't invited Him into your life. Once you let God into your life and seek Him in all things, He WILL speak to you.

He won't impose on you. He needs to be invited. It's free will and it's up to you.


By the way. My God thinks that you are just as important as ANYONE else.



big 10/4
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 25, 2008, 04:41:30 pm
I will try again:index.php/fa/8257/0/
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 25, 2008, 04:59:48 pm
Man... one bad thing about the internet... it has no soul. I can't get a read on that. Are you being facetious?

If you really do mean that, then I urge you to make it personal. Regardless... I will pray for you either way.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 25, 2008, 05:41:05 pm
As a younger person I did try to find a connection to the higher power, but it always was one-sided.

I am not trying to be facetious on a purely face value.

That invitation is all that is left of my ability to muster another attempt to reach out to an invisible unfelt power, for the logical side of me says that that which is not felt or seen or heard or experienced, is not there.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 25, 2008, 08:47:03 pm
"that which is not felt or seen or heard or experienced, is not there."

not, strictly speaking, true

more importantly, in this context, that which IS felt, seen or heard is not ALWAYS there either...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 25, 2008, 09:49:03 pm
I'm really enjoying the discussion.  It's not The Princess Bride but...

I also must agree that no one person is more important to God than any other, believer or not.

Inviting God into your life is a tough deal. First you have to firmly believe he exists.  After all you don't invite people to come to your house if you don't believe they exist.  Second, you can't ask nonchalantly.  This is a search as much as it is a request.  There must be a longing where you know in your heart there has to be someone or something better than currently what is.  And you must your failures, either in action or inaction, are offenses against God, just as they would be against anyone else whom you have wronged.  And having wronged that person you must believe he will forgive you when you ask him to.

This can be quite a process and may not happen instantly.  For me it was from the 7th grade until in my 20s.

I'm always amazed when someone says something to the effect of "what Christ says can't be the only way".  Why not?  There are lots of things in life that can only be done one way.  There are lots of places on earth (or under the earth, as in caves) which can only be reached one way.

The most confusing thing about Christianity is that it is contrary to almost everything else.  For instance, in every other faith, non-faith, people are expected to achieve their own salvation (or happiness for those who don't believe in the divine).  Christianity is the *only* faith telling you there is nothing you have to do to be saved other than accept the fact that you need to be saved and all the work has been done for you.

It is the simplest thing and yet the hardest thing to accept.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 25, 2008, 10:10:27 pm
dr luther might disagree...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 25, 2008, 11:01:34 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 20:49


Inviting God into your life is a tough deal. First you have to firmly believe he exists... Second, you can't ask nonchalantly.  This is a search as much as it is a request.  There must be a longing where you know in your heart there has to be someone or something better than currently what is... you must believe he will forgive you when you ask him to... It is the simplest thing and yet the hardest thing to accept.


I love it. Good perspective.



MEHWIDGE... IS WHAT BWINGS US TOGEVEH

http://www.noaura.com/images/pbride02.jpeg




Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 26, 2008, 11:09:18 am
http://www.cjonline.com/images/050903/4780_512.jpg





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVa3cOE5-1M



JUST TO KEEP CHRISTOPHER... AND THIS GREAT THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSION ALIVE!













PS. Jimi... thx.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 26, 2008, 12:21:28 pm
J-Texas wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 08:09






PS. Jimi... I BEG you (this is not a joke) to get rid of that tasteless Adam and Steve picture. That has brought this thread down in the trash and it's such a good message. What do you think?


let it go man

i was just playing advocate to those of a different exposure to the ergonomic outreaching of spirit of God in man.

if we get exclusive instead of inclusive

we've lost Spirit in my opinion

i may not condone homo activity for myself... but i'd hardly want to influence others from having their path they choose


as a studio drummer and writer of songs for the Village People

i owe the gays a lot...they've opened a lot of doors for prosperity for me of which i am thankful to God for.


the only question is are the gay boys included on the God's kids list....?? and my still small voice within says YES.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 26, 2008, 12:40:42 pm
studiojimi wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 11:21

J-Texas wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 08:09






PS. Jimi... I BEG you (this is not a joke) to get rid of that tasteless Adam and Steve picture. That has brought this thread down in the trash and it's such a good message. What do you think?


let it go man

i was just playing advocate to those of a different exposure to the ergonomic outreaching of spirit of God in man.

if we get exclusive instead of inclusive

we've lost Spirit in my opinion




But Jimi,

were any of us even talking about this?

I think it came as a non-sequitur for the rest of us!  Perhaps this is why some might find it out of place.  

I don't care whether you leave it up or take it down, tho' I can understand why the request was made (remember the lightswitch?)

I think (not to my credit, but to the credit of you all) that the open discussion we have had here has been so enjoyable and pleasant.  You all should be so proud that not a single argument has broken out here.  You've risen to the occasion, so to speak!  But I'd rather have this thread drop like a stone right now, having gone the lovely way it has gone, rather than prolong it with petty arguments over semantics in order to "keep it from dying".

We can talk about it if you want to, Jimi. Truly.  I'm sure we all could contribute something interesting and beneficial to such a conversation, just as we have been.  But feel free to ask a question instead of playing "advocate" to a non-existent argument.  

It's been working so far......

Or should I say, "The spirit has been with us so far"?
Or "the Force has been strong with us so far"?
Or "we've been showing an incredible amount of love and understanding for one another so far"?
etc
etc

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 26, 2008, 12:57:22 pm
USE THE SCHWARTZ!

http://stylemens.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/22/dark_helmet_angry.jpg
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: John Ivan on March 26, 2008, 02:06:15 pm
I wonder.. How can we talk about Christianity without pointing out that many, many Christians have what can only be called a BRUTAL attitude toward homosexual's?

I'm not pointing my finger at any one person here. But the history is not pretty at all.

Again I'll say. I know many Christians and some of them are among my favorite people but I simply can not get with many of the positions taken by this Collective Faith.

I hope no one takes this as a personal insult. It's not intended that way at all but is rather, an observation from my perspective..

Ivan........................
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Nick Sevilla on March 26, 2008, 02:18:27 pm
J-Texas wrote on Tue, 25 March 2008 13:12



Man, I think you share the same view as a lot of people. The reason you haven't felt His presence... you haven't invited Him into your life. Once you let God into your life and seek Him in all things, He WILL speak to you.

He won't impose on you. He needs to be invited. It's free will and it's up to you.

By the way. My God thinks that you are just as important as ANYONE else.


I know, I know, we're discussing religion. Now for the fun part.

There's one other (literary)character who states this. Can you guess which one?

+1 to whomever guesses.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 26, 2008, 02:56:48 pm
John Ivan wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 11:06

I wonder.. How can we talk about Christianity without pointing out that many, many Christians have what can only be called a BRUTAL attitude toward homosexuals?

Ivan........................

Right, can anyone point us to a passage where Jesus condemns homosexuals? For that matter where does he condemn anything except condemnation?

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 26, 2008, 03:22:38 pm
mgod wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 13:56

John Ivan wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 11:06

I wonder.. How can we talk about Christianity without pointing out that many, many Christians have what can only be called a BRUTAL attitude toward homosexuals?

Ivan........................

Right, can anyone point us to a passage where Jesus condemns homosexuals? For that matter where does he condemn anything except condemnation?

DS



Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

1 Thess. 4:2,  "For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor..."

1 John 2:4, "The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him."





NOW... as far as brutal attitude... that's judgment. Judgment can only come from the Father. Condemnation is human. We are all sinners.

The Bible says:

(Col. 4:5-6), "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. 6 Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned, as it were, with salt, so that you may know how you should respond to each person,"

(1 Tim. 1:5), "But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith,"


Don't package all Christians in the same box.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 26, 2008, 03:37:57 pm
The Old Testament and its laws apply to the Jews, although the 10 Commandments are a good guide for all.  As I've said in another thread, God was trying to show that no matter how harsh the penalty people would still sin.

Grace comes after the resurrection of Jesus Christ where all sins are forgiven for those who will accept it.  While Cor. 6, 9-10 speaks of who will not enter the kingdom of God, there are many others such as all of us who have not asked for forgiveness of our sins.  Any sin.  Even one sin.

I believe the Christian Church attacks homosexuals because they are an identifiable part of the population they can easily point to.  In the U.S. it used to be blacks during segregation.  We can see clearly they aren't white Christians so surely they can't worship with us.  It is much harder to point to adulterers, fornicators, swindlers, liars, etc. because they aren't readily identifiable. Maybe you can find one or two but a group of them is very hard to find.

Additionally, I believe some Christians, especially men, are so strongly against homosexuality because they fear it in themselves.  Take recent Republican politicians and ministers as an example.  Quite often people fight hardest against what they fear in themselves (he wrote again for effect).

I believe in this statement from the Bible (paraphrasing), "each person should work out his own salvation with fear and trembling".  What that means is it's between you and God as to how your life turns out.

EDIT: Christ sums up the "new" teaching in this way (paraphrasing) "love God with all your heart, mind and soul.  And love your neighbor as yourself."
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 26, 2008, 03:38:54 pm
A strong and important distinction needs to be made between the condemnation of people and of behaviors.

There is a difference.  The people themselves are not the "problem" or the "enemy."  The belief system and behaviors are the things under fire.

That said, Jesus said that in the end a person is judged by his deeds.  So all people will be held accountable for the choices that they make.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 26, 2008, 03:43:21 pm
But Christians will not be under judgment because their misdeeds and sins are covered by the blood of Christ.

For me that's a wonderful comfort.  Although I deserve a punishment for what I've done and have failed to do, there won't be a penalty for me because I have (through no wisdom or strength of my own)accepted the gift offered to all people - forgiveness.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 26, 2008, 04:04:38 pm
Their judgment has already been given and paid for by Jesus, yes.

However, believers can walk away from grace should they choose to walk another path (Heb 6:1-12)
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 26, 2008, 04:34:23 pm
I don't believe you can lose your salvation for any reason. That said, asking for forgiveness without repentance is like not asking at all.

You both are making really good points and it seems that we are all in agreement on one thing: All is forgiven in Christ.

I agree, Barry. Each person will be judged by God, it's not anyone's business to condemn anyone else.


I do not agree with you, Barry, on the OT being just for the Jews.

Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:



If you believe and understand the trinity, you can't believe that Jesus came down and contradicted himself. I don't think he was like, "Hey Dad, you can tell them to write that, but I'm just gonna change it later." That doesn't make sense.
Title: the drill.
Post by: studiojimi on March 26, 2008, 06:04:00 pm
ok here's the deal:


OT

old test

i call it

the degeneration of man


man's mind was young and growing and he didn't have the sense to not eat shell fish and meat that was not kept right and a whole bunch o' other "poopy"

he had urges and senses but no experience.  he kinda new right from wrong and God was showing up and talking to people cuz he was less distracted by the creations of man have come in to existence at this point in linear human time.

Divine man needed Divind Creator GOD to show up and guide him so God was more visible.

if not in reality...metaphysically to be sure.

regardless....
God always shows up at right time in the right way.

God already knew or discovered or designed along the way of his creation that we were sinners who needed a savior and in His time (which is a lot) He had and always has a plan much larger than we can conceive... our brains can't even fathom it as we will not have linear year time to even ponder it or experience the perfect outworking of it.  Did God make a mistake making a sinful man?  Couldn't God rewrite his work? I believe He could and He might be doing it right now in His own time.  We are one or the other

already perfect and since God made us we should be perfect

or he fine tuned his creation just like we do the songs we write.

it's all a process

The cousin of Jesus, John the B (his street name)

B's biggest line is ...."the kingdom of heaven is at hand"

what he meant by this (to me) was...God's perfect thought expression of Himself is about to appear.

Which brings us well into the N.T. now

which i call

the re-generation of man


the Son showing up as predicted in Isaiah many mamy years before

as predicted by many, along comes brother J.C. (the wayshower and also known by many other names including the Great Emancipator) and one of His biggest lines is

"the kingdom of heaven is within"


Bam...he's number one with a bullet

and He came so that you could have life and more of it in abundance

He came so do demonstrate God's correcting power that you also have indwelling and available within.

now

what this means (to me)  
and i now paraphrase Jesus as saying:

God has sent me to remind and command ("i have a new command for you") to you to "love one another"

and remind you now i'm paraphrasing and interpreting here.....

as we all should do this and have our own unique and ergonomic experience and we should share this news.

God made all of you perfect, whole, and complete.

Stop looking at yourselves as in disease, lack, limitations for you are equal to God because you are of God. It's Biblical to me and I don't care if it's not to you.  

So.....if you don't keep his Laws and break these Laws.....His Laws will break you (with love).

I repeat
I really don't care whether you agree with me or not

but YOU....Divine You..... is a spirit living in a spirtual world/universe, governed by spiritual Laws.

these Laws are God's way of keeping everything in His creation in alignment/check...reigned.

and don't ask me about why Hitler or 911.

God is in charge and all is in Divine Order.


it matters not to me whether you agree with me but i can promise you this.... you fall under these Laws and you should study them learn and become aware of them and praise Him daily for He is good.

You will always break Laws.

That's part of your human journey on your spiritual path of Growing closer to God whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

You came into this world pure and you will go our purer than you were in your journey.

all i know is

i'm working with this information daily in all of my affairs

even if you think you see otherwise

it doesn't matter to me how you perceive this

that's none of my spiritual business

if it doesn't seem like it's for you

perhaps it's not for you.... and that's quite alright by me.

i'm rarely sick

i'm prosperour

i'm happy

i'm loving

i'm lovable

this list of positives affirmations go on and on and is added on to daily

i count it ALL joy.

and it shows in my drumming and my singing and my other creativity

i'm too blessed to be stressed.

but now it's not all about me

this is available to you too

if you believe

you can receive it.

amen?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 26, 2008, 07:22:06 pm
J-Texas wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 14:34

I don't believe you can lose your salvation for any reason.


That's an old discussion.  But, Hebrews 6 and all of 1 John come to mind.  If you chose to walk another direction, you'll get what you've asked for.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 26, 2008, 07:49:16 pm
The great thing about Christianity is that you can do anything evil that you want to and if you are TRULY sorry, Jesus will forgive you.  Kind of like a get out of hell free pass, don't ya think?

I have considered trying this religion just to get this kind of absolute absolution.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 26, 2008, 08:11:42 pm
danickstr wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 16:49

The great thing about Christianity is that you can do anything evil that you want to and if you are TRULY sorry, Jesus will forgive you.  Kind of like a get out of hell free pass, don't ya think?

I have considered trying this religion just to get this kind of absolute absolution.


that is the mis-coneption and worst thinking of the non-Christian

if you walk the walk

you won't be attracted to that

but i think you are already a cool person danickstr
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 26, 2008, 08:27:28 pm
gee ya caught me. Laughing  

I would not do that in any case.  Just pointing out an interesting loophole.  
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 26, 2008, 09:11:22 pm
dear jessica,

thank you for presenting your point of view

this is mine:

the old testament may, indeed, be the "greatest story ever told", for it has captivated the hearts and minds of, first, the judeans, and then, the nazarenes and the mohammedans

it is an interesting story, because, unlike the egyptian and greek stories, where gods, certainly, knew the difference between good and bad, yet indulged in both, the jewish story put forward a strong moral compass, which forbade the latter CONCLUSIVELY (thou shalt not...)

what's the old testament about? (aside from a historical account of who begat whom)

it is a story of the slaves who freed themselves and swore to never do the same to others

what's the message behind the 10 commandments?

don't be MEAN

what's the message behind christ's teachings?

don't be MEAN

what's mohammad's message?

don't be MEAN

so far so good

why then, did slavery continue for the following 5000 years?

because you can't learn compassion from a book

do you really need someone else to tell you that kindness is a good way to get along with other people?

is it a question of faith or logic?

consider this:

if you had lived 300 years ago, would you have condoned slavery?

why was slavery finally abolished in MOST "civilised" countries?

was it the christians that put a stop to it?

was it the moslems?

was it the jews?

the answer is no to all of the above

it was the rationalists, the followers of descartes, spinoza and leibniz (look them up), who FREED humanity's minds from the child-like acceptance that religion induces

"i think therefore i am" logically leads to "you think therefore you are"

take responsibilty for your moral decisions, and you will experience TRUE grace...



Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 26, 2008, 09:12:58 pm
studiojimi wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 19:11


if you walk the walk

you won't be attracted to that





I think that's the most profound thing I've heard Jimi say and I agree with it 100%.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 26, 2008, 09:20:33 pm
mgod wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 11:56

John Ivan wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 11:06

I wonder.. How can we talk about Christianity without pointing out that many, many Christians have what can only be called a BRUTAL attitude toward homosexuals?

Ivan........................

Right, can anyone point us to a passage where Jesus condemns homosexuals? For that matter where does he condemn anything except condemnation?

DS


PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 12:38

That said, Jesus said that in the end a person is judged by his deeds.  So all people will be held accountable for the choices that they make.

And does Jesus at any point list what behaviors will be judged?

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 26, 2008, 09:29:08 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 12:37

The Old Testament and its laws apply to the Jews, although the 10 Commandments are a good guide for all.



Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 12:43

But Christians will not be under judgment because their misdeeds and sins are covered by the blood of Christ. For me that's a wonderful comfort.  Although I deserve a punishment for what I've done and have failed to do, there won't be a penalty for me because I have (through no wisdom or strength of my own)accepted the gift offered to all people - forgiveness.


The historical problem, Barry, is that those two beliefs have resulted in enormous problems for people over the years, yea unto death.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 26, 2008, 09:31:43 pm
mgod wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 20:20


And does Jesus at any point list what behaviors will be judged?

DS




Man... although VERY tempting, I'm not about to do that foot work for you. If you're really interested I'd be happy to jump on it with you. I have an exhaustive concordance the size of a phone book that could help put a dent in that one.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 26, 2008, 10:14:43 pm
mgod wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 20:20


And does Jesus at any point list what behaviors will be judged?

DS



I'm not sure what you're driving at, but asking for a laundry list is a tad on the legalistic side.  

I'm not so good on the memory-verses, so I can't say at the moment whether there is or isn't a Jesus list anywhere in the scriptures like the one you mentioned.  (My favorite list, tho' not the words of Jesus, is in 1 Cor 13, BTW.)

I may be doing myself a dis-service, but as a believer I enjoy contemplating how love covers a multitude of sins more than I enjoy contemplating the sins themselves.  One of the Bible's functions is to help you become better aquainted with God's character, so you know what to listen for when he speaks to you.  He doesn't want you mired down in rules and guilt over your mistakes, he wants you to be much more free than that.  

Barry said something earlier about "let each person work out their own salvation," meaning between you and the Lord.  I think that's about right.  It used to be God made big laws for everyone.  Now it's not like that anymore.  Jesus fulfilled the law (or so I understand it), so that we can have a one-on-one relationship instead of a big book filled with cold, hard law.  

God may be a judge, but Jesus interceedes.

That's probably not the answer you wanted........ sorry I can't do better at the moment.  Confused

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 26, 2008, 10:49:15 pm
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 19:14

 Jesus fulfilled the law (or so I understand it), so that we can have a one-on-one relationship instead of a big book filled with cold, hard law.  

Jessica

That's actually where it began, with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. My question is quite easy really. Yes, we know there are lists in the OT, and there are all sorts of specified things in the letters of Paul. But I'm asking about Jesus himself, the words that remain of what he actually spoke. I'm not aware of his condemning any behavior at any point. That's what I'm asking. I have one of them there NIVs, given to me by Jim Keltner, and we read together sometimes. Haven't found any condemnation in red ink so far.

BTW, Jesus is not the exclusive possession of those who claim him in public and church approved ways. But I'm not going to get into that again.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 26, 2008, 11:14:16 pm
mgod wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 19:20

And does Jesus at any point list what behaviors will be judged?


He'll judge them all.

If you're looking for a list, then you're missing the point of the New Testament.

The only reason that there are lists is to paint a picture of the difference between life 'in Christ' and life 'in the flesh', between the 'new nature' in Christ and the 'old nature' in Adam.

The point is entering into and living the 'exchanged life' - giving up the death of living in the flesh and exchanging it for the eternal life of God in Christ.  Eternal life, the eternal kind of life that God has, it starts now for those who place their faith in Jesus.  Don't let the temporary visit with the grave fool you.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 26, 2008, 11:24:51 pm
mgod wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 20:49

But I'm asking about Jesus himself, the words that remain of what he actually spoke. I'm not aware of his condemning any behavior at any point. That's what I'm asking. I have one of them there NIVs, given to me by Jim Keltner, and we read together sometimes. Haven't found any condemnation in red ink so far.


Well, keep reading, cause there are a few passages.  Here's a few off the top of my head after a very quick look through Matthew.

Matt 11:20-24
Matt 12:32
Matt 21:18-19 (this incident with the fig tree is symbolic)
Matt 23
Matt 26:24

But if you're looking for specific sayings like that, you'd be missing the point.

ALL of Jesus words either save or condemn.  None of his words are neutral.  Jesus always brings us to a decision of faith.  Whether we are saved or condemned depends on how we choose to respond to His words.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 26, 2008, 11:26:25 pm
"if you're looking for a list, then you're missing the point of the New Testament."

i daresay, you're missing the point of the new testament

the point being:

do not judge, lest yourself be judged

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 26, 2008, 11:32:33 pm
mgod wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 21:49


BTW, Jesus is not the exclusive possession of those who claim him in public and church approved ways. But I'm not going to get into that again.

DS


Agreed. But Jesus is for the CHRIST-ians and one thing the Christians are called to do is minister to those who don't know Him. If you just sit and analyze the words and try to find fault... then, well, you won't find what you're looking for and you've really missed the point.

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

I would call that condemning homosexuality.



“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?” (John 5:46-47.)

This pretty much shows that the OT and NT are not mutually exclusive.


Mark 7
"Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites (The Pharisees) ; as it is written: 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 7They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 26, 2008, 11:49:12 pm
"judge the righteous judgment."

but if you don't know Him....you won't know righteousness.

you will be a lost sheep.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 26, 2008, 11:49:57 pm
"“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

I would call that condemning homosexuality."

i would call it condoning heterosexuality (as well as not staying at home until you're 30)

not the same thing...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: John Ivan on March 26, 2008, 11:54:11 pm
Well, I guess that I can never have anything to do with a religion that concludes that an entire group of people need to ask for forgiveness for simply being who they are. Until Christians can completely except these people without warning them that God thinks they need to say they are sorry for being Gay, I must look upon it as simple hatred and brutality.. Sorry..

I'm sad that Religion has been organized and used as the criteria for moral judgment in this world.. It is and will continue to take the lives of thousands of people. All by the hand of humans who think they know God..

I'm very sorry if this offends anyone, but I find the whole thing to be morally repugnant and dangerous.

Ivan..............
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 26, 2008, 11:57:51 pm
maxim wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 22:49


i would call it condoning heterosexuality (as well as not staying at home until you're 30)




Good point!  Surprised
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 27, 2008, 12:29:49 am
John Ivan wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 20:54

Until Christians can completely except these people without warning them that God thinks they need to say they are sorry for being Gay, I must look upon it as simple hatred and brutality.. Sorry..





don't sweat it ivan!

self proclaiming Christians can't agree any more than the Muslims or Jews or any of the rest.

none are comfortable in the same folder with the rest of their brothers and sisters who deviate from their individualized collective "interpretations" and they are blind to any other way of thinking due to a strong belief system programming
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 27, 2008, 12:38:37 am
John Ivan wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 22:54

Well, I guess that I can never have anything to do with a religion that concludes that an entire group of people need to ask for forgiveness for simply being who they are. Until Christians can completely except these people without warning them that God thinks they need to say they are sorry for being Gay, I must look upon it as simple hatred and brutality.. Sorry..

I'm sad that Religion has been organized and used as the criteria for moral judgment in this world.. It is and will continue to take the lives of thousands of people. All by the hand of humans who think they know God..

I'm very sorry if this offends anyone, but I find the whole thing to be morally repugnant and dangerous.

Ivan..............



Let me put it this way: That's what it says... that's what I'm going with.

I'm not here to judge anyone. I have two VERY close gay friends. They are like family to me. One male, one female, so I at have their two different perspectives. They know what I believe and they don't judge me for it because I don't do it to them. That's not my job! God's the boss... I just work here.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 27, 2008, 12:53:56 am
maxim wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 20:26

"if you're looking for a list, then you're missing the point of the New Testament."

i daresay, you're missing the point of the new testament

the point being:

do not judge, lest yourself be judged

Thank you Max. Amazing how hard that appears to have been.

J-Texas wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 20:32

 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

It strikes me that having any opinion whatsoever about the private behavior of others is doing exactly that.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 27, 2008, 01:01:10 am
"Amazing how hard that appears to have been."

noone said it would be easy...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 27, 2008, 01:03:18 am
Wow!  There is so much good stuff here.  I've just read through this page and there is so much that I don't know where to begin.

Dan, God gave the laws to the Jews.  I don't know what else to say.  He didn't give them to anyone else and he didn't expect anyone else to obey them (except when visitors came into Israel then the visitors had to obey them).  One must remember, the Hebrew (Jews) are *still* God's "chosen people".  They have a very special place in his heart and salvation for the world comes from them through Jesus.

I believe, and there seems to be at least some truth to it, Jews are so persecuted because "the world" hates them.  I don't mean the people of the world I mean the satanic system established in this world.  If the Jews are special to God then Satan must hate them especially and will do all he can to destroy the people and things God loves.  So persecution of the Jews has the entire forces of hell behind it.

Jesus is not just for Christians.  He is for all who believe in his saving power and grace.  There is a story in the New Testament I will paraphrase 'cause I ain't gonna take time to look it up.  It goes something like this: The Apostles had been casting out demons (from within people) and healing the sick, all by the power Christ had given them.  One day they reported to Christ that there were others whom the Apostles didn't know who were able to do the same thing by using "the name of Jesus Christ".  The Apostles wondered what they should do and asked Jesus who said, "He who is not against us is for us".  This means all who believe in the power of Christ's name and the offer of his salvation have the same power as those who call themselves Christians.

No matter what the sin, large or small, no matter how many times committed, once or a bazillion, each person who has sinned (which is all of us because none of us is perfect) has fallen short of the Glory of God.  As such we need his forgiveness to escape the punishment attached to that sin.

Once salvation is received by the person, no one and nothing can take salvation away or somehow injure it.  But if one (saved or unsaved) turns away from the "path of righteousness", that person will receive the punishment associated with that sin.  For instance, imagine an alcoholic who is drunk for decades and damages his liver.  By some means he finds salvation through Christ.  He is freed from his sins forever, but he still is an alcoholic with a bum liver.

Too much other good stuff to remember or comment on.


So Dick Cheney comes up to George Bush and says, "I've just been told we've been given a thousand Brazilians to aid the war in Iraq."

GWB says, "That's exciting!  Exactly how much is a thousand Brazilians in American money?"
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 27, 2008, 01:09:14 am
J-Texas wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 20:32

But Jesus is for the CHRIST-ians and one thing the Christians are called to do is minister to those who don't know Him.

And why would Jesus be exclusively for the Christians? And why should the Christian assume anyone else doesn't know him, simply because they don't proclaim themselves as Christian? There may be people all around you who know Jesus intimately who can't be identified as Christian - in fact, there are.

J-Texas wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 20:32


If you just sit and analyze the words and try to find fault... then, well, you won't find what you're looking for and you've really missed the point.

And yet so much energy has gone into analyzing the words and using them to find fault in others. But I don't think its for one person to say whether another has missed the point. Dealing with the beam in one's own eye is the instruction I believe.

It seems to me that making the claim of being a true Christian is a very large personal undertaking and has nothing to do with observations of others. As Jessica has so eloquently suggested, silence speaks volumes.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 27, 2008, 01:10:36 am
maxim wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 22:01

noone said it would be easy...

D'oh!

"But no one said it would be this hard..."

DS

PS - Barry, you're my man.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 27, 2008, 01:34:41 am
I am often bewildered by the level of acceptance that Christians have that the bible is the word of god.

They were not there when it was written, and they have no idea how many times it changed hands before it became the text it is now, and what those people who have nothing to say for themselves may have done to it while it was in their possession.

Information that passes from one side of a classroom to the other is completely transformed in a simple grade school game.

That takes about 5 minutes to become a significantly different message than the one that was originated.

And yet the bible is taken to be worthy of being the transforming text of billions of lives, and it has had thousands of years to fall into so many hands that may have had alterior motives, and yet so many folks do not allow that possibility to enter into their assessment of its message.

interesting stuff.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 27, 2008, 09:30:05 am
There's plenty of evidence that the NT has been deliberately altered over the years Nick. Read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" for more on this.

However, those who are already convinced of its inerrancy will discount the messengers and so their message, as I'm sure our friend Nathan is about to tell you. There are other interpretations as well, among them that since the big guy is all powerful, nothing of importance can be changed since he controls all, or that maybe its a change he wanted. What seems inarguable to me, although the minute you say something like that you're asking for trouble, is that the interpretation has changed mightily over the years, and the meaning of the instruction.

There's a lot of debate about the changing of meaning at the Council of Nicea, when some think Rome co-opted the movement. Others see the hand of you know who in it.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: ScotcH on March 27, 2008, 11:20:51 am
Anyone here read Lamb?

http://www.amazon.com/Lamb-Gospel-According-Christs-Childhoo d/dp/0380813815/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid= 1206630971&sr=8-1

If all religious material was written this way, perhaps more people would be inclined to read it!
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 27, 2008, 11:56:03 am
John Ivan wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 21:54

Well, I guess that I can never have anything to do with a religion that concludes that an entire group of people need to ask for forgiveness for simply being who they are.


But it's not who they really are.  It's an alternate identity that they've chosen to believe.

That's not a self righteous statement as we all have different areas of our lives where 'the deceiver of the world' has won some battles.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 27, 2008, 11:57:27 am
mgod wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 22:53

maxim wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 20:26

"if you're looking for a list, then you're missing the point of the New Testament."

i daresay, you're missing the point of the new testament

the point being:

do not judge, lest yourself be judged

Thank you Max. Amazing how hard that appears to have been.



If that's the conclusion that you've come up with, you need to do more reading...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 27, 2008, 12:02:39 pm
danickstr wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 23:34

I am often bewildered by the level of acceptance that Christians have that the bible is the word of god.

They were not there when it was written, and they have no idea how many times it changed hands before it became the text it is now, and what those people who have nothing to say for themselves may have done to it while it was in their possession.

Information that passes from one side of a classroom to the other is completely transformed in a simple grade school game.

That takes about 5 minutes to become a significantly different message than the one that was originated.

And yet the bible is taken to be worthy of being the transforming text of billions of lives, and it has had thousands of years to fall into so many hands that may have had alterior motives, and yet so many folks do not allow that possibility to enter into their assessment of its message.

interesting stuff.



We've been through this in the other thread.

I'd argue that there's few if any other subjects that have received more study than the Bible.  There are multiple specialized fields of study that deal with this very issue of historical transmission.

There's a lot of historical resources out there that answer all these questions.  Bottom line, through numerous intensive scholarly processes, what we have now is quite accurate to the originals.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 27, 2008, 12:06:44 pm
mgod wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 07:30

There's plenty of evidence that the NT has been deliberately altered over the years Nick. Read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" for more on this.


Oh, goodness, not this again...

Ehrman, Pagels - all of them belong to a particular camp promoting Gnosticism.  The mainline academic community charges them with historical revisionism.  There are plenty of resources out there to show how these folks have mistreated history to promote their Gnostic agenda.

There's a small camp of folks out there who say that 192k provides better 'resolution' as it has more samples.  Maybe we should believe them.  Wink
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: John Ivan on March 27, 2008, 12:25:30 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 11:56

John Ivan wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 21:54

Well, I guess that I can never have anything to do with a religion that concludes that an entire group of people need to ask for forgiveness for simply being who they are.


But it's not who they really are.  It's an alternate identity that they've chosen to believe.

That's not a self righteous statement as we all have different areas of our lives where 'the deceiver of the world' has won some battles.



Sorry. Not only do I think this is wrong, but I find it to be rather disgusting.. How would you know? What is with all this crap about understanding who other people are? Why don't you ask them? Then when they answer your questions, instead of deciding that YOU know why they are Gay, listen to THEM explain why/how they are Gay.. I get my understanding of the Christian people I know directly from them. No one else. I take them at their word, as confusing as it is sometimes.

Please, what ever you do. Do NOT pretend to understand whether or not some "deceiver" is in my life, or anyone else's life.. You would have no idea. At all. Of any kind. What so ever.Under any circumstances.

Period.

Ivan.................
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 27, 2008, 12:35:32 pm
So, Ivan, let me see if I can summarize and then express what you just said - Do NOT pretend to understand whether or not some "deceiver" is in my life, or anyone else's life.. You would have no idea. At all. Of any kind. What so ever.Under any circumstances. Period.

Would you count that as an accurate summary?   Wink
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: weepit on March 27, 2008, 12:58:09 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 10:56



But it's not who they really are.  It's an alternate identity that they've chosen to believe.



Wow.  That is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on the internet and that is saying a great deal.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 27, 2008, 01:04:04 pm
John Ivan wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 11:25

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 11:56

John Ivan wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 21:54

Well, I guess that I can never have anything to do with a religion that concludes that an entire group of people need to ask for forgiveness for simply being who they are.


But it's not who they really are.  It's an alternate identity that they've chosen to believe.

That's not a self righteous statement as we all have different areas of our lives where 'the deceiver of the world' has won some battles.



Sorry. Not only do I think this is wrong, but I find it to be rather disgusting.. How would you know? What is with all this crap about understanding who other people are? Why don't you ask them? Then when they answer your questions, instead of deciding that YOU know why they are Gay, listen to THEM explain why/how they are Gay.. I get my understanding of the Christian people I know directly from them. No one else. I take them at their word, as confusing as it is sometimes.

Please, what ever you do. Do NOT pretend to understand whether or not some "deceiver" is in my life, or anyone else's life.. You would have no idea. At all. Of any kind. What so ever.Under any circumstances.

Period.

Ivan.................



John is right here, fellas.  You don't know what is in another person's heart.  God knows what's there, and humans don't have the ability to see or know what God sees in someone else.  

You can know someone your whole life, they could be your sibling or your parents or your partner, and you will NEVER know them wholly.  This is a limitation of being a human.  It is not a limitation for God.  

Therefor, trying to discern something which only God is capable of discerning is folly.  Only trouble comes from here!  Can you imagine the atrocities that would occur if humans were in charge of judging the content of the hearts of our fellow men?  (Well, not much imagination required, sadly.)

I know what the Bible says about homosexuality.  That's not to say I understand it, but nor do I feel the need to somehow exercise the wrath of God upon the people those passage speak about.  

I'll say again that I don't understand!  It frustrates me that I see Gods words that and they don't sound like the loving God I know.  I can no more understand what it is like to be a homosexual than I can understand what it is like to be black, or to be a man, or to be God.  

If I may summarize......

someone suggested to me recently via PM that the problem with Christians is that they try to change people, even if it is clear the people don't want to change.  This may be ture, but that's not what Christians are instructed to do.  Not at all.

What Christians are instructed to do is spread good news.  That is not the same as trying to change people.  God changes people (or, if you prefer, people change themselves).  Any Christian who sees it as their goal to change people (yah! even gay people!) is either confused about what the Lord wants from them, or never bothered to figure that out in the first place.  

The "good news" is that sin (doesn't matter what kind) doesn't have to ruin you and condemn you to death.  You can tell someone that, and once they've heard it they are free to take the next step, or not to.  We all have choice.  If you continue to badger someone after the message has been given, this (as you all know) has a very good chance of driving people away from your message.  They might ask questions, and that's a good way to know if your message is wanted, or at least merits discussion (like we have here).

Please don't let our mistakes, our hipocrisy as Christians be confused with Jesus' utter lack of those things.  We screw up, a lot.  And it is often with the help of "outsiders", that is non-Christians who can be more objective, who can logically and with grace point out our mistakes, that we grow (I hope).

Jessica

PS Nobody owns Jesus.  He is for everyone.  There's no rules against non-believers reading a Bible and learning about him.  
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 27, 2008, 01:20:14 pm
John Ivan wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 10:25

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 11:56

John Ivan wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 21:54

Well, I guess that I can never have anything to do with a religion that concludes that an entire group of people need to ask for forgiveness for simply being who they are.


But it's not who they really are.  It's an alternate identity that they've chosen to believe.

That's not a self righteous statement as we all have different areas of our lives where 'the deceiver of the world' has won some battles.



Sorry. Not only do I think this is wrong, but I find it to be rather disgusting.. How would you know? What is with all this crap about understanding who other people are? Why don't you ask them? Then when they answer your questions, instead of deciding that YOU know why they are Gay, listen to THEM explain why/how they are Gay.. I get my understanding of the Christian people I know directly from them. No one else. I take them at their word, as confusing as it is sometimes.

Please, what ever you do. Do NOT pretend to understand whether or not some "deceiver" is in my life, or anyone else's life.. You would have no idea. At all. Of any kind. What so ever.Under any circumstances.

Period.

Ivan.................


How do you know if your house has been built square?  Awfully hard to hang a door if the door frame is not sqaure, no?  The answer is you use a tool called a 'square' to measure if the angles are in fact 90 degrees.

The same principle applies for whether or not are lives are true or "square" - we use a measuring tool to check.  The measuring tool that we have is the revelation of perfect humanity in Jesus Christ and the word that was given to reveal the natural order.

If one is to know if there is deception, it's because the measuring tool says so.

But let's even take this out of the religious realm.  Because in many ways it's not a religious issue, but a practical one.

My father has done personal / family counseling for many decades.  He has had many, many gay people come to see him for help.  In fact, his counseling services were quite popular among the gay community.  He has also been connected with a number of other counselors / therapists / doctors who work with homosexual people.

While homosexuality is very complex - there are indeed reasons "why".  None of these reasons are positive.  The vast majority of homosexuals (with the exception of the 1% of them who are born with physical anomalies) have at the root of their 'acute sexual identity crisis' a bitterness rooted judgement.  Because of this, they begin to believe a system of lies about themselves and take on this alternate identity.  The lies are not always obvious to them, but may be obvious to observers.  I'm talking about things like feelings of worthlessness, deserving of abuse, deserving of rejection, etc.  So when I say that this is not who they really are, this is specifically what I am referring to.  Because of the judgements, they believe these lies and out of that faith system adopt a new identity and life style.  It's not the true selves that they are living out of, it's the self that's been transformed by the lies of worthlessness, rejection, abuse, etc.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: John Ivan on March 27, 2008, 01:45:53 pm
Well, Yes Barry!! That sums it up pretty well Shocked .. I just wanted to be,, um,,, ah,, Clear?? {sorry}

Jessica,

When are you going to start your tour of Churches? You need to be the featured speaker at every church in the Country.

THIS is the Christian attitude that I respect and love.. And it is true that the word of Jesus is available to those who want to read it. I believe that many, MANY Christians want only to leave the world better than they found it. I think this is true of MOST people of all Faiths, and most people who have no faith in a God at all. It seems to me that sometimes people see things in themselves and project these items onto other people.

I can state {as can others}, that I am a better person than I was 5 years ago. I'm more approachable, not as angry, I don't drink very often and when I do, I don't hurt myself. I've come to see this crazy music thing as an amazing gift instead of being pissed off at it all the time, I'm trying to be a better Father and Husband by actually taking the time to SHOW them how much I love them and the list could go on.. I am still somewhat broken though. I believe in the human spirit. I think that much of our 'lot in life' is a choice. { but not All for sure}. This means I can choose to be a better man than I am right now..

If there is a God working in the background helping me do this, than I have no problem with that. But I certainly can not point to anything that would indicate His/Her presence. The Documents we have regarding Gods presence are not enough for me..

I know it may seem like the easy way out, but it's the truth! I don't completely dismiss the idea that there is a great loving power. But I don't claim to know that there is either. Also, I don't make moral judgments about people bases on whether they have faith in something they can't prove.. It's asking a lot of our fellow Humans. I think.

Ivan..................
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 27, 2008, 01:51:06 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 00:03


Jesus is not just for Christians.  He is for all who believe in his saving power and grace.


I can't even continue reading your post, I'm so confused about this.

Isn't that who the Christians were? I mean REAL Christians who followed His teachings after he died through the apostles?

Come on man. Christ is for the Christians. The splintering of religion after that point... that's the work of men.

The Merriam Webster FIRST definition of "Christian":

one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 27, 2008, 02:00:52 pm
mgod wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 00:09

J-Texas wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 20:32

But Jesus is for the CHRIST-ians and one thing the Christians are called to do is minister to those who don't know Him.

And why would Jesus be exclusively for the Christians? And why should the Christian assume anyone else doesn't know him, simply because they don't proclaim themselves as Christian? There may be people all around you who know Jesus intimately who can't be identified as Christian - in fact, there are.


SEE POST ABOVE



mgod wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 00:09


It seems to me that making the claim of being a true Christian is a very large personal undertaking...

DS



Of course it is personal, at first. We are here to spread the good news.

Mathew 28:19

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: John Ivan on March 27, 2008, 02:03:19 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 13:20

John Ivan wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 10:25

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 11:56

John Ivan wrote on Wed, 26 March 2008 21:54

Well, I guess that I can never have anything to do with a religion that concludes that an entire group of people need to ask for forgiveness for simply being who they are.


But it's not who they really are.  It's an alternate identity that they've chosen to believe.

That's not a self righteous statement as we all have different areas of our lives where 'the deceiver of the world' has won some battles.



Sorry. Not only do I think this is wrong, but I find it to be rather disgusting.. How would you know? What is with all this crap about understanding who other people are? Why don't you ask them? Then when they answer your questions, instead of deciding that YOU know why they are Gay, listen to THEM explain why/how they are Gay.. I get my understanding of the Christian people I know directly from them. No one else. I take them at their word, as confusing as it is sometimes.

Please, what ever you do. Do NOT pretend to understand whether or not some "deceiver" is in my life, or anyone else's life.. You would have no idea. At all. Of any kind. What so ever.Under any circumstances.

Period.

Ivan.................


How do you know if your house has been built square?  Awfully hard to hang a door if the door frame is not sqaure, no?  The answer is you use a tool called a 'square' to measure if the angles are in fact 90 degrees.

The same principle applies for whether or not are lives are true or "square" - we use a measuring tool to check.  The measuring tool that we have is the revelation of perfect humanity in Jesus Christ and the word that was given to reveal the natural order.

If one is to know if there is deception, it's because the measuring tool says so.

But let's even take this out of the religious realm.  Because in many ways it's not a religious issue, but a practical one.

My father has done personal / family counseling for many decades.  He has had many, many gay people come to see him for help.  In fact, his counseling services were quite popular among the gay community.  He has also been connected with a number of other counselors / therapists / doctors who work with homosexual people.

While homosexuality is very complex - there are indeed reasons "why".  None of these reasons are positive.  The vast majority of homosexuals (with the exception of the 1% of them who are born with physical anomalies) have at the root of their 'acute sexual identity crisis' a bitterness rooted judgement.  Because of this, they begin to believe a system of lies about themselves and take on this alternate identity.  The lies are not always obvious to them, but may be obvious to observers.  I'm talking about things like feelings of worthlessness, deserving of abuse, deserving of rejection, etc.  So when I say that this is not who they really are, this is specifically what I am referring to.  Because of the judgements, they believe these lies and out of that faith system adopt a new identity and life style.  It's not the true selves that they are living out of, it's the self that's been transformed by the lies of worthlessness, rejection, abuse, etc.




Well, with all due respect, I find this set of statements to be sad and frightening. Brother, I know some Gay people. A Lot of Gay people. As it turns out, I was in a couple of bands that the Gay community really liked a lot and while we got to know these people out in the masses {the general clubs and venues}, they hired us to play many a wacky  private party.. All I can say is that there was nothing complicated about it. When I have romantic feelings about my fellow Humans, they are always of the opposite sex. When they have these feelings, they are for the same sex.

Many, if not most of these people, both male and female are at least as well adjusted as I am and really are very happy people. Productive, kind, funny smart people, with an amazing fashion sense {Brian, if you pop in , that was for you!!}

Is there any chance that you folks could STOP trying to "help" these people?? Please??!!??

Ivan....................
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 27, 2008, 02:06:57 pm
believe it or not

i have nothing more to say at this time today

but I AM enjoying the thoughts you all have and hope spirit is moving all together towards a harmonious enjoyable experience in consciousness with love and faith and understanding, wisdom, imagination and power.....all good lofty thought stuff....

all churning up as your gift faculties put to good use are allowing God to move up through you, to you, and express HIM

as wonderful YOU.

God bless you all today and everyday
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 27, 2008, 02:16:49 pm
Jimi... I thought you had nothing to say!  Very Happy
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 27, 2008, 02:25:05 pm
John Ivan wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 12:03

All I can say is that there was nothing complicated about it. When I have romantic feelings about my fellow Humans, they are always of the opposite sex. When they have these feelings, they are for the same sex.

Many, if not most of these people, both male and female are at least as well adjusted as I am and really are very happy people. Productive, kind, funny smart people, with an amazing fashion sense {Brian, if you pop in , that was for you!!}

Is there any chance that you folks could STOP trying to "help" these people?? Please??!!??

Ivan....................


We would stop helping them, but they keep coming to us desperate for help.  Should we turn them away??

I've had many gay friends as well.  Kind, funny, smart, productive.  Lots of wonderful folks.

From the experience of those who work with gay people in a professional counseling / therapy / psychiatric situation (many of whom are not believers), while not obvious, there are underlying issues.  It is complex, whether or not the untrained eye can see.  You may choose to ignore such things and continue to be buddy-buddy.  That is easy to do.  But I'd think it foolish to deny the professional opinion of those in the field.

My original point however - of which 'acute sexual identity crisis' is just one example - is that ALL people have the same basic problem.  We all put our faith into some sort of lie and it leads us towards destructive behavior.  For some that lie is about identity / sexual identity, for others it's a different issue.

Another example would be that of an abuse victim.  Having been abused, you would think that they would know better than to hook up with someone who is abusive.  But statistically speaking, we know that people who have been abused are most likely to end up in a situation with another abuser.  Why is that?  Same reason.  They give into a lie, an alternate faith system, which guides their steps down that path.  Until that deception is dealt with, there will continue to be a pattern of abuse.

In your post to Jessica, you mentioned a few behaviors of your own that you saw as destructive.  Can you identify beliefs about yourself / others / life that changed which caused your behavior to change?  Same concept.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: John Ivan on March 27, 2008, 02:45:16 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 14:25

John Ivan wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 12:03

All I can say is that there was nothing complicated about it. When I have romantic feelings about my fellow Humans, they are always of the opposite sex. When they have these feelings, they are for the same sex.

Many, if not most of these people, both male and female are at least as well adjusted as I am and really are very happy people. Productive, kind, funny smart people, with an amazing fashion sense {Brian, if you pop in , that was for you!!}

Is there any chance that you folks could STOP trying to "help" these people?? Please??!!??

Ivan....................


We would stop helping them, but they keep coming to us desperate for help.  Should we turn them away??

I've had many gay friends as well.  Kind, funny, smart, productive.  Lots of wonderful folks.

From the experience of those who work with gay people in a professional counseling / therapy / psychiatric situation (many of whom are not believers), while not obvious, there are underlying issues.  It is complex, whether or not the untrained eye can see.  You may choose to ignore such things and continue to be buddy-buddy.  That is easy to do.  But I'd think it foolish to deny the professional opinion of those in the field.

My original point however - of which 'acute sexual identity crisis' is just one example - is that ALL people have the same basic problem.  We all put our faith into some sort of lie and it leads us towards destructive behavior.  For some that lie is about identity / sexual identity, for others it's a different issue.

Another example would be that of an abuse victim.  Having been abused, you would think that they would know better than to hook up with someone who is abusive.  But statistically speaking, we know that people who have been abused are most likely to end up in a situation with another abuser.  Why is that?  Same reason.  They give into a lie, an alternate faith system, which guides their steps down that path.  Until that deception is dealt with, there will continue to be a pattern of abuse.

In your post to Jessica, you mentioned a few behaviors of your own that you saw as destructive.  Can you identify beliefs about yourself / others / life that changed which caused your behavior to change?  Same concept.






I'll ignore the buddy buddy comment and cut to the chase.. I'll bet the overwhelming majority of mental health professionals believe that what you and your Father are proposing is nonsense. These people come to you as very troubled people and you help them decide that their Gayness is their problem.. I've seen this before, up close. "We'll have you diving into girls head first in NO TIME"..

I wont comment further on this subject..

Thanks..

Ivan.................
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 27, 2008, 02:48:51 pm
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 11:04


someone suggested to me recently via PM that the problem with Christians is that they try to change people, even if it is clear the people don't want to change.  This may be ture, but that's not what Christians are instructed to do.  Not at all.


One verse that comes to mind off the top of my head:

Col 1:24-28, specifically v.28 "... teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone mature in Christ."

Theologians argue that part of our Kingdom mission is to join Jesus in his mission  - the transformation of the world.

Change is part of our mandate.  

I think, however, that the real issue is that this attempt to try to change is often done without love.  Without real love, we get people doing tactless things, often manipulating and using other carnal and even evil methods to try and force change.  Not only is that stuff offensive, but people can recognize the absence of love, which is the very thing that they are looking for.  For sure we are called to be proclaimers, and through that proclamation we will see change.  But change indeed is part of the mandate.  What is the point if nothing is going to change?



Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 27, 2008, 02:54:08 pm
John Ivan wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 12:45

'll ignore the buddy buddy comment and cut to the chase.. I'll bet the overwhelming majority of mental health professionals believe that what you and your Father are proposing is nonsense. These people come to you as very troubled people and you help them decide that their Gayness is their problem.. I've seen this before, up close. "We'll have you diving into girls head first in NO TIME"..

I wont comment further on this subject..

Thanks..

Ivan.................


The buddy-buddy comment was meant in the sense of being friends.  There was no negative connotation intended.  If you took it as such, my apologies.

While this issue is very divisive in the professional community, there are plenty of folks who actually work with lots of homosexuals (in a non-religious context) and hold a similar position to what I've stated.

The funny thing is when the come for help, it's often not about 'gay-ness' or being gay.  It's about other deeper underlying issues.  It just so happens that if and when significant healing comes to some deep and foundational areas a person's life, that their behaviors and tendencies change.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 27, 2008, 04:47:38 pm
John Ivan wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 13:45

"We'll have you diving into girls head first in NO TIME"..



Weeeeeeeeee!  Laughing
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Nick Sevilla on March 27, 2008, 05:03:52 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 11:48

Jessica A. Engle wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 11:04


someone suggested to me recently via PM that the problem with Christians is that they try to change people, even if it is clear the people don't want to change.  This may be ture, but that's not what Christians are instructed to do.  Not at all.


One verse that comes to mind off the top of my head:

Col 1:24-28, specifically v.28 "... teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that we may present everyone mature in Christ."

Theologians argue that part of our Kingdom mission is to join Jesus in his mission  - the transformation of the world.

Change is part of our mandate.

I think, however, that the real issue is that this attempt to try to change is often done without love.  Without real love, we get people doing tactless things, often manipulating and using other carnal and even evil methods to try and force change.  Not only is that stuff offensive, but people can recognize the absence of love, which is the very thing that they are looking for.  For sure we are called to be proclaimers, and through that proclamation we will see change.  But change indeed is part of the mandate.  What is the point if nothing is going to change?



Oooh boy.

Sorry to step in, but, here's a few pointers, please follow along with the 4 points I have indicated in colors:

1. Please, when Quoting the Bible, it is best not to quote out of context. This clearly shows you are intending to use words from the Bible to further your argument. This is a no-no. it is not an educated, nor polite way of getting your point across. please quote the complete passage, so that readers may understand why you choose the quote, and be able to understand you better. This is a classic situation that is unfortunately all over the media. Please don't lower yourself by using this tactic.

2. Please, don' state "Theologians" without being more specific. Whom are these "Theologians" that you speak of, exactly? Please point us as to whom you are referring to, and some of their work that supports your position. Thanks.

3. Don't try to change others. I'm not going to bore you with Bible quotations, I'm sure you can read plenty of examples in there yourself. Mostly, when the Bible speaks of change, it is for oneself. Including the words of Jesus.

4. When you state "Mandate", exactly where do you get this from? Please, be specific. In your position you are trying to support changing others to your view. This is rather unintelligent, obtrusive, and goes against the Word of God.

I am sure you'll find other quotes and things to refute my points. Go ahead and try.

Cheers
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 27, 2008, 05:23:11 pm
mgod wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 08:30

There's plenty of evidence that the NT has been deliberately altered over the years Nick. Read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" for more on this.

However, those who are already convinced of its inerrancy will discount the messengers and so their message, as I'm sure our friend Nathan is about to tell you. There are other interpretations as well, among them that since the big guy is all powerful, nothing of importance can be changed since he controls all, or that maybe its a change he wanted. What seems inarguable to me, although the minute you say something like that you're asking for trouble, is that the interpretation has changed mightily over the years, and the meaning of the instruction.

There's a lot of debate about the changing of meaning at the Council of Nicea, when some think Rome co-opted the movement. Others see the hand of you know who in it.

DS



This is from the Christian Apologetics Research Ministry:

Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore?


    This is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English. The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted . The "telephone" analogy is often used as an illustration. It goes like this. One person tells another person a sentence who then tells another person, who tells yet another, and so on and so on until the last person hears a sentence that has little or nothing to do with the original one.  The only problem with this analogy is that it doesn't fit the Bible at all.

    The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy.  Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure.  That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly.  But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations.  For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ."  So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low.  Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.

    So when that we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is a one step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption.  It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language a person needs to read it in.  So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.  Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well.  This is how it is done for each and every language we translate the Bible into.  We do not translate from the original languages to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German.  It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German.  Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.



New Testament    

Written: 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D.)

Earliest Copy: 2nd Cent. A.D. (c. 130 A.D.)    

Approx time between orig and copy: less than 100 years

No. of copies: 5600    

Accuracy of copies: 99.5%


Source: 1) Christian Apologetics, by Norman Geisler, 1976, p. 307; 2) the article "Archaeology and History attest to the Reliability of the Bible," by Richard M. Fales, Ph.D., in The Evidence Bible, Compiled by Ray Comfort, Bridge-Logos Publishers, Gainesville, FL, 2001, p. 163; and 3) A Ready Defense, by Josh Mcdowell, 1993, p. 45.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 27, 2008, 05:40:30 pm
J-Texas wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 13:47

John Ivan wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 13:45

"We'll have you diving into girls head first in NO TIME"..



Weeeeeeeeee!  Laughing



are there pics that come with this statement?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 27, 2008, 05:49:29 pm
J-Texas wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 12:51

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 00:03


Jesus is not just for Christians.  He is for all who believe in his saving power and grace.


I can't even continue reading your post, I'm so confused about this.

Isn't that who the Christians were? I mean REAL Christians who followed His teachings after he died through the apostles?

Come on man. Christ is for the Christians. The splintering of religion after that point... that's the work of men.

The Merriam Webster FIRST definition of "Christian":

one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.



If you read the story I paraphrased I'd hope the meaning would be clear.  Essentially the Apostles knew all the Christians at this time as it was a very small group.  So they were amazed when they found other people who could do what they could do.  Christ said in essence, even if you don't know these people they are doing my work.

So.  The Christians weren't called Christians until the term first appeared in Antioch.  So if a person has the faith but doesn't know the particular term of Christian does that keep them from being saved?  And if the Christians weren't called Christian until Antioch, does it mean they weren't saved before then?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 27, 2008, 06:12:50 pm
noeqplease wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 15:03

1. Please, when Quoting the Bible, it is best not to quote out of context. This clearly shows you are intending to use words from the Bible to further your argument. This is a no-no. it is not an educated, nor polite way of getting your point across. please quote the complete passage, so that readers may understand why you choose the quote, and be able to understand you better. This is a classic situation that is unfortunately all over the media. Please don't lower yourself by using this tactic.


Anyone may look it up on Biblegateway.com if they so desire.

The smaller context of that section is about Paul's mission to the church.  Paul is stating that he is laboring towards presenting every believer mature in Christ.  

It is one thing to bring people to initial faith in Jesus.  It is another to have them become mature in the faith.  As an apostle, as a leader in the church, through his teaching he is working towards the maturing of believers.  Maturing is a process of healthy change.

noeqplease wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 15:03

2. Please, don' state "Theologians" without being more specific. Whom are these "Theologians" that you speak of, exactly? Please point us as to whom you are referring to, and some of their work that supports your position. Thanks.


Sure.  Let's start with N T Wright.  He's a world renown theologian, considered by many as one of the best living theologians today.  I've read a lot of his works, but the most recent in which I've seen him mention the participation with Jesus in the transformation of the world was in his book "For All God's Worth."  Though, he mentions this Kingdom theme in most of his writings.

noeqplease wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 15:03

3. Don't try to change others. I'm not going to bore you with Bible quotations, I'm sure you can read plenty of examples in there yourself. Mostly, when the Bible speaks of change, it is for oneself. Including the words of Jesus.


Yes, change is the responsibility of the Holy Spirit and the choice individual.  Our responsibility is the proclamation of Jesus, His Kingdom and the truth.

As I stated earlier, I don't advocate many of the views of 'changing people' or the aggressive techniques used by others to force change.  But I do believe that we do have a responsibility to speak up and proclaim the truth.  Faith and (from one perspective) repentance come from hearing.  

My point is that while I agree that we are not to be aggressors, I don't agree that we are to do nothing to change our world.  In that case, I believe that the pendulum has swung too far to the side of appeasement.  

We are to speak up and to act when we see injustice.  We are to care for those who are hungry.  We are to help those who are in need.  We are to speak up when we see an alcoholic friend destroying his life and that of his family.  We are to advocate for the refugees in our cities who are being taken advantage of.  We are to mentor (disciple) people and help them in the process of maturity in Jesus that they may experience his life and have it to the full.

noeqplease wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 15:03

4. When you state "Mandate", exactly where do you get this from? Please, be specific. In your position you are trying to support changing others to your view. This is rather unintelligent, obtrusive, and goes against the Word of God.


When referring to the 'mandate', I'm referring to our Kingdom mission, which is indeed to change the world.

I am not supporting 'changing others' in perhaps the same way that you are imagining.  I believe change will come as we engage Jesus and his Kingdom.

Quite possibly, I've over stated my point to Jessica.  I apologize - too much coffee.  But I don't agree that we're not involved in the process of change in individuals lives.  And I also believe that we are instructed to be involved in the lives of others in positive ways as we express Jesus and His Kingdom.  In doing so, we will be agents of change.

EDIT:

Having thought about this for a few more minutes a few more thoughts came to mind.

Are Christians to call people to repentance?  Repentance means literally to change - to change your thinking and actions.

The difference is - which Jesus modeled - is that repentance is always in invitation with a promise attached.  Repent - change your thinking and your actions - and the Kingdom of God will come upon you.

I think a lot of the bitter sentiment come from the fact that when many Christians have called others to 'repentance' that it was not an invitation with a promise.  It was forceful, fear filled coercion, sometimes manipulative, etc.






Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 27, 2008, 06:19:04 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 15:49

If you read the story I paraphrased I'd hope the meaning would be clear.  Essentially the Apostles knew all the Christians at this time as it was a very small group.  So they were amazed when they found other people who could do what they could do.  Christ said in essence, even if you don't know these people they are doing my work.

So.  The Christians weren't called Christians until the term first appeared in Antioch.  So if a person has the faith but doesn't know the particular term of Christian does that keep them from being saved?  And if the Christians weren't called Christian until Antioch, does it mean they weren't saved before then?


I think we're needlessly arguing over the semantics of a particular label.

The original usage of "Christian" in Antioch was more literally translated "little Christs" and was meant as a a derogatory term.

The label doesn't matter.  I know a number of believers who dislike the label "Christian" as it associates them with a number of connotations to that label that they do not agree with.  Yet these folks are highly dedicated to Jesus and very well educated in the faith.

I think it matters very little  what one calls oneself ("Christian" or "Believer" or "Jesus follower" or whatever) as long as one's faith is solidly in Jesus.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 27, 2008, 06:19:41 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 16:49

J-Texas wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 12:51

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 00:03


Jesus is not just for Christians.  He is for all who believe in his saving power and grace.


I can't even continue reading your post, I'm so confused about this.

Isn't that who the Christians were? I mean REAL Christians who followed His teachings after he died through the apostles?

Come on man. Christ is for the Christians. The splintering of religion after that point... that's the work of men.

The Merriam Webster FIRST definition of "Christian":

one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.



If you read the story I paraphrased I'd hope the meaning would be clear.  Essentially the Apostles knew all the Christians at this time as it was a very small group.  So they were amazed when they found other people who could do what they could do.  Christ said in essence, even if you don't know these people they are doing my work.

So.  The Christians weren't called Christians until the term first appeared in Antioch.  So if a person has the faith but doesn't know the particular term of Christian does that keep them from being saved?  And if the Christians weren't called Christian until Antioch, does it mean they weren't saved before then?


Barry, read the MW definition again man. Even if one doesn't call himself Christian, if he believes in the teachings of Christ he is a Christian. So, therefore, Christ IS for the Christian. This is a silly argument my man.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 27, 2008, 06:26:56 pm
I PICKED THE WRONG DAY TO QUIT SNIFFING GLUE!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/473292408_f4b8fbfde3.jpg
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 27, 2008, 08:10:46 pm
"I can no more understand what it is like to be a homosexual than I can understand what it is like to be black, or to be a man, or to be God."

think again

we are none so different from each other


just one comment on the subject of mental health professionals' experience with any "group"

they only see the DYSFUNCTIONAL

common pitfall when trying to extrapolate....
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 27, 2008, 08:35:46 pm
just so you know  . .. .JESUS was . . .uh ... is an  . . . a
uh....oh nevermind


index.php/fa/8306/0/
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 27, 2008, 09:25:50 pm
Do most christians think that Heaven is hidden in an extra-dimensional location?

Or is it on a planet in another galaxy? Or in the clouds, but not detectable by our current instrumentation?

Just wondering if there is a consensus on this, since most old drawings show god in the clouds above us, but the invention of flying machines sort of made that spot not as inaccessible as it was 2300 years ago.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 27, 2008, 11:25:16 pm
danickstr wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 19:25

Do most christians think that Heaven is hidden in an extra-dimensional location?

Or is it on a planet in another galaxy? Or in the clouds, but not detectable by our current instrumentation?

Just wondering if there is a consensus on this, since most old drawings show god in the clouds above us, but the invention of flying machines sort of made that spot not as inaccessible as it was 2300 years ago.


The word heaven appears in the scriptures in three different forms with 3 different meanings.  

The meaning that I believe you are thinking of happens to be the heaven that refers to the spiritual dimension where God lives that is currently hidden from our perception.

Theologically speaking, you will never find in the Bible that after you die you go to Heaven.

How heaven relates to us after death and at the end of the age is this.  Jesus will come again as he promised and consummate his Kingdom.  He'll finish what he started.  He'll rid the world of sin, decay, sickness / disease, death and the devil - all that was broken and destroyed in the world.  He will renew all of creation.  All will rise from the dead in the body (physical resurrection).  Those who believed will be given new glorified immortal bodies just like Jesus.  Heaven will join and become part of the earth - God will dwell among his people.  We will be in perfect community with God and with one another.

To paraphrase theologian Derek Morphew, when Jesus prayed to the Heavenly Father "Your Kingdom come on earth as it is in Heaven" he was really praying that the events of the end of the world would breakthrough into the here and now.  The good news is that those 'end of the world' events mean that heaven and earth collide and all that is broken gets fixed.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 28, 2008, 12:42:38 am
Barry, read the MW definition again man. Even if one doesn't call himself Christian, if he believes in the teachings of Christ he is a Christian. So, therefore, Christ IS for the Christian. This is a silly argument my man.

I didn't start the "silly argument".  You did.




Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 28, 2008, 12:47:28 am
John,
I am so flattered by your approval.  Hopefully not because I am vain but because it means I'm doing something right.  

But don't forget!  Even tho' this thread is Untitled, it began with listening... not speaking.

As so many have posted so much, I am going to try and touch up what I've missed in the past 8 hours or so!

There is some chat going on right now about whether or not gays are that way by nature, or are made into it by circumstances.  This may be an important question to answer, spiritually speaking.  But even so, I challenge you to step back from the argument and consider why it matters so much to you.  Why do you want or need to know the answer to this question?  Is it because you hate the hipocricy of Christians, or because you really want to know in order to understand gay people better?  

I want to understand gay people, to the extent that I can.  

maxim wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 19:10

"I can no more understand what it is like to be a homosexual than I can understand what it is like to be black, or to be a man, or to be God."

think again

we are none so different from each other





That was me what said that.  And while I get what you're saying, I never meant to imply that I don't try to understand.  I try very hard because I have learned that it is the differences in others that enrich my life.  Traits (or beliefs) I have in common with others are good for bonding, but the differences are what make life, err... interesting.  But facts are facts, and humans cannot read each other's minds!  So I cannot understand (I will add the qualifier "fully") any other person, regardless of sameness/differentness.  It is a limitation of humanity.  And I will mention again, this is not a limitation for God.


Nathan,
Forgive me for editing such a fine post.  I hope I have kept your original intention intact, but have shortened it so it is easier for others to follow:
PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 17:12


We are to speak up and to act when we see injustice.  We are to care for those who are hungry.  We are to help those who are in need.  We are to speak up when we see an alcoholic friend destroying his life and that of his family.  We are to advocate for the refugees in our cities who are being taken advantage of.  We are to mentor (disciple) people and help them in the process of maturity in Jesus that they may experience his life and have it to the full.

When referring to the 'mandate', I'm referring to our Kingdom mission, which is indeed to change the world.

I am not supporting 'changing others' in perhaps the same way that you are imagining.  I believe change will come as we engage Jesus and his Kingdom.

Quite possibly, I've over stated my point to Jessica.  I apologize - too much coffee.  But I don't agree that we're not involved in the process of change in individuals lives.  And I also believe that we are instructed to be involved in the lives of others in positive ways as we express Jesus and His Kingdom.  In doing so, we will be agents of change.

EDIT:

Having thought about this for a few more minutes a few more thoughts came to mind.

Are Christians to call people to repentance?  Repentance means literally to change - to change your thinking and actions.

The difference is - which Jesus modeled - is that repentance is always in invitation with a promise attached.  Repent - change your thinking and your actions - and the Kingdom of God will come upon you.


I like your thinking, but would question your description of what our "mandate" is.  

Christians serve as a proxy for God and non-believers.  The proxy does not have power.  God has power.  Any change that comes (and it does come, and will come) will come according to God's design and according to his work.  Not ours.  Not anyone's but God's.  

God could save people without our help if he wanted.  He could do it, you know.  

We feel empowered by the idea of "changing the world" or even the thought of changing one person. But change does not come from us.  And God says to be meek, not to seek out power (whether physical or psychological).

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 17:12



I think a lot of the bitter sentiment come from the fact that when many Christians have called others to 'repentance' that it was not an invitation with a promise.  It was forceful, fear filled coercion, sometimes manipulative, etc.




This is a very good observation.  I agree.

For those who are quoting scriptures:
Please do.  However, in the interest of my original idea behind this thread, let me offer you all the following to consider:


If you just listen, really try and understand God from your heart not from your head you may find a whole other world God created.  It is not a world of words in a book.  Not a world of laws.  Not a landscape of what sins are worse than others, nor greater condemnation for some than others.  

Yes, the words are there, and they are important.  But I challenge you!  Admit to yourself that there might be something more than the words.  Something greater.  Something that will be hard for some (like me) to understand.  

There are no brownie points for knowing the rules inside and out.  But there is so much to gain by moving above and beyond a simple debate over words and meanings.  

Please try.  Even a non-Christian could ask this of you, and I don't think it is a discriminatory or narrow-minded thing to ask.

You guys are really hanging in here.  I am proud of you.  Don't let your nerves wear thin.  Take a break from this thread if you need to.  I may.  Noone will think less of you.
Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 28, 2008, 12:51:51 am
Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 23:42

Barry, read the MW definition again man. Even if one doesn't call himself Christian, if he believes in the teachings of Christ he is a Christian. So, therefore, Christ IS for the Christian. This is a silly argument my man.

I didn't start the "silly argument".  You did.







You're right. They could have been just different views, but my rebuttal to your take on it did invite and argument. Like John, I too have a laundry list of things that I have changed and also others that I still struggle with. Having to be right is one of them. No joke.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 28, 2008, 01:08:41 am
Jessica, I love your gentle approach. I'm glad that God made women to be the perfect compliment to men. We need you.


BUT.  Very Happy

We can't just put away the book and fly solo. We would crash without the manual. Besides, we'd be doing a lot of guessing at what God is... passing a torched doob and talking about our galaxy is a piece of dirt in God's fingernail.

It says that there will be no undotted i's or crossed t's. I would say that the book is pretty significant.

I hear you saying that using scripture to make your point look better is probably not the most productive way to get this spirit-filled ball rolling, and I agree.

I will consider it a challenge and welcome it. Thank you for keeping me on track. I would hate to be guilty of putting words in the mouth of the Lord. Yikes.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 28, 2008, 01:39:12 am
the greatest thing for me about this thread

and i'm so happy jessica created "untitled"

is

everyone had the opportunity to research their Christ potential

for me i affirm my faith daily in so many places and opportunities

but this thread was getting out of the box in a fresh way

and showing up for Him in just the way He needs me to do it.

not your way

cuz i can't have any of  your ways

and you can't have mine

i'm grateful and praising him once more

for life and more of it in abundance!

thank God for a clear mind.

thank God for the breath of life

thank God for creativity and the gift of being a recording artist and producer and a (sort of) engineer out of necessity

thank God for timing, pitch, interpretation, conviction and vibe.

thank and praise God for all the good HE has in store that come from unexpected places

and that i know if i am to partner with Him
and i choose to .. . .

i need to make my plans
LARGER.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 28, 2008, 01:41:55 am
PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 23:25

Those who believed will be given new glorified immortal bodies.  Heaven will join and become part of the earth


So if science was able to create enhanced, immortal versions of our bodies, would that conflict with the desires of god?  If DNA were to be better understood and could be mastered, so to speak, and used to keep us in an immortal youthful, and disease-free state, would god become angry?

Sorry if I ask too many questions, I am just trying to get answers to all these questions that keep popping into my head and I appreciate your taking the time to address them.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 28, 2008, 02:22:56 am
I can't see how or why God would be angry about those things.

God gave people intelligence and wants them to use it.  If modern medicine can prolong or improve the quality of life why would God care?  He's the one who made it possible.

But one has to remember this is not where we are in our existence so more immediate concerns are important, such as the here and now.

One of my favorite "jokes".  A man arrives in Heaven and stands before God.  He says, "Lord when I was sick I prayed day and night for months that you would heal me and yet you never did."  God said, "I gave doctors medical skill and knowledge.  One could have cured you.  Why didn't you see one?"
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 28, 2008, 10:03:53 am

SHALL I LOOK FOR ANOTHER?

When John the Baptist
was imprisoned by Herod,
King of Galilee,
he began to doubt his spiritual revelation
that Jesus
was the promised Messiah,
and
sent his disciples
to inquire of Jesus,
"Are you the one or shall we look for another?"

When we are experiencing
trying conditions,
even though
we are versed in spiritual principles
and
have seen them work in our life,
doubt may creep in.
During these difficult times,
we are tempted
to look for something  
or
someone other than
our indwelling Christ.

We may need
to remind ourselves
that there is no other.  
There is only one --- God.  
No matter
how difficult the situation appears
or
how drastic the condition,
God is the answer.
(so what's the question?)

Put doubt,
shame and blame behind you.  
Calm your thoughts,
be still, listen,
and
be at peace.  
Trust the Christ within you
to meet all of your needs
in all situations.

" . . . Are You the Coming One,
or do we look for another?"
Matthew 11:3
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 28, 2008, 12:20:57 pm
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 22:47

JI like your thinking, but would question your description of what our "mandate" is.  

Christians serve as a proxy for God and non-believers.  The proxy does not have power.  God has power.  Any change that comes (and it does come, and will come) will come according to God's design and according to his work.  Not ours.  Not anyone's but God's.  

God could save people without our help if he wanted.  He could do it, you know.  

We feel empowered by the idea of "changing the world" or even the thought of changing one person. But change does not come from us.  And God says to be meek, not to seek out power (whether physical or psychological).


I fully agree with you that God has the power to do whatever he wishes.  I also fully agree that the power to change needs to come from God.  If it doesn't come from God, then where does it come from?  But I also find it interesting that God most often choses to express his power through his people.

Since I quoted N T Wright earlier, I'll do it again.  "Meek does not mean weak."  Meek does mean being submissive to the will and the ways of the Heavenly Father just like Jesus.  Jesus did only what he saw the Father doing (John 5).  And he was obedient even unto death.

"Changing the world" is not an emotional feel good statement as some often make it to be.  It's part of our mission, part of our mandate.

So as we follow Jesus in His ministry, we do so by his leading and by his power, following his example with the Father.  But we still do have a mission.  Just as Jesus was sent out (mission) by the Father, so he sends us (mission).  Our mandate is our Jesus given mission with our Jesus given message and our Jesus given demonstrations of the Kingdom (just as Jesus did).

The mission / mandate can be seen through Jesus.  In 1 John we read that the reason Jesus came was to destroy the works of the devil (which is synonymous with bringing the Kingdom of God (displacing the Kingdom of Darkness)).  In the Gospels we read that the central message of Jesus is "repent (change) for the Kingdom of God is at hand (you're in proximity to encounter God's plans for total restoration of things like they are in heaven)."  How the Kingdom message and mission unfolds is a large topic, but that's essentially where I'm coming from when I talk about our mandate.  Accepting Jesus invitation to be participants in the Kingdom mission.


Jessica A. Engle wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 22:47

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 17:12



I think a lot of the bitter sentiment come from the fact that when many Christians have called others to 'repentance' that it was not an invitation with a promise.  It was forceful, fear filled coercion, sometimes manipulative, etc.




This is a very good observation.  I agree.

For those who are quoting scriptures:
Please do.  However, in the interest of my original idea behind this thread, let me offer you all the following to consider:

If you just listen, really try and understand God from your heart not from your head you may find a whole other world God created.  It is not a world of words in a book.  Not a world of laws.  Not a landscape of what sins are worse than others, nor greater condemnation for some than others.  

Yes, the words are there, and they are important.  But I challenge you!  Admit to yourself that there might be something more than the words.  Something greater.  Something that will be hard for some (like me) to understand.  

There are no brownie points for knowing the rules inside and out.  But there is so much to gain by moving above and beyond a simple debate over words and meanings.  

Please try.  Even a non-Christian could ask this of you, and I don't think it is a discriminatory or narrow-minded thing to ask.

You guys are really hanging in here.  I am proud of you.  Don't let your nerves wear thin.  Take a break from this thread if you need to.  I may.  Noone will think less of you.


It's hard to know someone from text appearing on the internet.  Smile  I can assure you that I am a passionate person of the heart.  That heart leads me to the lost and the least.  Don't let my rambling thoughts fool you.  Wink

However, through my life experience I have come to value a balance of both the heart and the head.  There must be balance.  If one lives purely in their head they miss out on a lot of the beauty, wonder and mystery of life.  If one lives purely out of their heart, they are easily blown by the wind to whatever captures their affections.

I do / have done a lot of work in the Christian community.  I've seen a lot of things.  A lot of folks are passionate about a lot of ideas that they hear.  However, a lot of those ideas are not always well founded in the Word.  Sometimes even antithetical.  I'm all for following God with all one's heart.  However, I firmly believe that such passion needs to be balanced with wisdom.  And that wisdom I believe comes from a firm understanding of the word.  
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Larrchild on March 28, 2008, 12:34:51 pm
PookyNMR:
Quote:

I also fully agree that the power to change needs to come from God. If it doesn't come from God, then where does it come from?


A. The Change Fairy
B. Individual Choice based on logic and intellect

Gotta be either A or B.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: ScotcH on March 28, 2008, 12:47:11 pm
Larrchild wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 12:34

B. Individual Choice based on logic and intellect



Ding, ding, ding ... hooray for free will!
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: John Ivan on March 28, 2008, 12:50:29 pm
Jessica,

Thanks for your question.. It certainly deserves an answer..

First, I do not go out of my way to "find" hypocrisy in anyone, Christian or otherwise. I do point it out when I believe I've come across it like anyone else.. I know this can be dangerous territory and none of us live a hypocrisy free life, even though most of us try..

Regarding the reason for homosexuality. It is through long conversations and observation that I have reached the conclusion that all the Gay people I have personally known have known they were gay from childhood. I believe they can not change who they are in this regard except through deceiving themselves.

I too, have known with out any doubt that I simply adore Women! I had a huge crush on a teacher in Grade school and there was never any doubt about my feelings for the opposite sex.

So, I believe there is enough information about homosexuality for us to reliably conclude that it is a natural course of events in the lives of millions of Humans. They did NOT choose it. They just "are".. Just like the rest of us did not chose to be heterosexual, it's simply who we are..

So for the Christian Faith, or people who claim to represent the faith,to call the testimony of millions of Homosexuals in to question , they need to ignore what is just true. Gay people are gay.

I think we make it more complicated than it really is. We all want/need to be loved and where we turn for this love is built in.

This is what I believe the truth is..

Ivan.......................
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 28, 2008, 12:53:12 pm
danickstr wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 23:41

Sorry if I ask too many questions, I am just trying to get answers to all these questions that keep popping into my head and I appreciate your taking the time to address them.


I don't think that science could ever do such a thing as I believe the problem of death and decay / sickness / disease has an innately spiritual root that affects our physical body.  The scripture states that apart from God, there is no life (spiritual and eventually physical).  It also states that death is the resultant consequence of sin entering the world.

All that said, I don't believe that God would become angry with our quest to extend and improve our physical condition.  In fact many believe that we have a responsibility to manage our physical beings well.  I think that God may chuckle at our attempts for immortality outside of Him.

danickstr wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 23:41

Sorry if I ask too many questions, I am just trying to get answers to all these questions that keep popping into my head and I appreciate your taking the time to address them.


No worries.  I enjoy the conversation.

Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 00:22

I can't see how or why God would be angry about those things.

God gave people intelligence and wants them to use it.  If modern medicine can prolong or improve the quality of life why would God care?  He's the one who made it possible.

But one has to remember this is not where we are in our existence so more immediate concerns are important, such as the here and now.

One of my favorite "jokes".  A man arrives in Heaven and stands before God.  He says, "Lord when I was sick I prayed day and night for months that you would heal me and yet you never did."  God said, "I gave doctors medical skill and knowledge.  One could have cured you.  Why didn't you see one?"


The bible says a lot more about 'divine health' (taking proper care of yourself) than it does about 'divine healing.'  Divine healing is a gift from God when the Kingdom of Heaven breakthrough and touches earth, and we're thankful for it when it happens in whatever form.  But we have a responsibility as good stewards to be responsible with our bodies.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 28, 2008, 12:55:42 pm
Larrchild wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 10:34

PookyNMR:
Quote:

I also fully agree that the power to change needs to come from God. If it doesn't come from God, then where does it come from?


A. The Change Fairy
B. Individual Choice based on logic and intellect

Gotta be either A or B.


It was more of a rhetorical question.  But I'd offer some slightly different answers.
A)  Human power of self
B)  Alternate spiritual power

While some seeming immediate successes can be seen from each, the long term results are not as promising.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Larrchild on March 28, 2008, 01:00:56 pm
Maybe it's all of the above.
I know people who credit Jesus for their sobriety.
I know non-religious people who credit will power for their sobriety.
Whatever works!
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 28, 2008, 01:07:32 pm
John Ivan wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 10:50

It is through long conversations and observation that I have reached the conclusion that all the Gay people I have personally known have known they were gay from childhood.


Of course.  Many of the deep woundings come from primary relationships (like parents) in the early, formative stages of life.

While not research specifically on homosexuality, I'm aware of one study that showed how even a newborn baby was refusing to bond with the mother (breast feed) because it was later revealed that the mother did not want the baby and wanted to abort.  The baby would, however, breast feed from other women.

John Ivan wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 10:50

 They did NOT choose it. They just "are"...


I'm not aware of anyone who has ever chosen to be gay.  
But I am aware of many people who have chosen to be bitter and not forgive.  
I am aware of many people who have chosen to hold deep judgements in their heart.  
I am aware of many people who chose to make deep inner vows.  
I'm aware of many who have chosen to hold on to deep resentment and anger.  
I'm aware of many who have chosen to internalize the trauma of abuse.
Etc, etc, etc.
All of these seeds eventually bear fruit and change behavior until yes, someone changes into something else.  But that change has causes.  Some people's wounding and choices manifest in sexual identity crisis, others it manifests in substance abuse, others it manifests in other addictions or self destructive behaviors, and in others the inability to have functional relationships.  Common human problem that we all face, it's just that sexual identity crisis is another manifest symptom.

EDIT:

John Ivan wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 10:50

So for the Christian Faith, or people who claim to represent the faith,to call the testimony of millions of Homosexuals in to question , they need to ignore what is just true.


It's not just some "Christians."  There are many secular non-believing professionals who believe the same thing as well.  Can't turn this into a religious argument cause it's bigger than that.

I think the other side of the argument are the ones choosing to 'ignore' by glossing over it and choosing to just 'accept it for what it is.'


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 28, 2008, 01:39:54 pm
Larrchild wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 09:34

PookyNMR:
Quote:

I also fully agree that the power to change needs to come from God. If it doesn't come from God, then where does it come from?


A. The Change Fairy
B. Individual Choice based on logic and intellect

Gotta be either A or B.



A sounds ghey

B is the gift God has given you
(since any thing you do will either be another lesson of negativity or allowing him to do his work thru you to expressing Him as YOU.  and of course gays are included in the B option.

and again the Divine Mr Larrchild said and i quote:
Quote:

Maybe it's all of the above.
I know people who credit Jesus for their sobriety.
I know non-religious people who credit will power for their sobriety.
Whatever works!


sobriety=you just go your bags packed...
there is soooooo much more around the bend.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Larrchild on March 28, 2008, 01:45:59 pm
Jimi,
You are going to have to choose between the previously stated "You have to ask for Jesus to enter your life, he won't barge in" and "It's all God's work, even when you think it is just your rational mind at work, and even when you don't believe."

Those 2 things don't line up.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 28, 2008, 01:57:29 pm
Larrchild wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 10:45

Jimi,
You are going to have to choose between the previously stated "You have to ask for Jesus to enter your life, he won't barge in" and "It's all God's work, even when you think it is just your rational mind at work, and even when you don't believe."

Those 2 things don't line up.



wow..like white on rice you retorted

and my answer is NO i do not

i don't have to do anything you say.

none of us do.  but you have to do what you say because your words are powerful for you and will not come back to you void once hurled out

because of the indwelling Christ light i can have it all which as i have said many time before.

the capital T Truth is

He was and is and has always been there

just like the two sets of footprints in the sand with only one person walking visible

what changed was i allowed him in my heart and consciousness

with that free will of mine.

it's all about consciousness awareness raising or being a lost sheep for me

i can't say for you but i think you should back off telling any of us what we have to do...cuz that just don't fly


even rhetorically
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Larrchild on March 28, 2008, 02:13:31 pm
You should not be scared of free thinking, nor treat it as a threat. In a discussion, varying viewpoints are made. Nobody tells anyone what to do, rather both parties (if they have the capacity), entertain the other's view at least long enough to either agree or continue to defend theirs.

If going outside the confines of your narrow view of the world troubles you, that is not my problem. I just represent the other side of the argument. Not in a mean spirit, but if your statements cannot withstand any scrutiny or analysis, then they must not be strong enough in substance. Again, not my prob. That is what forums do.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 28, 2008, 02:14:16 pm
studiojimi wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 12:57

Larrchild wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 10:45

Jimi,
You are going to have to choose between the previously stated "You have to ask for Jesus to enter your life, he won't barge in" and "It's all God's work, even when you think it is just your rational mind at work, and even when you don't believe."

Those 2 things don't line up.



wow..like white on rice you retorted

and my answer is NO i do not

i don't have to do anything you say.

none of us do.  but you have to do what you say because your words are powerful for you and will not come back to you void once hurled out

because of the indwelling Christ light i can have it all which as i have said many time before.

the capital T Truth is

He was and is and has always been there

just like the two sets of footprints in the sand with only one person walking visible

what changed was i allowed him in my heart and consciousness

with that free will of mine.

it's all about consciousness awareness raising or being a lost sheep for me

i can't say for you but i think you should back off telling any of us what we have to do...cuz that just don't fly


even rhetorically



Here is some imagery for you.

Imagine there is a door which people pass through when they go to heaven.

Above the door, when you pass through, are the words "All who are called, come."  Yet on the other side of the door are written the words, "All who come are called."

This is just a picture of course.  In real life it's much more complicated, but just as much of a mystery.  How can both be true?

It would be nice to resolve this conflict of ideas in a way we can understand.  But I'm not sure it can be done.  I know I can't do it, at least not until I sit down with God at The End and we have a really long chat.

But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the mystery in the meantime.

Jessica

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 28, 2008, 02:55:16 pm
Larrchild wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 11:34

PookyNMR:
Quote:

I also fully agree that the power to change needs to come from God. If it doesn't come from God, then where does it come from?


A. The Change Fairy
B. Individual Choice based on logic and intellect

Gotta be either A or B.


Question: Does the Change Fairy have change for a ten?  I need to buy a soda.

B is the correct answer.  It is logical and intellectual to believe all people are imperfect.  It is logical and intellectual to believe there can be a Supreme Being in existence who wants a relationship with each of us.  Trust me, if a person can believe in aliens from space, Christianity is a much easier jump.

I'm not stupid.  I consider myself a smart, educated, wise, spiritual (interested in the spiritual) person.  I'm not going to believe in something that doesn't make sense to me - just as you aren't.

Christianity not only makes spiritual sense to me, it is all perfectly plausible and reasonable.  The evidence I have is the change in me, the acts of God in my life.  But it is faith based and not science, so you obviously can use your logic and intellect to accept or reject it.  But don't be tricked.  Any true Christian is no fool.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Larrchild on March 28, 2008, 02:58:03 pm
Christ-on-a-bike! A rational answer! Gadzooks!
Thanks Barry!

Good analogy too, Jess.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 28, 2008, 03:08:56 pm
Nathan,

"I think the other side of the argument are the ones choosing to 'ignore' by glossing over it and choosing to just 'accept it for what it is.'"

I see things differently, although am not saying my position is some sort of doctrine, but it seems to me that while on earth, Christ +*always+* accepted people for who they were.  He proclaimed salvation and the kingdom of God, but Christ never told someone to "change", not even the Pharisees and Sadducees.  He suggested they repent but always accepted where they were in their lives.  The Spirit leads but doesn't demand.  Neither did Christ.  He leads to a new life and condemns sin but never demands change.  I don't think that's glossing over anything.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 28, 2008, 03:32:02 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 13:08

Nathan,

"I think the other side of the argument are the ones choosing to 'ignore' by glossing over it and choosing to just 'accept it for what it is.'"

I see things differently, although am not saying my position is some sort of doctrine, but it seems to me that while on earth, Christ +*always+* accepted people for who they were.  He proclaimed salvation and the kingdom of God, but Christ never told someone to "change", not even the Pharisees and Sadducees.  He suggested they repent but always accepted where they were in their lives.  The Spirit leads but doesn't demand.  Neither did Christ.  He leads to a new life and condemns sin but never demands change.  I don't think that's glossing over anything.


Absolutely Jesus called people to change.  The word repent means literally to change one's thinking and change ones actions.  Repentance is a call to change.  Jesus called / invited people to repentance and attached it with a promise - that the Kingdom would come upon that person.

As I stated before the Kingdom of God is invitational.  I agree with you that the Father/Son/Spirit invites and does not demand.  God gives an invitation and a choice.  But choose and act we must - otherwise we're deceived into continuing on the path of death.

For sure Jesus was always among the outcasts and the people on the fringes.  And he loved them all in whatever state they were in.  But that does not mean that their present state was good or that it could not / should not change so as to allow the Kingdom of God to come and heal and restore all that had been broken or destroyed.  

As much as Jesus loved people I also would not say that Jesus was happy to leave people in the state that they were in.  There's a big difference between loving someone no matter where they are at and accepting their current state.  Love is a sacrificial action.  But the other is not.  Love is willing to sacrifice so as to help a person come out of death into life.  Love does not accept defeat but works toward victory.

You say 'he leads to a new life and condemns sin but does not demand change.'  However, if someone does not change then how is sin and it's effects in the here and now dealt with in their lives?  How does one come to experience that 'new life'  unless there is change?  How can we experience 'new life' when we choose to continue walking on the path of death?


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 28, 2008, 03:45:20 pm
the lovely hostess said:

Quote:

Here is some imagery for you.

Imagine there is a door which people pass through when they go to heaven.

Above the door, when you pass through, are the words "All who are called, come." Yet on the other side of the door are written the words, "All who come are called."




i was just wondering what

"no one gets to the Father except through me" actually means then?


John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

this red print gospel.....

one might wanna think on this for a  moment
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 28, 2008, 04:05:53 pm
studiojimi wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 14:45

the lovely hostess said:

Quote:

Here is some imagery for you.

Imagine there is a door which people pass through when they go to heaven.

Above the door, when you pass through, are the words "All who are called, come." Yet on the other side of the door are written the words, "All who come are called."




i was just wondering what

"no one gets to the Father except through me" actually means then?


John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

this red print gospel.....

one might wanna think on this for a  moment


Here's the whole bit (John 14:5-11):
~~~~
Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?

The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
~~~~
No red print required.

Jesus was teaching Thomas about his (Jesus') relationship to God.  Jesus was/is proxy for God.  Notice Jesus says "it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work".  God's power, given to Jesus, who would never claim it as his own, or use it for his own purposes.  He was really good at doing God's will.

Jesus touched people's lives.  And some changed their minds, and probably their behavior too, because of it.  Because they saw, heard, understood, and probably felt that the message was good and true.  They used what they learned to decide to change.  

Jessica

PS Hint:  In my analogy, Jesus is the door.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 28, 2008, 04:27:06 pm
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 14:05

Jesus was teaching Thomas about his (Jesus') relationship to God.  Jesus was/is proxy for God.  Notice Jesus says "it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work".  God's power, given to Jesus, who would never claim it as his own, or use it for his own purposes.  He was really good at doing God's will.


I think using the term "proxy" is weak and denigrates the nature of the Trinity.  I get what you're saying, and in one sense it is perfectly correct.  

But while Jesus, fully human, was fulfilling the human side of the covenant by his obedience to the Father, Jesus is also fully divine of the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit and not merely 'proxy.'

It may seem like a small semantic point, but I believe that the ramifications as things are brought into different views are quite significant.

The point of that passage is not just salvation as many quote it for.  The point is the revelation of God.  People wanted to see and know God.  Jesus tells them if you want to see the Father look to me.  I am that YHWY God here among you in the flesh.  "...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."  (Jn 1:14)
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 28, 2008, 04:27:26 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 14:32


But choose and act we must...



I thought we needed a quick break.

http://www.blueharvest.net/images/closeups/yoda.jpg
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 28, 2008, 04:31:06 pm
J-Texas wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 14:27

PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 14:32


But choose and act we must...



I thought we needed a quick break.


I think that picture makes me look a little green.  Don't you think?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 28, 2008, 04:32:27 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 15:27

Jessica A. Engle wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 14:05

Jesus was teaching Thomas about his (Jesus') relationship to God.  Jesus was/is proxy for God.  Notice Jesus says "it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work".  God's power, given to Jesus, who would never claim it as his own, or use it for his own purposes.  He was really good at doing God's will.


I think using the term "proxy" is weak and denigrates the nature of the Trinity.  I get what you're saying, and in one sense it is perfectly correct.  

But while Jesus, fully human, was fulfilling the human side of the covenant by his obedience to the Father, Jesus is also fully divine of the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit and not merely 'proxy.'

It may seem like a small semantic point, but I believe that the ramifications as things are brought into different views are quite significant.



OK.  I was just calling back to what I was said earlier about how Christians are a proxy for God and unbelievers.  When Jesus was here (aka human, on the earth) he was showing us how to do just that.  He did a great job.  

Jesus was many things.  Being a proxy is one, but  not the least, of them.  

Jessica

PS Did you ever wonder what size shoes Jesus wore?  This doesn't have anything to do with anything, except that it tickles me to imagine someone helping Jesus try on sandels and saying, "no they should be a half size bigger".  

As long as we're doing non-sequiters!
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 28, 2008, 04:37:06 pm
http://www.themadpigeon.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/26/albundy.jpg
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 28, 2008, 05:08:39 pm
Christ offers change and hope.  And there must be change to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  But he never +*demands+* change.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 28, 2008, 05:15:54 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 15:08

Christ offers change and hope.  And there must be change to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.  But he never +*demands+* change.


I agree, his Kingdom is invitational.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Larrchild on March 28, 2008, 05:36:47 pm
index.php/fa/8325/0/
Dogs too?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 28, 2008, 05:45:30 pm
All dogs go to heaven, of course.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: John Ivan on March 28, 2008, 06:05:55 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 13:07

John Ivan wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 10:50

It is through long conversations and observation that I have reached the conclusion that all the Gay people I have personally known have known they were gay from childhood.


Of course.  Many of the deep woundings come from primary relationships (like parents) in the early, formative stages of life.

While not research specifically on homosexuality, I'm aware of one study that showed how even a newborn baby was refusing to bond with the mother (breast feed) because it was later revealed that the mother did not want the baby and wanted to abort.  The baby would, however, breast feed from other women.

John Ivan wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 10:50

 They did NOT choose it. They just "are"...


I'm not aware of anyone who has ever chosen to be gay.  
But I am aware of many people who have chosen to be bitter and not forgive.  
I am aware of many people who have chosen to hold deep judgements in their heart.  
I am aware of many people who chose to make deep inner vows.  
I'm aware of many who have chosen to hold on to deep resentment and anger.  
I'm aware of many who have chosen to internalize the trauma of abuse.
Etc, etc, etc.
All of these seeds eventually bear fruit and change behavior until yes, someone changes into something else.  But that change has causes.  Some people's wounding and choices manifest in sexual identity crisis, others it manifests in substance abuse, others it manifests in other addictions or self destructive behaviors, and in others the inability to have functional relationships.  Common human problem that we all face, it's just that sexual identity crisis is another manifest symptom.

EDIT:

John Ivan wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 10:50

So for the Christian Faith, or people who claim to represent the faith,to call the testimony of millions of Homosexuals in to question , they need to ignore what is just true.


It's not just some "Christians."  There are many secular non-believing professionals who believe the same thing as well.  Can't turn this into a religious argument cause it's bigger than that.

I think the other side of the argument are the ones choosing to 'ignore' by glossing over it and choosing to just 'accept it for what it is.'






Really.. This is all offensive and disgusting and it is where I leave the room..

Good luck, I guess.

Ivan..................
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 28, 2008, 06:10:13 pm
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 14:45

All dogs go to heaven, of course.



uH UH

index.php/fa/8326/0/
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 28, 2008, 07:34:59 pm
why wait for paradise?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: cerberus on March 28, 2008, 10:06:36 pm
the bible would appear to contradict itself in many places.
e.g. this graphic depiction of a homosexual act:
Genesis 24:2

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 28, 2008, 11:20:34 pm
cerberus wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 20:06

the bible would appear to contradict itself in many places.
e.g. this graphic depiction of a homosexual act:
Genesis 24:2

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 29, 2008, 12:07:48 am
is that what they call it?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 29, 2008, 02:30:37 am
"this was an anceint cultural ceremony to initiate a covenantal oath between parties. It had nothing to do with sex."

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

(Thank you Jerry Seinfeld)

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: cerberus on March 29, 2008, 05:28:17 am
PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 23:20

I assume that you are kidding.

However, what you come to understand through the scholarly process of exegesis is that this was an anceint cultural ceremony to initiate a covenantal oath between parties.  It had nothing to do with sex.

nathan, i was not kidding. i recalled the passage from a classroom discussion i attended.
we did not hear a theologian's point of view. thank you for answering.

now you have pointed out how social mores have changed over the ages, which i think
was also central to the points made in favor of tolerance of personal
and largely private behaviors among consenting adults.

jeff dinces
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PP on March 29, 2008, 06:17:34 am
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 29, 2008, 07:55:49 am
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Thu, 27 March 2008 10:04


PS Nobody owns Jesus.  He is for everyone.  There's no rules against non-believers reading a Bible and learning about him.  

Jessica, there are many forms of experience of Christ. Quite a few of those constitute something outside the realm of what self-proclaimed 'believers' would allow as belief. But as Campbell said, some don't need belief as they have experience. Christ is not containable strictly within a book.

Again, this thread has shown that are are some things that can barely be discussed. 'Belief' extends to what some will accept as legitimate study. From my own POV, what appears to one person to be their own scholarly efforts appears to be defensive need to shore up their own conviction, which is used to legitimize an inherent condemnation of others as wrong and misguided. Such is the 'belief' of some. Its inarguably busy-bodied, and serves to deflect attention to the mote in other's eyes. To me, it looks like shoddily built belief.

I think deep religious conviction is fine, is good, but if one uses it to place oneself into a corner where only certain paths of inquiry are permissible, one ought not to confuse scholarship with orthodoxy. The church didn't like Galileo either, but that didn't change the truth. Orthodoxy dos not permit the questioning of the foundations of that Orthodoxy. But scholarship is wide open. However, Orthodoxy will always attempt its own defense by struggling to define what is and isn't true scholarship. Again, this doesn't change the truth.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 29, 2008, 08:05:06 am
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 13:05


~~~~
No red print required.

Jesus was teaching Thomas about his (Jesus') relationship to God.  Jesus was/is proxy for God.  Notice Jesus says "it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work".  God's power, given to Jesus, who would never claim it as his own, or use it for his own purposes.  He was really good at doing God's will.

Jesus touched people's lives.  And some changed their minds, and probably their behavior too, because of it.  Because they saw, heard, understood, and probably felt that the message was good and true.  They used what they learned to decide to change.  

Jessica

PS Hint:  In my analogy, Jesus is the door.

A lovely answer Jessica, even minus the red ink. But, it does help to open the dialogue to more (which is the point, isn't it?) to recall that Jesus and Thomas didn't actually speak those words, because those words are in English, and subtle meaning might not be translated with 100% accuracy.

As always, there are ways of telling this story that bring people in, and ways of telling it that shut people out.

Such an exclusive club, belief.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 29, 2008, 09:56:56 am
What is interesting about "god's will" is that he chooses to let infants drown every day and leave their parents filled with grief, and yet answers prayers about whose team should win the "big game" today.  

I would argue still that he does not exist, and any loving person should agree that these two examples are a grotesque disparity of resources.

If Jessica was god, I would bet there would be less affecting the outcomes of high school basketball games and more levitations back into mother's arms of babies about to turned to chum off the stern of a ferry.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 29, 2008, 10:11:36 am
danickstr wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 06:56

What is interesting about "god's will" is that he chooses to let infants drown every day and leave their parents filled with grief, and yet answers prayers about whose team should win the "big game" today.  

I would argue still that he does not exist, and any loving person should agree that these two examples are a grotesque disparity of resources.

If Jessica was god, I would bet there would be less affecting the outcomes of high school basketball games and more levitations back into mother's arms of babies about to turned to chum off the stern of a ferry.


(posted with love for all of God's kids)
(suggestion)
You cannot fathom the will of God and his movement in the Universe.

Stop trying to discount and believe He is in charge and all is well.

If Jessica was God, she would have a lot more information and have a much better understanding of His will of absolute good.  The good news available revelation is that Jessica is One with God, as am I as are You and the only God you will ever witness will be you seeing Him work through you and the rest of us harmoniously like a wonderful symphony.

But if you are not seeking this first the rest will not fall into place for you in Spirit.

We are assembled for the concerto...perhaps this is just the fugue.  There will be a recapitulation after which we will be hon bended kneww and God even if God chooses not to take a bow, we will praise his Holy name.




Saturday, March 29, 2008

WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?

What were you thinking,
when you allowed the doctor's prognosis
to become a giant
and
you a grasshopper?  
Your thoughts and feelings
open the door
to all manifestations.

Stop doubting yourself.
Believe in the infinite
healing presence and restorative power
of Christ within you.  
Christ within
is your strength and sufficiency
in all things.
It created and formed
every cell, fiber and tissue
and
knows the purpose and capability
of each.

What were you thinking
when you entertained and accepted
the belief that you
could be less than
what God created?
God is Spirit.  
God created you
in His own image likeness,
a spiritual being.  
God cannot be sick,
broke, angry, or depressed.  
What about you?  

Watch
your thoughts and feelings.
They can raise you up
or
tear you down;
it all depends on
what you are thinking.

" . . . Be transformed by the renewing of your mind,
that you may prove what is that good,
and acceptable, and perfect will of  God."

Romans 12:2


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 29, 2008, 11:27:55 am
danickstr wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 07:56

What is interesting about "god's will" is that he chooses to let infants drown every day and leave their parents filled with grief, and yet answers prayers about whose team should win the "big game" today.  

I would argue still that he does not exist, and any loving person should agree that these two examples are a grotesque disparity of resources.


Those horrid tragedies that you speak of are the effects of sin entering the world, which was the choice of humanity, not God.

(EDIT grammatical error)

I'd argue that God's focus is not more on the 'big game' than on the hurting and the broken.  I challenge anyone to provide any evidence for that.  With all kindness, I question how you arrive at your view of "God's will."
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 29, 2008, 11:31:36 am
I would imagine, the same way you do.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 29, 2008, 11:34:29 am
mgod wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 06:05

But, it does help to open the dialogue to more (which is the point, isn't it?) to recall that Jesus and Thomas didn't actually speak those words, because those words are in English, and subtle meaning might not be translated with 100% accuracy.


Enough translators from enough camps (believers and non) have looked at that passage so that what we have is more than accurate enough in English.  And there's more than enough scholars out there who know ancient Greek just as well as their mother tongue to confirm such a thing.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on March 29, 2008, 11:35:55 am
PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 11:27

danickstr wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 07:56

What is interesting about "god's will" is that he chooses to let infants drown every day and leave their parents filled with grief, and yet answers prayers about whose team should win the "big game" today.  

I would argue still that he does not exist, and any loving person should agree that these two examples are a grotesque disparity of resources.


Those horrid tragedies that you speak of are the effects of sin entering the world, which was the choice of humanity, not God.

I'd argue that God's focus is more on the 'big game' than on the hurting and the broken.  I challenge anyone to provide any evidence for that.  



And, uh, vice versa.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 29, 2008, 11:36:38 am
PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 08:34

mgod wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 06:05

But, it does help to open the dialogue to more (which is the point, isn't it?) to recall that Jesus and Thomas didn't actually speak those words, because those words are in English, and subtle meaning might not be translated with 100% accuracy.


Enough translators from enough camps (believers and non) have looked at that passage so that what we have is more than accurate enough in English.  And there's more than enough scholars out there who know ancient Greek just as well as their mother tongue to confirm such a thing.



And thus the dialogue closes. Again.

YMMV,

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on March 29, 2008, 11:42:21 am
PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 08:27


I'd argue that God's focus is more on the 'big game' than on the hurting and the broken.  I challenge anyone to provide any evidence for that.
Its an interesting theoretical argument. OTOH,  human tragedy is NOT theoretical and so the argument is sorely lacking in any compassion or concern for one's fellow people. I think Jesus his own self might have found it a little cold. He did plenty of caring for the afflicted.

PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 28 March 2008 13:27


But while Jesus, fully human, was fulfilling the human side of the covenant by his obedience to the Father, Jesus is also fully divine of the same substance as the Father and the Holy Spirit and not merely 'proxy.'

It may seem like a small semantic point, but I believe that the ramifications as things are brought into different views are quite significant.

The point of that passage is not just salvation as many quote it for.  The point is the revelation of God.  People wanted to see and know God.  Jesus tells them if you want to see the Father look to me.  I am that YHWY God here among you in the flesh.  "...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."  (Jn 1:14)



DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 29, 2008, 11:50:02 am
cerberus wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 03:28


nathan, i was not kidding. i recalled the passage from a classroom discussion i attended.
we did not hear a theologian's point of view. thank you for answering.

now you have pointed out how social mores have changed over the ages, which i think
was also central to the points made in favor of tolerance of personal
and largely private behaviors among consenting adults.

jeff dinces


And that's exactly where the scholarly processes of exegesis and hermeneutics come together.  The hermeneutical process takes the information from exegsis that we have about what it meant to them and it tells us how this information relates to us in our time and culture.

With the particular case of the Biblical code on sexuality a number of the reasonings appear right in the texts, so the hermeneutic is much easier.  'So that you will not get diseases like the Egyptians' or 'so that you will have life' or 'so that you will not defile the land and have it vomit you out' and things like that.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 29, 2008, 11:55:49 am
mgod wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 09:31

I would imagine, the same way you do.


From years of study, a library of reading, sitting under numerous well trained teachers?  I would hope so.  But I'm thinking that's not the case.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 29, 2008, 11:58:11 am
mgod wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 09:36

PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 08:34

mgod wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 06:05

But, it does help to open the dialogue to more (which is the point, isn't it?) to recall that Jesus and Thomas didn't actually speak those words, because those words are in English, and subtle meaning might not be translated with 100% accuracy.


Enough translators from enough camps (believers and non) have looked at that passage so that what we have is more than accurate enough in English.  And there's more than enough scholars out there who know ancient Greek just as well as their mother tongue to confirm such a thing.



And thus the dialogue closes. Again.

YMMV,

DS


There's libraries of resources on this stuff and loads of folks out there with masters and doctorate degrees that study this stuff day in and day out.

You may not be aware of this, or (I hope not) you may be choosing to ignore it for what ever reason.  But the fact is, the materials and skills exist out there.

mgod wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 09:42

PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 08:27


I'd argue that God's focus is NOT more on the 'big game' than on the hurting and the broken.  I challenge anyone to provide any evidence for that.
Its an interesting theoretical argument. OTOH,  human tragedy is NOT theoretical and so the argument is sorely lacking in any compassion or concern for one's fellow people. I think Jesus his own self might have found it a little cold. He did plenty of caring for the afflicted.


It was a typo on my part that I corrected in the original post.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 29, 2008, 12:14:25 pm
mgod wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 05:55

Again, this thread has shown that are are some things that can barely be discussed. 'Belief' extends to what some will accept as legitimate study. From my own POV, what appears to one person to be their own scholarly efforts appears to be defensive need to shore up their own conviction, which is used to legitimize an inherent condemnation of others as wrong and misguided. Such is the 'belief' of some. Its inarguably busy-bodied, and serves to deflect attention to the mote in other's eyes. To me, it looks like shoddily built belief.

I think deep religious conviction is fine, is good, but if one uses it to place oneself into a corner where only certain paths of inquiry are permissible, one ought not to confuse scholarship with orthodoxy. The church didn't like Galileo either, but that didn't change the truth. Orthodoxy dos not permit the questioning of the foundations of that Orthodoxy. But scholarship is wide open. However, Orthodoxy will always attempt its own defense by struggling to define what is and isn't true scholarship. Again, this doesn't change the truth.


Orthodoxy is built, in large part, from timely scholarship, not ignorance.

If someone is not willing to do the homework, what kind of answers do you expect them to produce?

It's not about condemnation.  With all due kindness and respect, that's your perception.  It's about a legitimate search for the truth.  And the search for truth thrives on questions, not squashing them.  

The difference is that this search for truth is willing to engage a thoughtful process rather than just accept 'what ever thoughts seem good and right in my own eyes at this moment.'

As far as defending findings - If someone said that a major chord was built on a root - minor 3 - perfect 5, would you not dispute that because your study and experience as a musician has knows otherwise?  For the musician who has not studied, such an idea may not be obvious.  But to the studied musician it is more plain.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 29, 2008, 01:33:43 pm
According to science, there is not a heaven.  Science cannot find it.  There is no god.  Science cannot find him. This is one form of scholarship.

imagine there's no heaven...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on March 29, 2008, 01:44:20 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 12:14

 If someone said that a major chord was built on a root - minor 3 - perfect 5, would you not dispute that because your study and experience as a musician has knows otherwise?  


Of course a major triad DOES have a minor third interval in it.  And a major third.  And a fifth. Oh well.  Might as well discuss religion.




Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 29, 2008, 02:46:48 pm
danickstr wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 12:33

According to science, there is not a heaven.  Science cannot find it.  There is no god.  Science cannot find him. This is one form of scholarship.

imagine there's no heaven...


Imagine there is.  Then what.  I always plan for the worst and hope for the best.  If I'm wrong, I've lost nothing because it didn't exist.  If you're wrong, there's "hell to pay".
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on March 29, 2008, 03:05:51 pm
But it is possible to make decisions based on the merits of the situation and your own morality without religion or consequence coming into it.  Values are not a wholly owned subsidiary of organized religion.

tom
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 29, 2008, 03:40:23 pm
danickstr wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 08:56

What is interesting about "god's will" is that he chooses to let infants drown every day and leave their parents filled with grief, and yet answers prayers about whose team should win the "big game" today. .


I would like to remind everyone of the story of Job.


As far as your team winning on answered prayers...

That's rediculous man. It's a fifty/fifty! Dumb luck not answered prayers.

I'm sure that the Cowboys are Heaven's team though! LOL
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 29, 2008, 03:44:26 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 13:46

danickstr wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 12:33

According to science, there is not a heaven.  Science cannot find it.  There is no god.  Science cannot find him. This is one form of scholarship.

imagine there's no heaven...


Imagine there is.  Then what.  I always plan for the worst and hope for the best.  If I'm wrong, I've lost nothing because it didn't exist.  If you're wrong, there's "hell to pay".



Paschal
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 29, 2008, 03:58:54 pm
danickstr wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 11:33

According to science, there is not a heaven.  Science cannot find it.  There is no god.  Science cannot find him. This is one form of scholarship.

imagine there's no heaven...


I am amazed of what PP told us in the other thread.  His colleagues at Oxford - top scientists in their field - all believers.

Physical science(s) does not yet know how to measure spiritual things.  I doubt it ever will.  But who knows.  The fact that it has not discovered how to measure spiritual things yet does not mean they do not exist.  Science did not know about a lot of things that we now know exist.  And even things that we thought were scientifically certain, we've learned that they are actually different than first thought.  

While I love science, have briefly studied it, and look to it for various answers, it does not give us the complete picture.  It's is incapable of doing so.  I can't rely on it as the only authority for things which it cannot yet explain.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 29, 2008, 04:00:26 pm
tom eaton wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 11:44

PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 12:14

 If someone said that a major chord was built on a root - minor 3 - perfect 5, would you not dispute that because your study and experience as a musician has knows otherwise?  


Of course a major triad DOES have a minor third interval in it.  And a major third.  And a fifth. Oh well.  Might as well discuss religion.


Of course my point with the rough analogy was the interval distance between the root and the 3rd, which in a major chord is a major 3rd, not a minor 3rd.  

Even though there's a choose to nit pick at small ridiculous points of misunderstood detail, I'd rather discuss the analogy itself and the main issue.

tom eaton wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 13:05

But it is possible to make decisions based on the merits of the situation and your own morality without religion or consequence coming into it.  Values are not a wholly owned subsidiary of organized religion.


It is completely possible.  It's even completely possible that one might make a similar choice that Jesus would have advised (though I'd argue the underlying reason would be different).

Whether or not a life full of those self-wisdom decisions are actually truly wise and have good long term healthy outcomes are another matter.

There are several key differences between a life lived 'in Christ' and one lived 'in the flesh.'  One of those key differences is the type of love which we will operate.  To borrow from Dietrich Bonhoeffer, carnal / human love examined at it's core is desire and is ultimately selfish.  Spiritual love is love that serves, sacrifices and lays down it's life for the other.

You may not agree or care, but as long as we're discussing, that's the way I see it.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on March 29, 2008, 04:34:23 pm
And yet religious people of all types don't lay down their guns for the sake of others.  I would surely sacrifice myself for my son, and for you to dismiss the love I have for him (or any living thing)  as un-valid in any way based on my religious beliefs is truly offensive, don't you think?

And "self-wisdom" is equally demeaning.  One cannot see beyond one's self without holy intervention?

Truly a welcoming and embracing belief.  I am touched by the joy you share.

tom
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 29, 2008, 05:37:21 pm
Tom,

As long as people are involved you'll always be able to find fault because people aren't perfect.  And it is exactly for the fault you find that +*everyone+* needs a savior as no one is without fault.

You would lay down your life for your son: EXACTLY! God so loved the world that he sacrificed his only Son to save the world from its sins.  Since you would lay down your life for your son, imagine how hard it was for Christ to willingly obey The Father and to lay down his life for all of us.  Imagine sending your son somewhere to help others knowing he would be killed.  That's at least the pain God felt.

Let me tell you, if you can do that for others you must think those people worthwhile.  And I call that all embracing.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 29, 2008, 07:15:55 pm
" His colleagues at Oxford - top scientists in their field - all believers."

until the enlightenment, all european universities were religious institutions and theology was a compulsory subject

thankfully, for the last 300 years, secular humanism has taken back the reins of education

MOST scientists around the globe are atheists...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 29, 2008, 07:33:38 pm
I would argue that betting on god and having him not be there does result in a loss.  That loss is the focused and unified human spirit as it tries to find another way to save itself.

Without a "heaven" to go to, we would be more focused on making inroads genetically and figuring out how to put people that can live indefinitely in new locations, maybe underwater, or out in space on colonies.

But since there is unlimited room for the good folks up in heaven, why bother?

As for the other people, they will be tortured for eternity.  That is so harsh.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 29, 2008, 07:40:33 pm
tom eaton wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 14:34

And "self-wisdom" is equally demeaning.  One cannot see beyond one's self without holy intervention?


It's not demeaning.  It's a reference to the fact that yes, if humanity is not looking to 'God' for wisdom, then humanity looks to itself.  And in what is identified as our western culture of individualism, despite the various sources of ideas that may be drawn from, the center of wisdom is self and what self desires to identify with as wisdom.

tom eaton wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 14:34

I would surely sacrifice myself for my son, and for you to dismiss the love I have for him (or any living thing)  as un-valid in any way based on my religious beliefs is truly offensive, don't you think?


I never said that 'unreligious' love was un-valid.  That is your interpretation, those are your words.  

I am merely making a brief statement that there are general differences in carnal human love and spiritual love.  Quite hard to accurately summarize Bonhoeffer's classic book in two sentences and retain all the nuances of all the exceptions, exclusions, etc.  I thought brevity would have been appreciated.

I don't deny that you love your son any less than I love mine.  I also don't deny that you wouldn't lay down your life for him on a moments notice if need be.  And that would indeed be one expression of that spiritual 'Agape' love.

But what I am saying is that even with a deep passionate love like parent-child, there is a fundamental difference when the center of a relationship becomes Jesus rather than each other.  There is a difference in the dynamic and the ultimate conclusions.  

While there may be areas where 'agape' love is freely expressed, there are many areas where it is not.  And this is the process that Christ takes us through, refining all of our love and all of our motives so that our relationships can be pure, free of carnal ties, selfishness, manipulation.  It's the great exchange - he takes our brokenness and gives us his wholeness as we live his life through us.  Our relationships become a place of freedom, truly and deeply life giving and full of Joy.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 29, 2008, 08:10:15 pm
maxim wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 17:15

" His colleagues at Oxford - top scientists in their field - all believers."

until the enlightenment, all european universities were religious institutions and theology was a compulsory subject

thankfully, for the last 300 years, secular humanism has taken back the reins of education

MOST scientists around the globe are atheists...


I don't doubt you.  But there are many excellent scientists who are believers.  Science and spirituality are not antithetical.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 29, 2008, 08:36:55 pm
danickstr wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 18:33



Without a "heaven" to go to, we would be more focused on making inroads genetically and figuring out how to put people that can live indefinitely in new locations, maybe underwater, or out in space on colonies.



Sounds like a great conversation to have over a bowl, but who exactly is going to prove that there is no God so we can get on to plan B?


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 29, 2008, 09:16:42 pm
"Science and spirituality are not antithetical"

indeed

very few things are

neither are atheism and spirituality, for that matter...


Title: divine wrath
Post by: studiojimi on March 29, 2008, 10:10:36 pm
index.php/fa/8339/0/
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 30, 2008, 01:44:35 am
J-Texas wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 20:36


Sounds like a great conversation to have over a bowl,


LOL  Laughing

I guess until it is more of a reality, (and corporations are moving us towards this with 10's of billions of research a year) there is a much happier reality believing in heaven.  

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: cerberus on March 30, 2008, 08:49:58 am
PP wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 06:17

?the bible would appear to contradict itself in many places.?

I would agree with Jeff here.

The Bible does ?appear? to contradict itself in many places.

These ?apparent? contradictions however, easily resolve themselves quite completely, as you read further, more completely and come to understand The Holy Bible in a fuller, more rounded way.
 

my copy is titled "the new english bible - with the apocrypha, oxford study edition"
are you using a capitalized adjective here to emphasize your belief that the
text is sacred?  how would that change the absolute meaning?  we  may
revere a text, or not. imo, that shouldn't change our
interpretations if we mean to learn truths.

what i find is that even the writing style is inconsistent.

as a script, there are continuity problems. about
thirty years are missing from the story of jesus.
a very good man. when did he marry?

in the class i attended, the catholics present assured us that m.m.
was a whore; and that god forgave her with his grace. this is
not just a mis-stated fact. there was a biblical parable
to go with it. and now there isn't?

J-Texas wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 15:40

I would like to remind everyone of the story of Job.
J-Texas wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 20:36

Sounds like a great conversation to have over a bowl,

perhaps you'd better if you are going to inhale. god is a gamer?  he's making bets
with  satan?  giddy in his human-ness, he's acting like sybil?

even if one did believe. this story pushes the limits of credibility beyond belief.

satan is not in the creation story afaik. but how lucifer came to be
so powerful and evil is explained very neatly of course, later on.

but that would also require "cherry picking"... choosing to look at one
part that was written after another to explain the first. a.k.a.
revisionism. so how could the bible be the words of a deity?

to argue that one must read the whole because it is not built with strong
tetrahedrons, but rather flimsy parallelograms. and therefore
needs it's gussets and bolsters to stand up...does not
sound like the engineering work of a deity to me.

what makes a collection of parables "holy"? it is a belief.
i will respect that. i don't wish to change that belief.
i hope all would respect that some regard
the bible as: "a collection of stories
from before the enlightenment".

jeff dinces
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 30, 2008, 10:32:05 am
willing and open are the latches that unlock the mystery into revelation.....

the true seekers will find....



Friday, March 30, 2008

ARE YOU WILLING?

Are you willing
to allow your individuality
to increase,
while letting personality decrease?  
John the Baptist
said He (the Christ) must increase,
but I must decrease."  
According to Charles Fillmore,
the individuality is
"the true self;
that which is undivided from God."
It is our spiritual identity
now and throughout eternity.

Are you willing
to set aside time
to be consciously present
with your indwelling Christ Self?  
The answer to questions,
and
the solution to problems,
and
the healing of every condition
is found in our awareness
of the Christ within.

Are you willing
to claim your true identity?  
Then claim God
as your Father
in all situations and conditions.  
Begin to think, feel,
speak and act
as the spiritual being
you are.
Like Jesus,
willingly express your individuality,
and
stand on your faith in God,
regardless of appearances.

Be willing
to ask in prayer.
Be willing
to seek in meditation.
Be willing
to listen and understand
in the Silence.

" . . . Who then is willing
to consecrate himself this day
to the LORD?"
I Chronicles 29:5
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PP on March 30, 2008, 02:09:31 pm
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 30, 2008, 04:05:01 pm
P,

A very fine posting.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: cerberus on March 30, 2008, 04:46:03 pm
pp; thank you again for your kind words and support. and to jessica again, and to
nathan, and to the many who care to listen to others' points of view as
deeply as they speak about their own knowledge and beliefs.

i once told a doctor of psychaitry that i often "had music running in my head".
the response was the predictable: "do you hear voices?"  and
i thought it best to clarify that i hear only "instruments"!

your post on karen carpenter suggests to me, an option you did not offer in your
question to me; to choose  to accept and confirm christ's godliness, or to
reject any notion that he could have been as i stated:
"a very good man". but not proved a deity.

you have suggested, i think: what the carpenters wrought was, and
remains,  "perfect". not merely "very good".

perhaps it is possible that jesus suffered from a mental illness;
(perhaps a similar illness afflicts reverend moon?)

we may speculate that mental illness does not preclude the creation of
"perfection" nor certainly imperfection. you have cited
evidence leading to this point yourself.

i think that is very generous of you. i do appreciate this immensely.
otherwise i did not have such an obvious answer at hand.

i will be pondering the diamond light source as i head for dinner.
from the aerial photos of the cyclotron, it does seem
like a very spiritual place.

jeff dinces
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 30, 2008, 07:44:35 pm
Jesus "was"

but more importantly

Jesus "is"


as God is

I AM
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 30, 2008, 08:31:41 pm
"Either Jesus was a Liar.

Deceiving, all who heard Him speak, a complete ‘Nutcase’ if you like.

Or he really was, as his entire Life and Ministry demonstrated.

“The Christ, The Messiah, The Son of The Living God!”"


OR

what he was trying to say was:


we are ALL children of god...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 30, 2008, 08:56:21 pm
i'll agree on B and C

but people think i'm a nutcase for reminding us of who and who's we are

just like they did of J.C.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 30, 2008, 09:21:32 pm
cerberus wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 06:49

J-Texas wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 15:40

I would like to remind everyone of the story of Job.
J-Texas wrote on Sat, 29 March 2008 20:36

Sounds like a great conversation to have over a bowl,

perhaps you'd better if you are going to inhale. god is a gamer?  he's making bets
with  satan?  giddy in his human-ness, he's acting like sybil?

even if one did believe. this story pushes the limits of credibility beyond belief.

satan is not in the creation story afaik. but how lucifer came to be
so powerful and evil is explained very neatly of course, later on.

but that would also require "cherry picking"... choosing to look at one
part that was written after another to explain the first. a.k.a.
revisionism. so how could the bible be the words of a deity?

to argue that one must read the whole because it is not built with strong
tetrahedrons, but rather flimsy parallelograms. and therefore
needs it's gussets and bolsters to stand up...does not
sound like the engineering work of a deity to me.


If one is to understand the message of the Bible or even small selected portions of text the whole text must be read.  One cannot understand the book of Hebrews without reading the Torah.  One cannot fully understand the Gospels, without reading the OT.  That would be like handing a 16th century person a paper on digital audio without explaining to them the existence of electricity and the basics of circuits.  Surrounding knowledge (context) is needed to really understand the message.  That's a concept that I'd postulate is necessary for any good communication of any message or concept.  The meta-narrative of the entire Bible is something that reads like a long overall story.  Remove one part, and you're missing a piece of the story.

Satan is in the creation story as the deceiver, however in the form of the serpent.  There are other passages in the scripture about him and his fall in an appropriate context.  The Genesis narrative has a specific focus and message, so going into a detailed description of Satan in the creation narrative would have been grossly out of place with respect to the message.

You seem to question the actions of God in the book of Job.  I'd like to offer a particular perspective that (whatever you choose to think about it) will at the very least give a little more perspective of what's going on, so that you can have more information to form your thoughts on the matter.

Many people often look at the beginning of Job and see the interaction between God and the devil and view God as some sort of sadistic sicko for allowing the devil to harm Job.

One of the points of this book, however, are much like the points of many other Biblical writings from different periods of time and culture.

God is only interested in finding one thing.  The one thing that God is looking for is Faith.

For lack of a better analogy, faith is the currency of the spirit.  Faith is the real 'gold' of heaven.  We're told in the scriptures that it is impossible to please God without Faith.  Good works won't do it.  Good moral living also won't do it.  He's only interested in faith.  (It just so happens that good works, good living, etc, can be a byproduct of a living faith.)

And just like when gold ore is found, it is put in the fire for it to be refined and purified.  The dross is removed and discarded and the pure gold stands and is treasured for the valuable prize that it is.

And so Job becomes a picture of a man of faith in God despite gross adversity.  Very relevant message for anyone.  It's easy to praise God when things are seemingly going well, but when adversity comes, how will we react?  Will there still be faith?

It reminds me of the old saying - "What do you get when you squeeze a lemon?  Lemon juice?  That's just a theory.  You get whatever is inside."

Jesus in asks one key question upon his return - 'will he find faith on the earth?'

When things get rough and the squeeze is on, what will be found inside?  Lemon juice?  Something more sour and bitter?  Or faith?

And so the story of Job illustrates that point quite clearly - particularly the interplay between Job and his friends in the narrative.

While some may not like the fact that God allows testing and adversity, it is to our advantage.  It gives us the opportunity to become refined by the fire, pure gold, full of faith - something of true value.  So valuable in fact, it pleases God.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 30, 2008, 09:29:51 pm
maxim wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 18:31

OR

what he was trying to say was:

we are ALL children of god...


Not quite.  John 8:31-47    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:31%20-% 2047;&version=31;

But we all can be children of God.  He says that the children of God are born by faith.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 30, 2008, 09:40:46 pm
Children of science are born by experience and facts.  You know, those gnatty things that tend to influence skeptics.

Extra-dimensional hideouts and invisible super-people aren't supported by facts, other than through a book that is thousands of years old, and which I have no trouble not trusting.  I wasn't there when it was written, and I wasn't there when it was modified. Over and over again.

And it's a bunch of stories that require suspension of belief of the laws of physics.

Would I LIKE it to be true? Absolutely!   Great stuff.  Warmed my heart to see Jesus put the smackdown on the vendors at the temple.

I would also like to have God and Jesus over for snacks and a board game.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 30, 2008, 10:23:23 pm
danickstr wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 20:40

 
I would also like to have God and Jesus over for snacks and a board game.





Spectacular!

Everyone to my place for Trivial Pursuit.  Science and Theology edition!

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 30, 2008, 10:56:44 pm
PP,

That was as soothing and peaceful, not to mention insightful and thought provoking, as Jessica's posts.

Thanks for that. It shows me how I should aspire to make my points instead of head-on.

Romans 7 & 8:

11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
     So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,[a] 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

9You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 30, 2008, 10:59:28 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 18:29

maxim wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 18:31

OR

what he was trying to say was:

we are ALL children of god...


Not quite.  John 8:31-47       http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:31%20-% 2047;&version=31;

But we all can be children of God.  He says that the children of God are born by faith.



not quite for you

there it is folks

exclusivity (demon-strated)

not God's plan.

He also says

we ALL have faith ....and if we just use it...mountains move.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 30, 2008, 11:08:31 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 20:21



God is only interested in finding one thing. The one thing that God is looking for is Faith.

And so Job becomes a picture of a man of faith in God despite gross adversity.  Very relevant message for anyone.  It's easy to praise God when things are seemingly going well, but when adversity comes, how will we react?  Will there still be faith?



BINGO

(It just so happens that good works, good living, etc, can be a byproduct of a living faith.)

And although you cannot get to Heaven on good works, they are most certainly encouraged and display outwardly the true meaning of living as a follower of Christ.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 30, 2008, 11:23:50 pm
studiojimi wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 20:59

not quite for you

there is is folks

exclusivity

not God's plan.

He also says

we ALL have faith ....and if we just use it...mountains move.


It's not clear to me what exactly you're trying to communicate.  Care to elaborate?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 30, 2008, 11:32:00 pm
J-Texas wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 21:08


BINGO

(It just so happens that good works, good living, etc, can be a byproduct of a living faith.)

And although you cannot get to Heaven on good works, they are most certainly encouraged and display outwardly the true meaning of living as a follower of Christ.


I'd take it a step further and refer to the book of James.  Faith leaves evidence (the book of Hebrews says that as well).  If your faith is alive it will produce good works.  If there are no good works, your faith is dead.  It's not faith.  It's not doing you any good.  (James 2)  This is why James says not to be hearers only, but doers as well so not as to deceive yourselves (James 1).

To use an old analogy - you may believe that if you sit in a chair that it will hold you up.  It's not faith until you actually sit in the chair.

To take that even a step further.  A lot of folks say that they believe "X,Y, & Z".  However, the acid test of ones faith is to examine ones actions.  Your actions are a display of your faith, because all action proceeds from faith.   Sometimes when we examine our actions, we realize that we don't really have faith in all the things that we say we do.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 30, 2008, 11:46:51 pm
[quote title=danickstr wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 19:40]Children of science are born by experience and facts.  You know, those gnatty things that tend to influence skeptics.

Extra-dimensional hideouts and invisible super-people aren't supported by facts, other than through a book that is thousands of years old, and which I have no trouble not trusting./quote]

There is evidence, experience and fact.  Many chose to fully believe the testimony of scientists they have never met and the hearing of research they have neither seen nor verified.  Yet why is it that testimony of experiences, evidence and facts about super-natural encounters are ignored?

danickstr wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 19:40

I wasn't there when it was modified. Over and over again.


I hear that quoted on the internet often, yet I never see any credible evidence to back that up.  The authorship and transmission of the Bible has been extensively studied by countless people over centuries and centuries - by both believers and non.  Few things if any on this earth have been studied more than the Bible.  The accusations of massive modifications have been repeatedly disproved.

You may not have been there when the Bible was written.  But neither were you there when Newton articulated many principles of physics nor were you there when Einstein articulated quantum physics yet you seem to be fully willing to devote your being with full faith and worship even though you may possibly not even be intimately familiar with all the work of either Newton or Einstein.

danickstr wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 19:40

I would also like to have God and Jesus over for snacks and a board game.


It is my sincere hope that one day you actually do...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 30, 2008, 11:50:01 pm
Quote:

Sometimes when we examine our actions, we realize that we don't really have faith in all the things that we say we do.


It's funny you say that. I had to search myself very deeply, very recently. While sharing her heart with me, my wife confessed her distrust in God. What? What do you mean you don't trust God? She was saying that she didn't trust Him to not take our son early. I was taken aback by this and didn't know how to respond. A few days later I found myself in the same situation and realized that I had issues with my trust in God. I worried about the same thing. God's a big boy. He can take it. You can express you distrust. You can be angry with Him. Rather than tease myself, I decided to take it to Him.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 30, 2008, 11:55:42 pm
J-Texas wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 21:50

Quote:

Sometimes when we examine our actions, we realize that we don't really have faith in all the things that we say we do.


It's funny you say that. I had to search myself very deeply, very recently. While sharing her heart with me, my wife confessed her distrust in God. What? What do you mean you don't trust God? She was saying that she didn't trust Him to not take our son early. I was taken aback by this and didn't know how to respond. A few days later I found myself in the same situation and realized that I had issues with my trust in God. I worried about the same thing. God's a big boy. He can take it. You can express you distrust. You can be angry with Him. Rather than tease myself, I decided to take it to Him.


There are a lot of powerful laments in the scriptures (particularly in the Psalms) that will help you express such things with clarity.  I pray the Psalms in times when I'm dealing with difficult times.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 30, 2008, 11:59:27 pm
it would be sad to have so much fixation on old testiment and new testiment to not know with conviction that there is always room for new testimony.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 31, 2008, 12:01:22 am
"I would also like to have God and Jesus over for snacks and a board game."

You do realize you wouldn't win, right?

And as far as snacks, how do you feel about loaves and fishes...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 31, 2008, 12:02:55 am
anyone for monopoly?...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 31, 2008, 12:18:11 am
lol   good stuff, losing to the holy family for obvious reasons...

Nathan

I agree that I was not there at Newton's epiphanies, but they are recreatable (apparently not a real word).
If only we could recreate some of the fabled miracles of yore, we, the living today, would not feel "left out" of the bible flow.

But of course we skeptics contend that we are left out because that is all we could ever be.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 31, 2008, 12:18:46 am
maxim wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 22:02

anyone for monopoly?...


LOL
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 31, 2008, 12:30:14 am
danickstr wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 22:18

Nathan

I agree that I was not there at Newton's epiphanies, but they are recreatable (apparently not a real word).
If only we could recreate some of the fabled miracles of yore, we, the living today, would not feel "left out" of the bible flow.

But of course we skeptics contend that we are left out because that is all we could ever be.


When you say "we", do you mean that you've repeated all of Newton and Einstein's work and observed it for yourself?  Or do you again rely on the testimony of others whom you've most likely never met?

Whether or not you believe it, the things that happened in the Bible still happen today.  I've witnessed a few things with my own eyes that are not currently explainable by any science we have - all of which have happened during the course of prayer to God.  

In my own church there was a young lady who had gone in to full arrest.  After working on her for over a half hour, the medical staff gave up and declared her dead, went out and told the family.  The family - devoted Jesus believers - prayed fervently for mercy and resurrection.  Guess what --> The dead young lady had her heart re-start all on it's own.  It was enough to make the non-believing medical staff declare a miracle.  Now maybe there is some incredibly unlikely natural explanation for this, but even the un-believers were willing to give some credit to prayers and the mercy of God.

Being connected to many believers all around the world, I hear many stories of amazing things that have happened to those who believed.  Jimi is not too far off - sometimes mountains can be moved.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 31, 2008, 12:31:16 am
studiojimi wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 21:59

it would be sad to have so much fixation on old testiment and new testiment to not know with conviction that there is always room for new testimony.


It's not clear to me exactly what you mean by that.  What exactly are you advocating?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 31, 2008, 12:34:12 am
Barry Hufker wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 23:01

"I would also like to have God and Jesus over for snacks and a board game."

You do realize you wouldn't win, right?

And as far as snacks, how do you feel about loaves and fishes...


We'd never run out! Make it a party. Vino anyone?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 31, 2008, 12:45:39 am
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 31, 2008, 01:16:47 am
I have not recreated any of the experiments of Einstein or Newton, but I believe that they are accurate because they do not contradict my reality, as I have experienced it.

Hidden deities and spiritual locales DO contradict my reality, because they are contrary to the laws that govern my existence.

Regarding miracles, I could not be happier for the family that had the woman's heart start, and I hope you believe me.

It's too bad that miracles, such as levitating mountains, never seem to end up on recorded media.

That would be a neat trick.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 31, 2008, 01:37:11 am
maxim wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 22:45

 http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html


http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/06/1 7/prayer-part-one.aspx

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/06/3 0/prayer-part-two.aspx

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/0 2/prayer-may-speed-heart-patients-recovery.aspx

http://www.mercola.com/article/prayer/dossey.htm

And within these articles there's several studies that say something different.

Regardless of what the statistics and studies may or may not accurate bear out, I know what I have seen with my own eyes and I know the testimony of others that I have heard.  God is still active today as he has been through the ages.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 31, 2008, 01:43:37 am
danickstr wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 23:16

I have not recreated any of the experiments of Einstein or Newton, but I believe that they are accurate because they do not contradict my reality, as I have experienced it.

Hidden deities and spiritual locales DO contradict my reality, because they are contrary to the laws that govern my existence.


And those are statements of faith of what you have chosen to believe.  Both sides have testimony and evidence.  One just happens to be much more offensive to the mind than the other.  I would imagine to the people of the day that the suggestion that the world was round was quite offensive as well.

danickstr wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 23:16

It's too bad that miracles, such as levitating mountains, never seem to end up on recorded media.


I've never seen a levitating mountain.  That would indeed be neat.  But I have seen video footage of a resurrection of a man who was dead for 4 days and embalmed.  The fellow who embalmed him was later interviewed.  He was still scared to see the man whom he had embalmed walking around, alive.  Frankly, I'd be a little freaked too!
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 31, 2008, 02:21:06 am
PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 01:43

 I would imagine to the people of the day that the suggestion that the world was round was quite offensive as well.


Yes science has advanced, whereas religion is still the same.


PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 01:43


I have seen video footage of a resurrection of a man who was dead for 4 days and embalmed.  The fellow who embalmed him was later interviewed.  He was still scared to see the man whom he had embalmed walking around, alive.  Frankly, I'd be a little freaked too!


Is the camera on the guy for 4 days? or is there a break in the footage?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: cerberus on March 31, 2008, 04:30:13 am
PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 21:21

God is only interested in finding one thing. The one thing that God is looking for is Faith.

For lack of a better analogy, faith is the currency of the spirit. Faith is the real 'gold' of heaven. We're told in the scriptures that it is impossible to please God without Faith. Good works won't do it. Good moral living also won't do it. He's only interested in faith. (It just so happens that good works, good living, etc, can be a byproduct of a living faith.)
nathan, i don't agree with those assertions.

i believe that if there is a god, that he would be most
interested in good works and good living.

after all, the name of god in english derives from "good".

PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 01:37

   http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/01/0 2/prayer-may-speed-heart-patients-recovery.aspx

experiments seem to prove that prayer can be therapeutic
for the living; but that is -not- an idea which is
associated with the story  of job.

PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 01:43

I have seen video footage of a resurrection


there are many known cases where a person was declared dead in error.
by your description, this case would seem to fit into that category.

jeff dinces
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on March 31, 2008, 06:09:17 am
"And within these articles there's several studies that say something different."

i'd love to see what dr mercola has to say, but he seems to want my email address to find out

can you quote an excerpt?

the study i hyperlinked involved 1600 people or so

that's good numbers...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 31, 2008, 09:46:41 am
danickstr wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 00:16


That would be a neat trick.


That's why it doesn't happen bro'. God's work is not a "dog and pony" show.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 31, 2008, 09:50:35 am
cerberus wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 03:30

PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 21:21

God is only interested in finding one thing. The one thing that God is looking for is Faith.

For lack of a better analogy, faith is the currency of the spirit. Faith is the real 'gold' of heaven. We're told in the scriptures that it is impossible to please God without Faith. Good works won't do it. Good moral living also won't do it. He's only interested in faith. (It just so happens that good works, good living, etc, can be a byproduct of a living faith.)
nathan, i don't agree with those assertions.

i believe that if there is a god, that he would be most
interested in good works and good living.

after all, the name of god in english derives from "good".


I read this a little bit differently. I think what Nathan was saying is that God is not interested in good works without Faith. Good works naturally come to those with faith.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 31, 2008, 10:43:49 am
PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 20:23

studiojimi wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 20:59

not quite for you

there is is folks

exclusivity

not God's plan.

He also says

we ALL have faith ....and if we just use it...mountains move.


It's not clear to me what exactly you're trying to communicate.  Care to elaborate?



forgive me

i spent the entire weekdend producing a santana style band

with iron workers welding on the outside of my pool and i could not be at my best but was hoping to  check in

screen blind ....many typos...kill me.


what i meant to say was

Quote:

not quite for you

there it is folks

exclusivity (demon-strated)

not God's plan.

He also says

we ALL have faith .... and potential to use what we already have

FAITH: it is a spiritual gift indwelling by all souls

and if we would just use it...mountains (the seeming unmovable challenges in this life) MOOOOOOOOOOOVE.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 31, 2008, 10:46:33 am
studiojimi wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 09:43


i spend the entire weekding producing a santana style band


I'm glad you weren't working with a satana style band.  Surprised

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 31, 2008, 10:50:39 am
PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 21:31

studiojimi wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 21:59

it would be sad to have so much fixation on old testiment and new testiment to not know with conviction that there is always room for new testimony.


It's not clear to me exactly what you mean by that.  What exactly are you advocating?


brevity.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 31, 2008, 10:51:43 am
J-Texas wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 07:46

studiojimi wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 09:43


i spend the entire weekding producing a santana style band


I'm glad you weren't working with a satana style band.  Surprised




dude the writer's strike is over

shell out a few $$$ and get some good material.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 31, 2008, 10:58:01 am
studiojimi wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 09:51

J-Texas wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 07:46

studiojimi wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 09:43


i spend the entire weekding producing a santana style band


I'm glad you weren't working with a satana style band.  Surprised




dude the writer's strike is over

shell out a few $$$ and get some good material.


Laughing  Where's the middle finger emoticon?

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on March 31, 2008, 10:58:45 am
studiojimi wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 07:51

J-Texas wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 07:46

studiojimi wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 09:43


i spend the entire weekding producing a santana style band


I'm glad you weren't working with a satana style band.  Surprised




dude the writer's strike is over

shell out a few $$$ and get some good material.

index.php/fa/8356/0/

watch me now

i'll show you how to turn this into a truck load!

Quote:


Laughing  Where's the middle finger emoticon?


look in the mirror obviously where the sun don't shine

(i kid i kid) LORD forgive me
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 31, 2008, 11:45:16 am
cerberus wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 02:30

PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 30 March 2008 21:21

God is only interested in finding one thing. The one thing that God is looking for is Faith.

For lack of a better analogy, faith is the currency of the spirit. Faith is the real 'gold' of heaven. We're told in the scriptures that it is impossible to please God without Faith. Good works won't do it. Good moral living also won't do it. He's only interested in faith. (It just so happens that good works, good living, etc, can be a byproduct of a living faith.)

nathan, i don't agree with those assertions.

i believe that if there is a god, that he would be most
interested in good works and good living.

after all, the name of god in english derives from "good".


I'm not sure what name of God you are referring to.  Yahweh means "I AM."  Jesus - or 'Yeshua' means "God saves."

Jeff, that's fine if you don't agree.  Every other religion on the planet does not agree either.  They're all centered on performing for God's love and acceptance.  However, I'm not looking for agreement in this discussion.  I'm just happy to have a friendly discussion.  But I am presenting what the Bible says about faith and faith vs. works.

Question:  If God were interested primarily in good works and good living, would / could any one be saved?

Jesus does say that a man is judged by his deeds.  But God is looking for faith (it so happens that good deeds proceed from faith).  Faith is the stuff that God cares about.  When one has faith, one hears the voice of God, believes and obeys.  Faith is the stuff that causes one to be born into the family of God.  In the book of Romans, we learn that anything that does not proceed from faith is considered sin.

All Christian protestant / reformational (and even some catholic) scholars agree - justification by faith is a center piece of Christian theology and it is one thing that sets Christians apart from every other belief system.

Don't have to agree with it, but that's where the Bible stands on the issue.

cerberus wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 02:30


PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 01:43

I have seen video footage of a resurrection


there are many known cases where a person was declared dead in error.
by your description, this case would seem to fit into that category.



I agree with you.  That's how the tradition of the "wake" came about - to see if the dead people would 'wake' up.  In fact, I've heard from archeologists / historians that it's not uncommon to see scratch marks on the inside of caskets after they are exhumed.  Pretty creepy, eh?

However, this one fellow was dead for 4 days and embalmed.  I'm thinking if a fellow is embalmed, he's for sure dead.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 31, 2008, 11:50:22 am
J-Texas wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 07:50

I read this a little bit differently. I think what Nathan was saying is that God is not interested in good works without Faith. Good works naturally come to those with faith.


Yes God is looking for fruitfulness from our faith - a faith that is alive and produces something.  Hebrews 11, James 2 are excellent places to see this.  The Gospel of John is centered around the theme of faith and Jesus calling people to faith.  I'd even say that there's a direct connection between faith and obedience.  If one hears the voice of God, if they have faith, they will follow and obey.

But faith is the primary thing that God is looking for.  The scripture both OT and NT is explicit.  One cannot please God without faith.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 31, 2008, 11:54:18 am
PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 10:50

 I'd even say that there's a direct connection between faith and obedience.  If one hears the voice of God, if they have faith, they will follow and obey.


Or at least know better when we slip (because we all slip).

Some call it a conscious... I call it the Spirit.



PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 10:50

 One cannot please God without faith.


That's the bottom line isn't it? We are free to choose.
Title: Re: faith defined
Post by: studiojimi on March 31, 2008, 01:02:39 pm
Hebrews 11
By Faith
1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. 2This is what the ancients were commended for.

read on if so inclined.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on March 31, 2008, 02:40:37 pm
danickstr wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 01:21

PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 01:43

 I would imagine to the people of the day that the suggestion that the world was round was quite offensive as well.


Yes science has advanced, whereas religion is still the same.





I would contend that "religion" is still the same much in the same way that "the scientific method" is still the same.  

This is a loose analogy at best! but what I mean is, "religion" is just a framework, a set of guidelines and rules based on whatever geographic/socio-economic/ethnic/so-forth background you hail from.  

You use scientific experimentation to learn about your surroundings, the nature and relationships things and people have with one another.  Religion is similar.  You can use it, learn about it, exist within it's bounds.  But unless you review the data gathered with it, and allow it the opportunity to change your preconceptions about Your Surroundings, The Nature and Relationships Things and People Have With One Another, it's really just a tool.  And tools can be misused, broken, modified, thrown away, etc.

I learned a lot about God in science class.  I loves me some good science.

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: cerberus on March 31, 2008, 03:11:47 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 11:45

Question:  If God were interested primarily in good works and good living, would / could any one be saved?

Jesus does say that a man is judged by his deeds.  But God is looking for faith (it so happens that good deeds proceed from faith).  Faith is the stuff that God cares about.  When one has faith, one hears the voice of God, believes and obeys.  Faith is the stuff that causes one to be born into the family of God.  In the book of Romans, we learn that anything that does not proceed from faith is considered sin.


i think the first priority of all life is survival.  but humans have a flaw
and we see unfortunate suicide. the instinct can be subverted.

i am not sure if we are in the process committing suicide as a species.
if we are, you are making it clear why evidence that the earth is
acting like a diseased organism, and we are it's parasite
does not daunt  the faithful.

jeff dinces
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: ScotcH on March 31, 2008, 03:26:04 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 01:43

But I have seen video footage of a resurrection of a man who was dead for 4 days and embalmed.  The fellow who embalmed him was later interviewed.  He was still scared to see the man whom he had embalmed walking around, alive.  Frankly, I'd be a little freaked too!



Do you have any more info on this?  Links?  I'm curious to read about this incident, and ahow it is explained.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 31, 2008, 04:00:24 pm
ScotcH wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 14:26

PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 01:43

But I have seen video footage of a resurrection of a man who was dead for 4 days and embalmed.  The fellow who embalmed him was later interviewed.  He was still scared to see the man whom he had embalmed walking around, alive.  Frankly, I'd be a little freaked too!



Do you have any more info on this?  Links?  I'm curious to read about this incident, and ahow it is explained.


Me too. Being embalmed, I'm sure they pulled his brains out of his nose with a coat hanger.

EDIT: I MEANT MUMMIFIED!!! IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY!!  Laughing  Embarassed  Laughing
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: J-Texas on March 31, 2008, 04:01:41 pm
edit: wrong thread!  Embarassed
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 31, 2008, 05:40:48 pm
ScotcH wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 13:26

Do you have any more info on this?  Links?  I'm curious to read about this incident, and ahow it is explained.


Unfortunately, all I have is an old VHS copy of that particular incident.  If it were on DVD I'd use handbrake and send you an e-copy.

IIRC, the story basically is the dead guy was traveling in poor conditions and got in a fatal auto accident.  He's pronounced dead on the scene.  Over the 4 days, the doctors do their inspections, he's sent for burial preparations and is embalmed.  The wife believes fervently that her husband is not to die like this.  Out of faith, she gets his body and brings it to the basement of a large facility where a big Christian conference is going on with thousands of people.  She believed that if she brought the body there and had people pray that he would be raised.  A smaller number of the believers there praying for him.  He starts breathing.  Later his heart starts.  The fatal wounds that cause his death appear to be healing as they pray.  Quite a bit later he begins to moan a bit.  After a few hours of prayer he actually gets up, but he's completely out of it and is unable to communicate.  It takes several hours until he can actually walk and communicate a bit more.  He appears to be quite thirsty.  

Fast forward a few days, and they take him to the doctor who examined him and wrote his death certificate and the person who embalmed him.  They are both shocked and frightened.  In fact the fellow who did the embalming has a hard time seeing the man alive - freaks him out.

The wife of the man reports that he was afraid to come out of the house for 2 weeks because he was so afraid that he might sin.  The man himself reports some of the things that he experienced while he was dead, basically his encounter with Jesus.

The video quality of the actual resurrection event is quite poor and there's not a whole lot of footage.  The folks in the room were a little too freaked out by the events to do think about doing a good job of capturing it.  However, even though the video of the actual event is poor, the event itself was verified.  Police at the scene of the accident, doctors, embalmer, family were all interviewed.

I'll have to dig up that old tape and watch it again.  Maybe if I can get enough information like names, etc, I might be able to do a better search and see if it's on youtube by now.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 31, 2008, 06:00:09 pm
cerberus wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 13:11

i think the first priority of all life is survival.  but humans have a flaw
and we see unfortunate suicide. the instinct can be subverted.

i am not sure if we are in the process committing suicide as a species.
if we are, you are making it clear why evidence that the earth is
acting like a diseased organism, and we are it's parasite
does not daunt  the faithful.


Actually it may surprise you to learn that many groups of believers recognize our responsibility to take care of the earth.  Theologically, the scripture tells us that it is our job to take care of the earth and be good stewards.

It is unfortunate that a small but vocal minority of believers believe differently.  They're so focused on 'hey Jesus is coming back, so why bother' that they miss some key elements of the message.

Environmentalism is nothing new to various groups of believers.  In fact, it was popular among believers long before it was popular in mainstream culture.  My wife's background is Mennonite.  Her relatives relate stories of how they used to conserve and recycle for generations before anyone else even questioned the finite nature of earth's resources.  My wife's great uncle was actually the key leading force in setting up the recycling facility here in Edmonton - a facility that is constantly studied by many different nations from around the world.  And all that facility and it's technology started because a man and his friends believed the Word that God wanted them to take care of the earth and be good stewards.

Even though the selfish sin of man kind had destroyed the earth, part of the good news is that Jesus will not just renew people, but renew the earth as well.  Romans 8:18-21 tells us how all of creation groans and waits for that last day where people will be freed from sin and revealed in glory because at that time creation itself will no longer be subject to the bondage of decay be experience the same glorious freedom as those who chose to believe.

Even though we wait for that day, we continue to do our duty in the mean time to steward what has been given to us.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on March 31, 2008, 07:29:07 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 17:40

ScotcH wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 13:26

Do you have any more info on this?  Links?  I'm curious to read about this incident, and ahow it is explained.


Unfortunately, all I have is an old VHS copy of that particular incident.  If it were on DVD I'd use handbrake and send you an e-copy.



There's stuff on Youtube pertaining to a resurrection of an embalmed man at a prayer meeting Nigeria.  Now, I'm not saying that just because this originated in Nigeria, the fraud capital of the universe, that the video is not a real resurrection.  There are many excellent reasons to doubt this.  The Nigeria thing is just an added bonus.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 31, 2008, 08:19:50 pm
This one was also in Africa, but I'm not sure that it was Nigeria.  

Most of the resurrections that we hear about are in Africa, often among the more poor Christian communities.

Although I do recall hearing that there was one in Florida about a month or two ago...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 31, 2008, 08:31:46 pm
It looks like the Florida one is on Youtube - reported by Fox News:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MmZJIwNheek
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on March 31, 2008, 08:44:50 pm
Anyone dead four days would have severe tissue damage.  And the embalming fluid I guess turns back into blood?

This is the type of supernatural phenomenon that Christianity could use on a piece of recordable media.

Til that day, I will chalk it up to hype.

Just get it on tape or recreate it.  Otherwise it gets filed with alien abductions in my books.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on March 31, 2008, 09:31:21 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 20:31

It looks like the Florida one is on Youtube - reported by Fox News:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MmZJIwNheek



With all respect intended, isn't this kind of a pointless report?  One person says "check it out, I raised someone from the dead" and another guy says "yep, I was dead."

There were other people present, the self-proclaimed miracle worker says.  Where is the footage of their interviews?  Why don't we get to hear confirmation from someone other than the God-guy?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on March 31, 2008, 09:32:15 pm
Nick,

I feel the same.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: E Merrill on March 31, 2008, 10:34:13 pm
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 14:40


This is a loose analogy at best! but what I mean is, "religion" is just a framework, a set of guidelines and rules based on whatever geographic/socio-economic/ethnic/so-forth background you hail from.  

You use scientific experimentation to learn about your surroundings, the nature and relationships things and people have with one another.  Religion is similar.  You can use it, learn about it, exist within it's bounds.  But unless you review the data gathered with it, and allow it the opportunity to change your preconceptions about Your Surroundings, The Nature and Relationships Things and People Have With One Another, it's really just a tool.  And tools can be misused, broken, modified, thrown away, etc.



The distinction you draw between religion as a concept and the beliefs and practices of particular faiths and denominations is a good one but I think your analogy to science is too tenuous, Jessica.

"Science" is nothing but knowledge gained through the application of the scientific method. It is very specific and does not include work that disallows "the opportunity to change your preconceptions about Your Surroundings, The Nature and Relationships Things and People Have With One Another..." Science involves the deliberate attempt to DISPROVE what one has hypothesized.

Religion is not systematic in its approach to anything. The word refers only vaguely to a group of beliefs and traditions that may or may not include one or more deities. At it's core it denies verification. As God, speaking through Douglas Adams, said, "I refuse to prove that I exist because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." While I applaud the critical thinking implied in your description of religion, I don't think there's enough "there" there to say, "religion is still the same."

None of this is to say that religion and science cannot coexist and complement each other (nor is it my intention to say that they CAN. That question is beyond the scope of this post). I read your statement as an attempt to justify religion by equating it with science. If your religion is meaningful than it needs no such justification.

Having said all this, Jessica, I understand that your point was not to equate the two exactly but I think that even the little that you did could weaken both. I'd recommend looking into some of Jefferson's writings on critical thought in religion. I wish I had a more direct source to give but the best I have is Dershowitz's new book on Jefferson.

Thank you for this topic, Jessica.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 31, 2008, 11:31:21 pm
JS wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 19:31

PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 20:31

It looks like the Florida one is on Youtube - reported by Fox News:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MmZJIwNheek



With all respect intended, isn't this kind of a pointless report?  One person says "check it out, I raised someone from the dead" and another guy says "yep, I was dead."

There were other people present, the self-proclaimed miracle worker says.  Where is the footage of their interviews?  Why don't we get to hear confirmation from someone other than the God-guy?


Agreed, the Florida event was nothing super spectacular.  The report was a typical news report, very shy on details.  But the event remains - one hour dead, a simple prayer, and the lights come back on.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on March 31, 2008, 11:40:27 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 23:31

JS wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 19:31

PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 20:31

It looks like the Florida one is on Youtube - reported by Fox News:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=MmZJIwNheek



With all respect intended, isn't this kind of a pointless report?  One person says "check it out, I raised someone from the dead" and another guy says "yep, I was dead."

There were other people present, the self-proclaimed miracle worker says.  Where is the footage of their interviews?  Why don't we get to hear confirmation from someone other than the God-guy?


Agreed, the Florida event was nothing super spectacular.  The report was a typical news report, very shy on details.  But the event remains - one hour dead, a simple prayer, and the lights come back on.


With respect, you are mistaken.  The "event" does not "remain."  An account of an event is put forward.  It is unsupported by any evidence other than a single account by the alleged miracle worker. I draw an adverse inference from the fact that a number of other medical professionals were there, but we don't get to hear their stories.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 31, 2008, 11:48:09 pm
danickstr wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 18:44

Anyone dead four days would have severe tissue damage.  And the embalming fluid I guess turns back into blood?

This is the type of supernatural phenomenon that Christianity could use on a piece of recordable media.

Til that day, I will chalk it up to hype.

Just get it on tape or recreate it.  Otherwise it gets filed with alien abductions in my books.


I guess with four days dead and tissue damage, it would have to be an actual act of God.  Jesus, Lazarus, others through the ages, same type of event.

So is the spiritual world confined to the governance of the physical world, or is the physical world governed by the spiritual?  The answer to that question varies greatly depending upon where you live.

An acquaintance of mine is a missionary in Malaysia.  He told me that conservative North American missionaries have a near impossible time over there because they come with no experience in doing deeds of power like Jesus did.  The leaders from the other religions are performing all sorts of miracles all the time.  He witnessed one eastern monk multiply food just like Jesus did in the Bible.  Really messed him up as his paradigm only allowed for Jesus to have the spiritual power to do such things.  Yet here are people from other religions tapping into the spiritual and doing deeds of power.

The whole point of this part of the discussion was to bring forth the idea that supernatural things still do happen today.  Frustrated Western Christians often ask the Eastern and African church leaders why they see a lot more of these things than we do.  Their answer is basically that we have a major faith problem.  Our culture is one of close minded skepticism with a faith system that says it's impossible unless someone can prove it to me, and even then I still believe it's impossible.  As Jesus said, 'as is your faith, so shall it be unto you.'
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on March 31, 2008, 11:56:33 pm
JS wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 21:40

With respect, you are mistaken.  The "event" does not "remain."  An account of an event is put forward.  It is unsupported by any evidence other than a single account by the alleged miracle worker. I draw an adverse inference from the fact that a number of other medical professionals were there, but we don't get to hear their stories.


With all due kindness and respect as well - it does indeed remain.  

The event was very publicly reported.  If there were any of the medical staff who were there were to stand up and refute any of the facts, do you think that they would not jump on that to call it 'another bogus Christian claim?'  That would be an even bigger, juicier story.

The fact that the report was quick, not in-depth, and did not answer all of your questions, does not mean that the event did not happen.  It just means that you are not satisfied with the reporting.  Do you think that a national news service is trying to pull a fast one?  Since they reported that one, do you think that they wouldn't have checked out a few facts and done some interviews to verify the story even if they weren't on camera?

It's not sensational and in-depth.  But something did happen.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on April 01, 2008, 12:07:53 am
PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 23:56

JS wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 21:40

With respect, you are mistaken.  The "event" does not "remain."  An account of an event is put forward.  It is unsupported by any evidence other than a single account by the alleged miracle worker. I draw an adverse inference from the fact that a number of other medical professionals were there, but we don't get to hear their stories.


With all due kindness and respect as well - it does indeed remain.  

The event was very publicly reported.  If there were any of the medical staff who were there were to stand up and refute any of the facts, do you think that they would not jump on that to call it 'another bogus Christian claim?'  That would be an even bigger, juicier story.

The fact that the report was quick, not in-depth, and did not answer all of your questions, does not mean that the event did not happen.  It just means that you are not satisfied with the reporting.  Do you think that a national news service is trying to pull a fast one?  Since they reported that one, do you think that they wouldn't have checked out a few facts and done some interviews to verify the story even if they weren't on camera?

It's not sensational and in-depth.  But something did happen.



Then we agree to disagree.  

It seems to me that an extraordinary claim that defies physics and biology and that, if true, would prove the existence of a higher power, must be subject to extraordinary review.  All you posted was a story that was comprised of an interview with a self-proclaimed miracle worker.  

I have no idea what really happened.  I have no idea what motivates the reporters, and have no idea what research they did or did not do.  That's the entire point and the entire problem.

If you are going to make a bold assertion that someone was raised from the dead, you have to expect that skeptics are going to want substantial verification.  Instead, you say that one interview is enough, and then you pile on a stack of assumptions and presumptions.  That's not really enough.  You can't base a fantastic claim with extraordinary ramifications on assumptions.  
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 01, 2008, 12:36:26 am
Fair enough.  Thinking about it, if I were in your position, I would want more evidence and meat to the stories as well.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: cerberus on April 01, 2008, 01:10:47 am
PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 11:45

obeys

i think there is important information for people of faith in this book:
 http://www.amazon.com/Obedience-Authority-Stanley-Milgram/dp /006131983X
a short abstract:
http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html

jeff dinces
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on April 01, 2008, 04:19:42 am
do miracles stop working when a video camera has tape and a full battery and is in the vicinity?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PP on April 01, 2008, 04:39:35 am
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 01, 2008, 10:11:15 am
AMEN!


.....and i agree.

except possibly for
Quote:


A ‘gift’ is not a gift if we ‘labour’ for it.

It must be free.

To be a gift!


for me:
the labour is in this use and application of the gift.



God is a healer and restorer in my life.

God says he'll do it.  I believe it.  That settles it.

i behold the indwelling Christ light within each and everyone among us and encourage us to continue to raise our consciousness to that which is available to do and achieve all things in the realm of possibilities.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 01, 2008, 11:01:02 am
Eric Merrill wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 21:34

Jessica A. Engle wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 14:40


This is a loose analogy at best! but what I mean is, "religion" is just a framework, a set of guidelines and rules based on whatever geographic/socio-economic/ethnic/so-forth background you hail from.  

You use scientific experimentation to learn about your surroundings, the nature and relationships things and people have with one another.  Religion is similar.  You can use it, learn about it, exist within it's bounds.  But unless you review the data gathered with it, and allow it the opportunity to change your preconceptions about Your Surroundings, The Nature and Relationships Things and People Have With One Another, it's really just a tool.  And tools can be misused, broken, modified, thrown away, etc.



The distinction you draw between religion as a concept and the beliefs and practices of particular faiths and denominations is a good one but I think your analogy to science is too tenuous, Jessica.

"Science" is nothing but knowledge gained through the application of the scientific method. It is very specific and does not include work that disallows "the opportunity to change your preconceptions about Your Surroundings, The Nature and Relationships Things and People Have With One Another..." Science involves the deliberate attempt to DISPROVE what one has hypothesized.

Religion is not systematic in its approach to anything. The word refers only vaguely to a group of beliefs and traditions that may or may not include one or more deities. At it's core it denies verification. As God, speaking through Douglas Adams, said, "I refuse to prove that I exist because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing." While I applaud the critical thinking implied in your description of religion, I don't think there's enough "there" there to say, "religion is still the same."

None of this is to say that religion and science cannot coexist and complement each other (nor is it my intention to say that they CAN. That question is beyond the scope of this post). I read your statement as an attempt to justify religion by equating it with science. If your religion is meaningful than it needs no such justification.

Having said all this, Jessica, I understand that your point was not to equate the two exactly but I think that even the little that you did could weaken both. I'd recommend looking into some of Jefferson's writings on critical thought in religion. I wish I had a more direct source to give but the best I have is Dershowitz's new book on Jefferson.

Thank you for this topic, Jessica.



Thanks for your reply Eric!  

What I think I was getting at (and failed to do so!) was that Nick was saying "science has advanced where religion has stayed the same".

But this misses the point, in my opinion.

You said:  "Science" is nothing but knowledge gained through the application of the scientific method.

And I contend that "Faith" is knowledge gained throught the application (the prayerful and concientious application) of religion.  

Religion without faith is about as useless as Science without the scientific method.

You are correct to say Science and Religion are not comparable.  I completely agree.  But in my head I can draw some similarities between the two, as far as how people use either one to gain an understanding of their existence.  I like both, but in my case each one supports the other.  It makes me sad that some people cannot reconcile the two, but I do not contest it.

Jessica

PS I love Douglas Adams' work, if for nothing else but to understand how an atheist sees "religion".  It is very telling.  
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 01, 2008, 12:01:34 pm
danickstr wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 02:19

do miracles stop working when a video camera has tape and a full battery and is in the vicinity?


While I have witnessed many things that I would consider miraculous --> some minor yet hard to verify physical healings, reconciled relationships that were far beyond hope, forgiveness extended to abusers and tormenters, people experiencing freedom from the grip of every kind of addiction, and countless other examples of people being empowered to rise up over circumstances there were otherwise powerless to overcome - I have personally witnessed at least one, possibly two dramatic physical healings.

The 'possibly second' was nothing immediately physically noticeable - but medically verified.  A lady who used to go to our church had received AIDS tainted blood from a transfusion during surgery.  (Big public story with the tainted blood scandal in Canada.)  Anyhow, she had full blown AIDS and was under constant medical care.  She had received prayer for her condition many, many times.  One day at a conference, she believe that God told her to go get prayer for healing yet one more time.  She did.  She reports feeling something change in her body at that moment.  The following days, she went into the doctor for her regular appointment.  They ran the full battery of tests.  The doctor calls her in the next day.  The believe that they made a mistake with the tests, they needed to do them again.  So they did them again.  She got another call to do the tests again.  All the test results were all showing normal blood counts.  The doctors had no explanation.  She told her doctors what had happened and how she received prayer and felt something in her body change.  The doctors ridiculed her and continued to test her again and again believing that it was just some sort of anomaly.  Blood work was continuing to come out normal.

The one that I saw with my eyes that was immediately noticeable had to do with a young child just under 2 years old.  This child had one leg several inches shorter than the other.  I was on the stage playing music at the time.  The young child was being prayed for off to the side at the front.  As they were praying the mother began to scream and freak out - she held up the child as right in front of our eyes the child's leg grew to the same size as the other.  The obvious physical deformity changed in front of our eyes.

One similar that I did not witness, but a good friend of mine here in the city participated in - while feeding the needy in their community (as they often do), they encountered an aboriginal man.  They befriended this fellow, feed him dinner.  They noticed that he was cold and didn't have a jacket.  One of my friends gave him his expensive leather jacket.  They notice this man had a crippled, kind of curled up arm.  They asked if they could pray for his arm.  He said yes.  They prayed and the mans arm released and began to function again.  Freaked them all out.  The man later explained to them that his arm became crippled after an 'incident' in which he received two gunshot wounds to the arm.  He had not been able to use his arm for a decade previously.

At none of these events was a video camera present.  As neat as it would have been to capture these events, I can say two things for certain.  While you are witnessing such events, pulling out a video camera is the last thing on your mind.  Even though you pray with some level of faith expecting God to do something, it completely violates your mind when you do see it and takes a while to absorb the events as your mind still does not believe what your eyes see.  The other point is that I don't know anyone who caries a video camera with them every time they pray.  IMHO, that would actually be quite violating of ones privacy.  People pray for others because they're interested in showing love to those whom they are praying for, not because they might record some event to make them famous.  So, unfortunately, for most events, eye witness testimony is the most you will ever have.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: i dig music on April 01, 2008, 12:02:20 pm
religion and science go hand and hand together.

in both, we seek to find a reality, conclusion or theory to hold on to.

neither precludes the other.

they both offer the opportunity to think, learn and translate.....

to believe in something which is true to life.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 01, 2008, 12:28:12 pm
i dig music wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 09:02


they both offer the opportunity to think, learn and translate.....





and most importantly....to CREATE

because God is....I AM.

because God does.... I CAN.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 01, 2008, 12:39:04 pm
cerberus wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 23:10

PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 31 March 2008 11:45

obeys

i think there is important information for people of faith in this book:
  http://www.amazon.com/Obedience-Authority-Stanley-Milgram/dp /006131983X
a short abstract:
http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html



An interesting set of experiments.  The scope of the work goes beyond faith.  But there are some valid points in the research.

I have a few thoughts on this.  If we don't have obedience, what's the alternative?  Anarchy or in the best case scenario people doing what is best in their own eyes.  Both of those are not positive alternatives in my mind.

There obvious benefits to obedience.  Let's take our laws for example.  The Criminal Code and the obedience to it provides order and protection to all members of society.  

Some of the purposes of authority are order and protection.  Unfortunately many humans abuse that authority and quite grossly at times - doing the exact opposite of what they are supposed to do.  That's why we have system upon system of checks and balances.

The problem has to do with the broken condition of human hearts and the lack of trustworthiness.  Jesus trusted himself to no one because he saw what was in people's hearts.   (John 2:23-25)  But he did trust himself to the Heavenly Father - with everything that he had.  While it had a cost, it did produce salvation for the world.

So the real question when it comes to obedience is:  Who.

To whom is the faith and obedience given?  Is it someone worthy?  

I'd have to take the same stance as Jesus.  I've seen a little bit of what's in people's hearts (as expressed by their actions) and most times, it has not been inspiring of high levels of trust.  I'd only trust someone in so far as I can see the character of Jesus shine through them.

Jesus is someone who is worthy of that trust because he has proven himself trust worthy.  Obedience need not be blind.  In fact I'd say that's unwise.  Obedience with sight placed on one who is worthy is not blind, but based on the worth of that person, who for many happens to be Jesus.

That's the way I see it.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 01, 2008, 01:10:52 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 09:39

  Jesus trusted himself to no one because he saw what was in people's hearts.   (John 2:23-25)  But he did trust himself to the Heavenly Father - with everything that he had.  While it had a cost, it did produce salvation for the world.




and even HE ask the Father why had the Father forsaken Him.

this one has often made me think and ponder

perhaps questioning and perhaps evidence of doubt is part of the perfection experience.



and to PP

i tried to send you a PM but it was not allowed so here are my words to you i inteded to send in private but have no fear displaying them here:

PP thanks for the lengthy but most beautiful and poignant post

is that was the PP stands for?  ha ha


i enjoyed every bit of it

and what a great loving way to bring the Christ on a platter to all  who would sponge your words.

i am a big time carpenters fan as well and use harmony vocal technique i've picked up along my journey that truly salute richard and karen as well as beatles, beach boys and many of my homeboy motown brothers!



continued blessings!

jimmy
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 01, 2008, 05:12:54 pm
studiojimi wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 11:10

and even HE ask the Father why had the Father forsaken Him.

this one has often made me think and ponder

perhaps questioning and perhaps evidence of doubt is part of the perfection experience.


Actually, it's a quote of Psalm 22:1.  Read the rest of the Psalm and the Jesus' quote makes more sense.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 01, 2008, 07:38:54 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 14:12

studiojimi wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 11:10

and even HE ask the Father why had the Father forsaken Him.

this one has often made me think and ponder

perhaps questioning and perhaps evidence of doubt is part of the perfection experience.


Actually, it's a quote of Psalm 22:1.  Read the rest of the Psalm and the Jesus' quote makes more sense.



no.

matthew 27:46

"About three o'clock, Jesus shouted, "Eli, Eli, Iama sabachthani?" which means, :My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

and keep reading by the time verse 51 and 52 are through
many people had risen from the dead.

i don't think we need to get into a bible muscle flexing contest here.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on April 01, 2008, 10:22:12 pm
Nathan

thanks for sharing the first-hand accountings of what you have witnessed.

When I was working for a lawyer years ago, one of the things he pointed out to me is the fallibility of eye-witness accounts.

While no one ever intends to misrepresent facts (typically), there are often two contradictory recountings of the same moment in time.

This is due to a number of reasons, but the main one is the fallibility of human perception.

The same man will be described in so many different ways by different witnesses, that it sounds like 5 different men.  None of them are lying, just did not see or remember "alike".

If there was to be a "healing concert" and a few of the people with physical deformities that planned to attend could document their malady and then if they were "chosen" by the holy soirit, they could show the world how in fact during the space of a few seconds, that their arm regrew in its socket, or what have you.

Just an idea.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 01, 2008, 10:25:48 pm
Personally I am a HUGE skeptic of faith healings (you'll find them every night on TV, same time, same channel) and supposed resurrections.  I don't believe in speaking in tongues.  When I've heard it, it has not been done Biblically (one speaking at a time while a second translates), it is always so much drivel.

Fortunately, they are not main tenets of the church and as such have nothing to do with salvation.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on April 02, 2008, 12:08:55 am
thanks for that Barry, I think the topic is separate from the other as well.

Jessica, I would never want people to lose faith.  Without faith, we all would have nothing to hope for.  

I have put my faith in people, and while many (me too) have been disappointed by people, I can't help giving them the benefit of the doubt.  No matter how many times they let me down, I attribute it to something other than them.

we are all damaged goods, in our own way. These damages are what make us less than what we want to be.

But inside is the real beauty, trying to fight through the damaged parts, and blossom for our fellow man.

Sorry if that is sappy and trite.

But it is how I have come to feel, and I was moved to write it and share it.

So I do have a sort of faith, in case anyone pitied me for lacking such Smile  Smile

No need.  My faith is in you.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 02, 2008, 12:17:54 am
studiojimi wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 17:38

PookyNMR wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 14:12

studiojimi wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 11:10

and even HE ask the Father why had the Father forsaken Him.

this one has often made me think and ponder

perhaps questioning and perhaps evidence of doubt is part of the perfection experience.


Actually, it's a quote of Psalm 22:1.  Read the rest of the Psalm and the Jesus' quote makes more sense.



no.

matthew 27:46

"About three o'clock, Jesus shouted, "Eli, Eli, Iama sabachthani?" which means, :My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

and keep reading by the time verse 51 and 52 are through
many people had risen from the dead.

i don't think we need to get into a bible muscle flexing contest here.




No, no, no.

In Matthew 27, Jesus is quoting Psalm 22, a messianic Psalm....  That is what I mean.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 02, 2008, 12:43:24 am
that is not and exclusive interpetation
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 02, 2008, 01:08:21 am
pp wrote:

"When there is no evidence to support it, a case is dismissed"

quoted for emphasis
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 02, 2008, 01:14:59 am
Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 20:25

Personally I am a HUGE skeptic of faith healings (you'll find them every night on TV, same time, same channel) and supposed resurrections.  I don't believe in speaking in tongues.  When I've heard it, it has not been done Biblically (one speaking at a time while a second translates), it is always so much drivel.

Fortunately, they are not main tenets of the church and as such have nothing to do with salvation.


Actually, biblically, healing is a form of salvation.

Salvation is not just a one time event - not just something for the afterlife only.  

If you look in the NT and study the word salvation, you'll find it in all 4 tenses.  Have been saved.  Are saved.  Are being saved.  Will be saved.  It's a very dynamic concept not limited to one single event.

Biblically, salvation is for whatever ails you.  If you're sick, healing is part of your salvation.  If you're in bondage, release is part of your salvation.  If you're dead, resurrection is your salvation.  If you're blind (physically / spiritually), sight is part of your salvation.  If you're separated from God by sin, forgiveness and reconciliation is part of your salvation.

The central message that Jesus preached was the advent of the Kingdom of God.  The Kingdom of God is the event where the will and rule of God reign in a situation.  The will of God is not brokenness and sickness.  It is wholeness and health.  

Healing and restoration is a major part of the advent of the Kingdom of God.  If you look in Isaiah or Revelation for the picture of the fullness of the Kingdom to come, right on the list you see healing of sickness / disease.  That healing is part of the salvation package.  There are no blind or leapers in the Kingdom.

The Kingdom of darkness is sin, sickness, disease, brokenness, etc.  When the Kingdom of God comes to displace the Kingdom of darkness, all the works of darkness are reversed - God heals and restores.  

The Kingdom message is not just for the ultimate restoration of the earth, but also for our restoration now as part of the proclamation of the final restoration to come.  If the Kingdom of God is to breakthrough at all in our time, it will manifest itself in various types of healing as healing is part of the very nature of the Kingdom.  Jesus says experiencing some form of healing is one way of knowing that the Kingdom has come upon you (Matt 12:28).

It is part of a dynamic theological tension between the Kingdom that was inaugurated by Jesus, the Kingdom that breaks through as a demonstration of the proclamation he charged us to give, and the Kingdom that will be consummated in it's fullness when Christ returns again.

Notice the pattern of Jesus as well in the Gospels.  He would proclaim the Kingdom, then he would demonstrate it.  (Matt 9:35)  Kind of like show and tell only backwards - tell and show.  

And this is what Jesus taught us to do as well in the 2 commissions that he gave.  Read Matthew 10, and pay special attention to verses 1 and 5 through 8.  Jesus instructs the same pattern that he had done - proclaim, then demonstrate the coming Kingdom.  Fast forward to Matthew 28:18ff.  Jesus issues the same commission to his followers again.  Take special notice of the phrases 'make disciples' and 'teaching them to do everything I commanded you.'  

I understand that you've probably seen all sorts of strange forms by various groups trying to do stuff like this.  It's unfortunate that some folks get a little sidetracked with the way they choose to do healing.  But it is indeed a part of the message.  To borrow a phrase - "the medium is the message."  Jesus healed to demonstrate his proclamation of the ultimate healing to come.

Kingdom theology is as old as the scripture itself because it is the central message of Jesus.  Unfortunately in response to perceived needs, the church pushed very hard on the theologies of atonement and personal salvation - which are both great things - but they did not give enough focus to the message that Jesus preached about the Kingdom.  It's like riding a bicycle, you push on the pedal that you need to in order to keep the bike going.  In the last 30 years, you can see the church across all sorts of denominational lines returning to preach the Kingdom message more and more.  
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 02, 2008, 01:23:00 am
studiojimi wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 22:43

that is not and exclusive interpetation


Verifying, I have 2 different commentaries (from different camps) which make special note of Jesus indeed quoting Ps22:1 and referring to this Psalm which is a Davidic prophesy (in part and among other things) of his passion.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 02, 2008, 01:34:55 am
danickstr wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 20:22

Nathan

thanks for sharing the first-hand accountings of what you have witnessed.

When I was working for a lawyer years ago, one of the things he pointed out to me is the fallibility of eye-witness accounts.

While no one ever intends to misrepresent facts (typically), there are often two contradictory recountings of the same moment in time.

This is due to a number of reasons, but the main one is the fallibility of human perception.

The same man will be described in so many different ways by different witnesses, that it sounds like 5 different men.  None of them are lying, just did not see or remember "alike".


I hear what you are saying.

But it's very hard to mistake when some has medically verified AIDs for many years, then suddenly after continuous rigorous scientific medical testing does not.

It's very hard to mistake when an obviously deformed child leaves the place in normal shape.  Look once, look twice, look one hundred times.  The leg is not the same as it was when they arrived.

It's not hard for the guy with the arm who was crippled up for a decade from gunshot wounds to notice that suddenly his arm unfolds and works again in ways it has not for a decade.  I'm thinking this guy might know what he's taking about since it was his arm.  Wink

And as I mentioned earlier in the thread with that young girl who goes to my church, she was declared dead by the medical staff.  They stopped working on her and told her family that she was dead.  I just saw her at a party on Saturday.  She's very much alive.  Either that or she's the best talking corpse I've ever seen.  Wink

There are somethings that go beyond casual perception.  It's hard to deny a very obvious change - particularly to the AIDS victim, deformed child, crippled guy, and formerly dead girl who are all certain of the change that we all witnessed.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 02, 2008, 01:36:32 am
maxim wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 23:08

pp wrote:

"When there is no evidence to support it, a case is dismissed"

quoted for emphasis


Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Quoted for fun.

Wink
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 02, 2008, 02:04:36 am
PookyNMR wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 22:36

maxim wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 23:08

pp wrote:

"When there is no evidence to support it, a case is dismissed"

quoted for emphasis


Where there's smoke, there's fire.

Quoted for fun.

Wink


here's a couple

did you break a sweat yet?

http://www.allabouttruth.org/psalm-22-is-not-a-prophecy-faq. htm

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on April 02, 2008, 08:02:52 am
So if faith healing, as you believe, is the reason for fixing these issues with these lucky chosen people, what do you tell the millions of others who have prayed even harder than they ever have, for years at a time, only to find that their daughter still has cancer, or their boy is still crippled.

You are a failure at prayer? Or you faith is weak?


I would contend that until documented evidence is available, there is a strong possibility that there is no actual faith healing other than the power of a mind on both sides of the event.  Those that want to believe can make things happen, or they think perceive they and god did.

We may have to agree to disagree here, since your proof is  non-reproducable under scientific observation.  

Title: Re: I BLESS YOU.
Post by: studiojimi on April 02, 2008, 10:20:01 am
I BLESS YOU!

Today, I bless you!
I bless the dreams
that God has placed
in your heart
and
your ability to bring them
into your reality.  
With God as your partner,
all things are possible for you
right now.

I bless you.

I bless the divine timing
of your life.
Everything is unfolding for you
in an orderly way.
First, you see.  
Second, you believe.  
Third, you work
and Fourth,
you accomplish.
Following this sequence,
your life is navigate
toward unlimited success.  
I bless you!

I bless
the courage you exhibit
every time you "push" past
feelings of fear, discouragement,
resentment,
pain and suffering.  
You have been faithful
to what you know
to be true.  
You have trusted
in God's goodness
despite various challenges.

You are more
than a conqueror.  
You are the light
and
all appearances of darkness
are dispelled
in this very moment.
Poof!  
They are no more.
Go forth knowing that
I bless you!

"All these blessings shall come upon you and over take you,
if you obey the Lord your God."
Deuteronomy 28:2
Title: Re: I BLESS YOU.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 02, 2008, 11:12:59 am
I believe in "daily bread" - what comes in life comes, whether you are "good" or "bad".  In other words, God doesn't give you wealth because you obeyed him today nor does he send you sickness because you didn't.  That would indeed imply I am causing my own happiness and God is just a "one-arm bandit (slot machine)" dishing out whatever.

It's true of course that practically each Psalm (of David's)is a cycle of death and resurrection, which is the cycle Christians experience daily - confession of our sin and forgiveness.

It is not that physical healing and resurrection can't occur even today.  It is that these are rare.  TMM (to my mind) these gifts were signs at the time that Christ had the power of God, that the Apostles were given some of that power (shown by doing some of the same things) and thus demonstrating their authority in the church and their legitimacy.  These gifts are largely not needed today so their occurrence is rare.  Some parts of the church, Charismatic for instance, put too much emphasis on these gifts.  Because of that, I think a lot of people are led astray, believers and non-believers.  People are caught up in the drama of these "healings".  It's all "bright lights and loud noises" - the "excitement of a miracle" rather than anything building faith.

There are many charlatans in the church, just as there have always been.  You see them every day on tv.  Gifts of healing are now a circus side-show.  Prosperity gospel is everywhere.


Thank you but I'll continue to keep my distance.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 02, 2008, 11:13:10 am
studiojimi wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 00:04


here's a couple

did you break a sweat yet?

 http://www.allabouttruth.org/psalm-22-is-not-a-prophecy-faq. htm

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html


Interesting websites promoting a particular slant on things.  And no offense, but the reasoning is very weak focusing so much on certain aspect of minute that there's a failure to refer to larger contexts, which is a big exegetical no-no.

However, I further check again against several more commentary sources from various different camps to see if differing scholars agree.  6 different resources that I have at my immediate disposal state the Ps22:1 theory.

So maybe your two websites are correct.  But that would mean that several groups of respected researchers and publishers are wrong.  Give the choice, I'll take the published evidence rather than websites.

One piece of internal evidence that points to this being a direct reference is how Matthew specifically uses the old Hebrew form "Eli" instead of "Eloi" (like you find in Mark), which would make it a much more obvious inference as a reference.  So whether you believe is it a reference or not, Matthew when writing his gospel appears to believe it is.  And as you know Matthew is very concerned about finding references that the Jews would be familiar with as he shows the Jews that this Jesus is the one that they've been waiting for.

Website #2, upon brief examination, focuses on verse 16.  But what about verse 7?  Was Jesus mocked?  Verse 15?  "I thirst."  Or more striking verse 18?  Did they cast lots for Jesus clothing?  Then verses 22 - 31 turn to the victory and outcome.

Do other Davidic Psalms speak of Jesus?  What about Psalm 2?

Or what about Isaiah 53?  One of your websites mentions that Ps22 doesn't mention crucifixion, so it's less likely to be about Jesus.  Well, neither does Isaiah 53.  Does that mean that Isaiah 53 is not about Jesus?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: i dig music on April 02, 2008, 11:17:05 am
within all speculation of belief or disbelief on religion or science, one thing is true, in the mystery of death we have no clue to where it all leads or what it all means.

what we do know is that death usually brings the living survivors, some who believe and some who disbelieve together, back to a place of religion because of respect to our upbringing and our specific cultural and historical family experiences passed on to us.


in death, science ends, there is nothing to pass on and nothing left to prove. your just dead and gone.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 02, 2008, 11:22:42 am


But you just said death is a "mystery...we have no clue to where it all leads or what it all means."

So how can you say "your just dead and gone."

Funerals remind us of our mortality.  They are one more reminder to think about what's ahead and not what's behind.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 02, 2008, 11:34:32 am
danickstr wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 07:02

So if faith healing, as you believe, is the reason for fixing these issues with these lucky chosen people, what do you tell the millions of others who have prayed even harder than they ever have, for years at a time, only to find that their daughter still has cancer, or their boy is still crippled.

You are a failure at prayer? Or you faith is weak?


I would contend that until documented evidence is available, there is a strong possibility that there is no actual faith healing other than the power of a mind on both sides of the event.  Those that want to believe can make things happen, or they think perceive they and god did.

We may have to agree to disagree here, since your proof is  non-reproducable under scientific observation.  




In John 9, somebody asked Jesus why a certain man was born blind, whether it was the man's sin or whether it was his own sin.  

The answer is, of course, neither.  JC says the man was born blind so that the work of God could be seen in his life.

Then, he was healed.

However amazing that must have been, that's not always how God shows himself in people who are sick or hurting.  I know this probably doesn't win the Lord many popularity contests, but God does what glorifies himself.  In one case it was healing a man's sight with some mud.  In another case, it might be allowing a crippled son or a daughter with cancer.  It is hard to understand sometimes, but God's glory does shine through disasters like this.  

What glorifies God usually benefits us, too.  Because God is good.  Sometimes, what God sees as good looks terrible to us.  But certain "miracles" come out of sickness and pain that don't involve physical healing.  

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: i dig music on April 02, 2008, 11:57:54 am
Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 10:22



But you just said death is a "mystery...we have no clue to where it all leads or what it all means."

So how can you say "your just dead and gone."

Funerals remind us of our mortality.  They are one more reminder to think about what's ahead and not what's behind.


barry, i should have said,

"after death, its a mystery...we have no clue to where it all leads or what it all means."

science stops with death. it exists only with the living. it can only explore what is alive and what was left behind by the deceased. it can only theorize on what happens after death, and the same goes for religion, so it kinda evens out in the end.....know one knows for sure.

i hope that makes some sense.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 02, 2008, 12:46:08 pm
Although I don't agree, I believe you have made perfect sense.
Title: Re: I BLESS YOU.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 02, 2008, 01:03:14 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 09:12

It is not that physical healing and resurrection can't occur even today.  It is that these are rare.  TMM (to my mind) these gifts were signs at the time that Christ had the power of God, that the Apostles were given some of that power (shown by doing some of the same things) and thus demonstrating their authority in the church and their legitimacy.  These gifts are largely not needed today so their occurrence is rare.


I'd challenge that last statement in two ways.  

Their occurrence is not nearly rare as you might believe.  There are a wide number of churches from a wide number of denominations (conservative through charismatic) that do practice this stuff and report results.

I'd also argue that practicing the demonstration of the Kingdom is also necessary.  Firstly, it's what Jesus taught and told us to do.  He hasn't changed his tune.  Proclaim --> demonstrate.  Next, what is the point of proclaiming the Kingdom if it 'was available, but sorry, it's not longer available.  But will be available later.'  Is that a credible message?  If we're to preach that the Kingdom is near at hand, we'll need to demonstrate it, or the message has no credibility.

1 Cor 2:1-5 "My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with demonstrations of the Spirit's power, so that your faith may not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power."  (v. 4&5 quoted)

1 Cor 4:14-21 "But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how arrogantly these people are talking, but what power they have.  For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of talk, but of power." (v.19-20 quoted)

Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 09:12

Some parts of the church, Charismatic for instance, put too much emphasis on these gifts.  Because of that, I think a lot of people are led astray, believers and non-believers.  People are caught up in the drama of these "healings".  It's all "bright lights and loud noises" - the "excitement of a miracle" rather than anything building faith.

There are many charlatans in the church, just as there have always been.  You see them every day on tv.  Gifts of healing are now a circus side-show.  Prosperity gospel is everywhere.

Thank you but I'll continue to keep my distance.


I agree.  There are some folks who disingenuous.  There are some who distort the message either out of ignorance, bitterness or even for their own gain.  And it's a shame that they wreck stuff for the rest of us.  And I agree, instead of legitimate demonstrations of healing being linked to Jesus' message, in a number of places, they have become a tasteless circus side show.

I agree that there's also those who over emphasize a manifestation and focus on the miraculous event rather than focus on the message and person of Christ.

But just because a few act in poor taste, does that mean that we should throw it all away?  Some act in poor taste in every other area, should we throw all that away too?  It's the 'baby and the bath water' again.

God's power is great and his gifts are many.  If they're available I'd rather not refuse them.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 02, 2008, 05:00:45 pm
Pooky

you are liable to send this thread to the ground if you keep this up

the Kingdom is within.

period...end of story

no debate.

signed sealed and delivered

the gift has been given.

Bliss is available and ownable and realizable.

Heaven is now.

not some beulahland
rose of sharon
oh please....

own it?
you already have it

own it.

take it or leave it.

you are not gonna get a bible verse trophy from the saloon

you only get those in bible retreats and sunday school

you are not gonna get a best in show for interpretive skills for your personal interpretations...even when you have a bible beater posse.

this B. I. B. L. E.

basic instruction bringing life eternal

is your cook book for you to live move and have your being now.

in abundance and prosperity and away for disease, lack, limitation, dysfunction and we can kick in the 7 headless horsemen if you wish

it's time to cook man

this stuff is not something to argue over or be "right" about

it is a very personal spiritual ergonomic glove that fits just right for each individual to interpret it and savor it and get inspired by it

not something to sport or haggle over or even be right over.

if you have it you are happy...you are singing praises....you are joyous....you are loving....you have found bliss in the wonderful
eternal everlasting arms of the NOW.

all you will ever have.

enjoy it.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 02, 2008, 05:47:23 pm
studiojimi wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 15:00


the Kingdom is within.

period...end of story

no debate.


Actually, some translators put that preposition as 'among'.  But let's not argue Greek.  What does that passage (Luke 17:21) specifically mean in it's context and in the context of all of Jesus other teaching of the Kingdom?

studiojimi wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 15:00

not some beulahland
rose of sharon
oh please....


Not my cup of tea either.

studiojimi wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 15:00

you are not gonna get a bible verse trophy from the saloon

you only get those in bible retreats and sunday school

you are not gonna get a best in show for interpretive skills for your personal interpretations...even when you have a bible beater posse.



If we're going to have a discussion of what the Bible says, why not have an intelligent one?  This isn't about some sort of contest.  This is about discussing what the scripture says in it's context and trying to understand it.  If you're going to make a statement about what the Bible says, are you prepared to explain it?

I'm not looking for a prize.  But if we're going to discuss, I'm not going to blindly follow the crowd if my study and training has taught me that the picture is a little different.  If I believe something is different I say so, for the sake of discussion.  I'm sorry if you don't like that we don't always agree, but that's the nature of discussion and sharing of ideas.

studiojimi wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 15:00

this stuff is not something to argue over or be "right" about

it is a very personal spiritual ergonomic glove that fits just right for each individual to interpret it and savor it and get inspired by it


I was in it for the discussion.  

I'm not trying to argue to 'be right'.  But on several points, I am interested in discussing what's actually there in the Bible, what's considered mainline orthodox Christian theology.

With all due kindness and respect, I don't buy the 'for each individual to interpret' if we are talking about ignoring an intelligent and scholarly approach to the Bible and merely going with 'whatever we get out of it'.  

There are numerous examples of where folks do their 'own interpretations' of random verses out of context and cause a lot of trouble.

There are lots of highly educated folks out there who study this thing with due process and help us to make sure that we understand the message in it's context.  I'm saying it's worthwhile to listen to these folks to make sure we're somewhere near the mark.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 02, 2008, 05:54:31 pm
[shrugs and sighs]

this is hopeless

but "everything is gonna work out fine because i made up my mind."

your trophy will arrive by UPS within 7-10 days
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on April 02, 2008, 06:03:04 pm
I can help with the costs on that trophy Jimi, since I will throw in the towel as well.  Try not to exceed 30 bucks.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 02, 2008, 06:45:23 pm
re: "miraculous" healing

placebo is the most reproducible scientific result (30%)

do we understand why?

no

is it a miracle?

not likely...
Title: Re: I BLESS YOU.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 03, 2008, 12:02:24 am
PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 12:03

Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 09:12

It is not that physical healing and resurrection can't occur even today.  It is that these are rare.  TMM (to my mind) these gifts were signs at the time that Christ had the power of God, that the Apostles were given some of that power (shown by doing some of the same things) and thus demonstrating their authority in the church and their legitimacy.  These gifts are largely not needed today so their occurrence is rare.


I'd challenge that last statement in two ways.  

Their occurrence is not nearly rare as you might believe.  There are a wide number of churches from a wide number of denominations (conservative through charismatic) that do practice this stuff and report results.

I'd also argue that practicing the demonstration of the Kingdom is also necessary.  Firstly, it's what Jesus taught and told us to do.  He hasn't changed his tune.  Proclaim --> demonstrate.  Next, what is the point of proclaiming the Kingdom if it 'was available, but sorry, it's not longer available.  But will be available later.'  Is that a credible message?  If we're to preach that the Kingdom is near at hand, we'll need to demonstrate it, or the message has no credibility.

1 Cor 2:1-5 "My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with demonstrations of the Spirit's power, so that your faith may not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power."  (v. 4&5 quoted)

1 Cor 4:14-21 "But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how arrogantly these people are talking, but what power they have.  For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of talk, but of power." (v.19-20 quoted)

Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 09:12

Some parts of the church, Charismatic for instance, put too much emphasis on these gifts.  Because of that, I think a lot of people are led astray, believers and non-believers.  People are caught up in the drama of these "healings".  It's all "bright lights and loud noises" - the "excitement of a miracle" rather than anything building faith.

There are many charlatans in the church, just as there have always been.  You see them every day on tv.  Gifts of healing are now a circus side-show.  Prosperity gospel is everywhere.

Thank you but I'll continue to keep my distance.


I agree.  There are some folks who disingenuous.  There are some who distort the message either out of ignorance, bitterness or even for their own gain.  And it's a shame that they wreck stuff for the rest of us.  And I agree, instead of legitimate demonstrations of healing being linked to Jesus' message, in a number of places, they have become a tasteless circus side show.

I agree that there's also those who over emphasize a manifestation and focus on the miraculous event rather than focus on the message and person of Christ.

But just because a few act in poor taste, does that mean that we should throw it all away?  Some act in poor taste in every other area, should we throw all that away too?  It's the 'baby and the bath water' again.

God's power is great and his gifts are many.  If they're available I'd rather not refuse them.


Nathan,

I hate to say it but on this we're going to disagree.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 03, 2008, 01:57:09 am
it's ok nathan

take your trophy man

put it up on the ol' mantle man and sport it for all to see

you win

you are the thumper of the saloon

that makes  you a treasure here.


index.php/fa/8387/0/
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 03, 2008, 11:34:34 am
Here was once written some stuff about the value of listening.  That's the gist of it, anyway.

Jessica
Title: Re: I BLESS YOU.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 03, 2008, 11:39:49 am
Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 April 2008 22:02

Nathan,

I hate to say it but on this we're going to disagree.




Barry -

First of all let me say that I hold you in very high regard.  You've shown yourself repeatedly to be a gentleman of character.

I'd also like to apologize.  I love a good discussion, but I realize that often in my eagerness to discuss that I can appear coming off cold and harsh.  That isn't at all my intention and if you in any way felt antagonized by me, again I apologize.  

I love a good discussion because I get challenged and questioned.  I love to be challenged and questioned as it continually forces me to consider what and why I believe what I do.  I realize however, that not everyone cares for being challenged and can find it antagonistic.

I have no problem at all that you disagree with me.  In fact, I like it as it gives us something to discuss and causes me to think critically about what I believe.

Peace.
Title: Re: I BLESS YOU.
Post by: studiojimi on April 03, 2008, 12:15:03 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 03 April 2008 08:39


I have no problem at all that you disagree with me.  In fact, I like it as it gives us something to discuss and causes me to think critically about what I believe.

Peace.



A DAY TO STAND.

"After all has been said and done
in a matter,
there is only one thing
left to do.  
Stand!

"Stand on the truth
that God's presence is with you
always.  
There is never a time
when God abandons you.  
At any moment,
how treacherous or life threatening
the conditions or circumstances
may appear to be,
God is there.  
Whenever you take the time
to look for God,
you find God.

"God is good
and
good is God.
 Like a magnet
our good follows us
wherever we may be.
We can recognize it
by training ourselves t
o see good everywhere.
Refuse to criticize.
Instead see good.
Refuse to say
"It's too late for me."
Instead
see that now is the time
and
all things are possible."

Affirm:  
"I stand
on the Truth
that God is here
and
my good is at hand.
It is so and I let it be."

Editor's note -- from the "Alphabet of Life (Page 3-6):  
You are inspired by the letter I.  You discover the power within you.

" . . . Stand firm, and see the deliverance
that the Lord will accomplish for you today . . ."
Exodus 14:13

TROPHY POLISH (defined)

index.php/fa/8388/0/

Title: Re: I BLESS YOU.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 03, 2008, 08:34:53 pm
Nathan,

No harm, no foul and certainly no worries.

I enjoy the discussions as well.  But I guess I'm willing to coast for a while.

And tho' you've caught some flak over it, I enjoy your observations and biblical scholarship.

All best,

Barry
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: cerberus on April 03, 2008, 09:57:44 pm
PP wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 04:39


Will you let Jesus touch your life by the power his mighty Holy Spirit.

pp; i don't think that this could be a choice.  

the way one takes it would be a choice; each of us has
a different way to handle our spiritual experiences
which cannot be fully understood by us.

i have had several, but some as a child. i later discovered that some were
not really spiritual experiences.

once i thought i saw a dog's eye rotate 360 degrees in it's socket, linda
blair style. i think the dog was, in fact, asleep and perhaps dreaming,
his voice box was making  high pitched whimpering sounds at the
same time. such that the event drew my complete attention
for a moment. and then i felt repulsed and looked away.

the combination of unfathomable visual effects
and eerie sounds scared me so much that
i did not tell anyone until i knew that it
-wasn't- a supernatural experience.

(dogs have a third eyelid which extends horizontally.)

after i became afraid, i did not treat the dog with respect. i neglected the dog.
so my mom "assigned" him to my younger brother,
which made me feel relieved. my parents made
a strong case that i had acted irresponsibly.
i chose not to debate them on it.

PP wrote on Tue, 01 April 2008 04:39

[This is not intended as a political point about weapons at all, but simply a point about the character and nature of all mankind, everywhere throughout the world.

We are afraid of one another, because our hearts are ruled by Fear.



i think my story elucidates why if i were contacted directly
by jesus, i probably would not tell anyone.

people can never say everything they are thinking.
or we'd all want to kill each other even faster.

we have these common fears, like death. and then the
personal ones that are different for each of us.

sometimes there is no need to be afraid.
and we misplace our fear easily. and
we let fear run our lives, it was not
my fault when thought that my
dog  was posessed and evil.

i did not know the way to the truth. nothing would have been in
the way for me to query a veterinarian. i suppose that one
can imagine why instead, i would never have done so.

i was in fact more afraid of the potential reaction to my "discovery".
either i would be called "delusional" or the dog would need
to be put to death. by keeping silent, i thought i was
making a choice to avoid the worst of outcomes.

better was to tell myself that if there were no supernatural, then i need
not worry, perhaps my eyes had deceived me. so i also entertained
the notion that perhaps i had not seen what i thought i saw.

or seen or heard anything at all. it could have
been a reflection... or if i were delusional, it
was over. no need to call the authorities.

selflessness or self actualization is a good way. i agree.
as for what is required of a person to achieve that;

maybe it is like a complex math problem and there could be more
than one correct answer? we have our common fears and
also our personal fears which we are too afraid to
discuss with anyone. i think none of us can
say to one another every thought in their
head. (would be like tourette's syndrome).

so at the very least, we fear our own thoughts.
we fear saying the wrong thing. we cannot
escape that fear here today.

how to get rid of one fear without creating another?
nathan used the word "obey"; yet i find this word
is steeped in fear. it is connected for me
with threats of punishment which
exploit the mechanism of fear.
Quote:

The second point is this...

C.S. Lewis argued very, very effectively speaking here at Oxford, and elsewhere through his National Broadcast?s. He totally decimated the arguments of the arrayed masses of academia, slaying them where they stood, into absolute dead silence.


You could hear a pin drop quite literally.

It was absolutely incredible.


i don't find it incredible given the historical, social and political context.
let us assume that anyone who spoke out might have risked being
blacklisted.  do you think it is possible that  some in that room
chose to be silent out of fear of speaking? that they thought
better to remain silent and not share their thoughts?

jeff dinces
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 04, 2008, 12:00:48 am
I'm being sincere Jeff when I say you have related a powerful event in your life in a powerful way.  I am quite moved by what you've written.

"Obey" is certainly a tough word.  Soooo many bad connotations.  But I've used the idea behind the word at least a million times with my son.  "Just do what I say, willya?"  "Look, if you would just do it this way things would be a lot better".  Even my sentences sound harsh and don't contain "obey", but they carry the same idea.  They reflect my frustration at the time.

But it doesn't work that way with God.  He is the essence of love and possesses much patience.  If you re-read my sentences the gist of them is "I know what I'm talking about and things will be better in your life if you just listen to me".  And I think that's the idea behind God saying "obey" but it is so much more loving.  It is "I love you.  I want the best for you.  Trust me and do what I say and you will benefit".

I've only ever found it to be that way with God.  Is there a "downside" when you don't obey?  Sure.  But not obeying is our choice so who are we to blame for not following good advice?

Trust that God exists.  Trust he has a good plan for you.  Trust that if you develop a relationship with him through Christ things will be better for you than they've ever been.  And the cool thing is this offer is open to everyone!
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on April 04, 2008, 12:25:59 am
cerberus wrote on Thu, 03 April 2008 21:57


Quote:

The second point is this...

C.S. Lewis argued very, very effectively speaking here at Oxford, and elsewhere through his National Broadcast?s. He totally decimated the arguments of the arrayed masses of academia, slaying them where they stood, into absolute dead silence.


You could hear a pin drop quite literally.

It was absolutely incredible.


i don't find it incredible given the historical, social and political context.
let us assume that anyone who spoke out might have risked being
blacklisted.  do you think it is possible that  some in that room
chose to be silent out of fear of speaking? that they thought
better to remain silent and not share their thoughts?

jeff dinces


Furthermore, the flaws in Lewis' logic are so obvious, its absolutely incredible.  He poses three options, as if they are the entire universe of options, which they are not.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 04, 2008, 02:32:37 am
Jeff,

You raise several interesting points of discussion.  And I greatly appreciate your honesty and vulernability.  

I'll stick to the point where you specifically mention our previous conversation.

For many people, obedience is indeed based upon fear - more specifically the fear of punishment.  Biblical obedience to God, however has a different dynamic.  While there are many ways to look at it, my perspective flows from the following 3.

In the Genesis (ch 3) narrative, the very first and core reactions to the fall (entering into sin / disobedience / severing relationship with God) was fear, shame, and alienation.  Fear is basic and core human problem that results from our separation from God.  Fear is indeed a horrid foe which causes massive destruction.

Fear is the antithesis of faith.  Many people think that un-belief is the antithesis of faith.  But actually un-belief is faith.  It's just faith in the opposite direction.  There are two primary ways to deal the death blow to fear.  Faith and love.  

Faith:  This point deserves much more expansion than most would tolerate to read, so I'll just say this.  A moving of faith from God and his word was the original problem.  "Did God really say..."  "You won't [experience the consequences God informed you]..."  That moving of faith was the core problem and it also happens to be the core solution as well.  Because as we mentioned before, faith is the thing that God cares about most.  Faith and reconciliation with God reverses those core problems of fear, shame and alienation.  Faith takes the onus and sense of security and takes it out of our hands which are very limited in power, and places it in His, in which all power and authority ultimately rests.  

Love:  In 1 John 4:16-18 we learn that there is no fear in love - perfect love casts out fear.  To know what 'perfect' or 'mature' love is, we look to the example of Jesus.  "This is how we know what love is:  Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.  And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers."  (1 John 3:16)  Perfect love is willing to sacrifice all for others.  When we are willing to walk in that kind of love which will sacrifice all, that love makes fear a non-issue.  The love becomes the focus and motivation for our actions, not the fear.  The love then has the power to replace the fear.  I think we can agree that love, especially perfect love, has accomplished so many of the worlds most moving feats.  

On this last point, I agree with what Barry said regarding obedience.  I'll add this as well.  When God mentions obedience, he attaches with it a promise.  That promise is always a blessing of life. Faith, obedience and promise are always connected.  Even when you look at passages in the Torah section of the Bible that articulate various lists of laws, you'll see a promise attached --> "that it may go well with you", "that you may have life", "that you may avoid [the various destructive problems] that other peoples endure."  It's about leading us into blessing and life.  God's heart is blessing and life, not fear, shame and alienation.  Those things came in because of the work of the deceiver.  It is not about submission due to fear - though it is true that disobedience can lead to some painful self-destruction and it's wise to consider consequences.  It's is about obeying God because his only intentions toward us are bring us out of our self-destructive ways lift us up into blessing and life.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 04, 2008, 02:39:23 am
JS wrote on Thu, 03 April 2008 22:25

cerberus wrote on Thu, 03 April 2008 21:57


Quote:

The second point is this...

C.S. Lewis argued very, very effectively speaking here at Oxford, and elsewhere through his National Broadcast?s. He totally decimated the arguments of the arrayed masses of academia, slaying them where they stood, into absolute dead silence.


You could hear a pin drop quite literally.

It was absolutely incredible.


i don't find it incredible given the historical, social and political context.
let us assume that anyone who spoke out might have risked being
blacklisted.  do you think it is possible that  some in that room
chose to be silent out of fear of speaking? that they thought
better to remain silent and not share their thoughts?

jeff dinces


Furthermore, the flaws in Lewis' logic are so obvious, its absolutely incredible.  He poses three options, as if they are the entire universe of options, which they are not.


Would you care to elaborate on your thoughts?  I'd be glad to hear them.


I highly doubt the silence was out of fear.  I've been to a number of sessions where there was silence because what the speaker had to say was profound and provocative.  People are silent because they are drawn to listen and seriously consider what was being said.  I've also been to lectures where those who believed they had a significant enough rebuttal were not afraid to question, no matter who was speaking or in the room.  A strong stirring word will always command attention.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on April 04, 2008, 08:34:16 am
PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 02:39

JS wrote on Thu, 03 April 2008 22:25



Furthermore, the flaws in Lewis' logic are so obvious, its absolutely incredible.  He poses three options, as if they are the entire universe of options, which they are not.


Would you care to elaborate on your thoughts?  I'd be glad to hear them.


I highly doubt the silence was out of fear.  I've been to a number of sessions where there was silence because what the speaker had to say was profound and provocative.  People are silent because they are drawn to listen and seriously consider what was being said.  I've also been to lectures where those who believed they had a significant enough rebuttal were not afraid to question, no matter who was speaking or in the room.  A strong stirring word will always command attention.


Underlying premises are taken for granted.  One underlying premise is that the events detailed in the Bible happened.  Another premise is that even if the underlying events happened, the versions related in the Bible were well understood, recalled correctly, recorded correctly, and in their current form are correct (not mistranslated, not edited).  Consequently, there are other explanations to consider beyond Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or the Lord.

I also think the existence of Christ is a premise that is not to be taken for granted.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 04, 2008, 10:57:48 am
JS wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 06:34

Underlying premises are taken for granted.  One underlying premise is that the events detailed in the Bible happened.  Another premise is that even if the underlying events happened, the versions related in the Bible were well understood, recalled correctly, recorded correctly, and in their current form are correct (not mistranslated, not edited).


I agree with you.  Every argument has a number of presuppositions, whether we're aware of it or not.  You've articulated a number of those presuppositions in Lewis' argument.  

Those details do need to be researched and answers do need to be given.  Lewis, until his encounters with J.R.R. Tolkien, was a convinced atheist.  He researched those questions, and came to the conclusions that he later articulated.  

JS wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 06:34

Consequently, there are other explanations to consider beyond Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or the Lord.


Given that the above presuppositions are affirmative, what other possibilities do you see?

JS wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 06:34

I also think the existence of Christ is a premise that is not to be taken for granted.


That's a completely fair comment.  I'd go one step further and say that nothing should be taken for granted.  

Of course, one's ideas will build upon the foundations of previous discoveries.  And one does not usually go through the entire process of verifying every presupposition that has already been answered before examining any particular issue.

In this thread we've talked about 'scientific method.'  If one is to seriously contemplate the issues and be in the position to discover the correct answer, we must put ourselves in the position where anything is possible.  As soon as we declare the impossibility of things which we have not applied due research, we loose our objectivity and our ability to discover the truth.  It becomes what I believe could be respectfully termed an 'ignorance bias.'  Willingness to accept other possibilities leaves us open to discoveries, like so many of our great discoverers who weren't willing to accept that it was impossible.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 04, 2008, 12:05:42 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 03 April 2008 21:00



Trust that God exists.  Trust he has a good plan for you.  Trust that if you develop a relationship with him through Christ things will be better for you than they've ever been.  And the cool thing is this offer is open to everyone!



amen, and i agree.


I REMEMBER.

I remember
that God is my life.
I do not accept
that God is a fraction
of my life
but the whole of my life.  
God is
the only life there is.  
There is no room
for any other opinion.
I live
in the life of God today,
tomorrow and forevermore.

I remember
that God is my source.
I depend
totally and completely on God
to supply whatever appears
to be required to me
to live a healthy,
joyous and abundant life.  
Through ideas,
God guides me.

I listen daily for instructions,
then I obey the command
of my soul.
Refusing to judge,
I calmly take
the steps required of me.
I may be led
to let go of hurt feelings,
or
give up a habit
or
even contact
a long forgotten acquaintance.
Sometimes,
I'm led to just
"be still,"
be patient
or just
"wait on the Lord."

I remember
that God is my Life
and
God is my Source.

Editor's note -- from "Alphabet of life (Page 3--6):  
I remember the letter A and B,
I acknowledge my oneness with God.
I build confidence daily.

"Remember the wonderful works He has done . . . "
I Chronicles 16:12
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on April 04, 2008, 12:39:04 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 10:57

JS wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 06:34

Underlying premises are taken for granted.  One underlying premise is that the events detailed in the Bible happened.  Another premise is that even if the underlying events happened, the versions related in the Bible were well understood, recalled correctly, recorded correctly, and in their current form are correct (not mistranslated, not edited).


I agree with you.  Every argument has a number of presuppositions, whether we're aware of it or not.  You've articulated a number of those presuppositions in Lewis' argument.  

Those details do need to be researched and answers do need to be given.  Lewis, until his encounters with J.R.R. Tolkien, was a convinced atheist.  He researched those questions, and came to the conclusions that he later articulated.  

JS wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 06:34

Consequently, there are other explanations to consider beyond Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or the Lord.


Given that the above presuppositions are affirmative, what other possibilities do you see?

JS wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 06:34

I also think the existence of Christ is a premise that is not to be taken for granted.


That's a completely fair comment.  I'd go one step further and say that nothing should be taken for granted.  

Of course, one's ideas will build upon the foundations of previous discoveries.  And one does not usually go through the entire process of verifying every presupposition that has already been answered before examining any particular issue.

In this thread we've talked about 'scientific method.'  If one is to seriously contemplate the issues and be in the position to discover the correct answer, we must put ourselves in the position where anything is possible.  As soon as we declare the impossibility of things which we have not applied due research, we loose our objectivity and our ability to discover the truth.  It becomes what I believe could be respectfully termed an 'ignorance bias.'  Willingness to accept other possibilities leaves us open to discoveries, like so many of our great discoverers who weren't willing to accept that it was impossible.


Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned response, which as always goes far beyond the sermonizing of some of our other colleagues.

I would say for now that one point strikes me about the faithful in conversations dealing with the scientific method and the realm of possibility - and that is this: although anything is possible, some things are more likely than others, and some views are more reasonable than others.  That the existence of a higher power is possible, does not make the existence of a higher power likelier than not.  

Finally, at the risk of introducing a negative tone into this thought, I would say that I appreciate Richard Dawkins comment that one doesn't need to study leprachaunology in order to be dubious about the existence of leprachauns.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 04, 2008, 01:12:17 pm
JS wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 10:39

Thank you for your thoughtful and reasoned response, which as always goes far beyond the sermonizing of some of our other colleagues.


Thank you, for the pleasant conversation.

JS wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 10:39

I would say for now that one point strikes me about the faithful in conversations dealing with the scientific method and the realm of possibility - and that is this: although anything is possible, some things are more likely than others, and some views are more reasonable than others.  That the existence of a higher power is possible, does not make the existence of a higher power likelier than not.


That's a fair comment.  I would suggest that the tendency towards such bias comes from some accepted presuppositions.  Those accepted presuppositions would be born from some sort of combination of experience, evidence, and searching.  Those experiences and subsequent beliefs would indeed make it easier to believe similar issues.  I would imagine that principle would be true for any range of issues.

I would also use your formula to state that the reverse also true.  Those are profess unbelief / atheism / etc tend to view some things as much less likely than others, some things as less reasonable than others.

I suspect on both sides that the biases are more powerful than we are consciously aware.

JS wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 10:39

Finally, at the risk of introducing a negative tone into this thought, I would say that I appreciate Richard Dawkins comment that one doesn't need to study leprachaunology in order to be dubious about the existence of leprachauns.


In a limited sense, I disagree with Dawkins.  If one is to search for a leprechaun, one must know exactly what they are looking for.  So in a sense, one must do enough study to know enough information about the nature of the leprechaun to know whether or not they can identify if one does truly exist or not.  You can't identify something that you know nothing of the identifying characteristics.

When I was briefly instructed in science, we always had to have our definitions and presupposition questions answered before we could proceed with the experiment and collect our data and prove / disprove our hypothesis.

So, in a sense, I see Dawkins advocating a bit of a close minded approach.  His reasoning is deceptive as we've all made the preconceived judgement about leprechauns being ridiculous before he even states his sentence.  And our bias of the ridiculous nature of leprechauns lends us to agree with his reasoning and avoid seeing it's flaw.  What if we allow that type of preconceived judgement to enter other arguments?  What if we (historically) were to immediately dismiss the possibility of walking on the moon because it seems ridiculous.  Should we not at least study the idea of space flight before dismissing the idea?

That was a poor example, but but if you were to substitute another word in the place of leprechaun - particularly something that historically was thought as laughable which we now commonly observe, hopefully the point becomes more clear.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 04, 2008, 02:01:11 pm
there is a large faction of Christians that believe

in praying the Aramaic translation

"leave us not into temptation"

instead of "lead us not" which we absolutely believe is a mistake.

we do not accept "leave us not" as Truth.

how do you feel about praying the prayer that Jesus taught us to prayer in a better more legit translation?

The Truth in this being that
God will not lead us into evil

we do just fine getting there all by ouselves

what we need is for him to not leave us where we managed to stray into areas we don't belong.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 04, 2008, 02:20:29 pm
Two points:

1.  Science thought germs didn't exist, until someone had the idea to look for them and some idea as to what they'd find.  Lots of things for us don't exist (even tho' they actually do) until we decide they might.

2. "Leave us not into temptation" doesn't seem to make sense unless "leave"is being used in some archaic sense.  Personally I prefer, "hire a bus and lead us over temptation".

But I could see a translation that might be "lead us *through* temptation".
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 04, 2008, 02:37:51 pm
studiojimi wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 12:01

there is a large faction of Christians that believe

in praying the Aramaic translation

"leave us not into temptation"

instead of "lead us not" which we absolutely believe is a mistake.

we do not accept "leave us not" as Truth.

how do you feel about praying the prayer that Jesus taught us to prayer in a better more legit translation?


A few questions.  

Can you specifically identify this large faction of Christians?  Which group are you specifically referring to?

Who are the scholars that are rendering this translation?  Where is it articulated?  It is published in some sort of respected peer reviewed commentary?

Are these people stating that they believe that the Gospels were originally in Aramaic instead of Greek?  Do they claim to know of early Aramaic manuscripts?

While I'm not a translator, I have studied under someone who is a bona fide NT translator as well as others who are extremely proficient in the ancient Biblical languages.  So I do know a few questions to ask when it comes to how translations are rendered.  My biggest question for such folks is how would this new translation fit the context of the statement, the prayer, Jesus teaching, and the entire NT?

Because the discipline of translation is not easy or exact 1:1, it's easy for some folks in their zeal for word games to lose sight of the big contextual picture which causes them to render poor translations.

Those are the kinds of questions I'm asking.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 04, 2008, 04:07:03 pm
i realize that this is a big turn off to "conventionals"

jesus was teaching us to pray

the fact is that he said pray "LIKE" this

not this exactly

go into your soul and prayer like this IF

you want to achieve the maximum effectiveness and results of the power of prayer

other versions i happen to dig:

there are many

TRANSLATION FROM THE ARAMAIC PESHITTA TEXTS
by George M. Lamsa

Matthew 6:9-13 in the Lamsa Holy Bible

Our Father in Heaven, hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
As in heaven, so on earth.
Give us bread for our needs from day to day.
And forgive us our offences,
As we have forgiven our offenders.
And do not let us enter into temptation,
But deliver us from evil (wrong, wickedness, error).
For thine is the kingdom
And the power
And the glory
For ever and ever.
Amen.
THE ARAMAIC PRAYER OF JESUS


as translated from Aramaic by Saadi Neil Douglas-Klotz of the Sufi Order of the West

O, Birther of the Cosmos, focus your light within us -- make it useful
Create your reign of unity now
Your one desire then acts with ours,
As in all light,
So in all forms,
Grant us what we need each day in bread and insight:
Loose the cords of mistakes binding us,
As we release the strands we hold of other's guilt.
Don't let surface things delude us,
But free us from what holds us back.
From you is born all ruling will,
The power and the life to do,
The song that beautifies all,
From age to age it renews.
I affirm this with my whole being.


also enlightening
http://websyte.com/alan/newage.htm

and

http://www.co-intelligence.org/lordsprayer2.html
where you will find

In Aramaic, bisha ("evil") is conceived in terms of an action which
is unripe, of a fruit that is either immature or rotten. This calls us to
be sensitive to the moment at hand, to carry out the right action at the
right time. Hence, we pray: "But let us not be captive to uncertainty, nor
cling to fruitless pursuits" or "Do not let us be seduced by that which
would divert us from our true purpose, but illuminate the opportunities of
the present moment."


and i'll bet you $50 you'll love the ben franklin version

http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/prayer.htm


and if you really wanna go out of a thin branch

http://jweanie.blogspot.com/2006/05/version-of-lords-prayer. html

The Perfectionist's Prayer

Their Father, who may be in Heaven,
Holy be my name.
My kingdom come,
My will be done,
In earth as it should be in Heaven.
I'll get my own daily bread,
(I can't trust you to do it)
but I can't possibly forgive my sins
As there are too many of them,
And they are always bound to happen.
And I can't see why I should forgive other people
As they are always hurting me.
And anyway they never do anything right.
I'm quite capable of leading myself into evil
Thank you very much.
And if you had made a good job of this world
In the first place, I wouldn't have to
Endure all the temptation.
Mine be the kingdom,
The power and the glory,
Forever and ever,
Amen.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on April 04, 2008, 04:26:20 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 14:20

Science thought germs didn't exist, until someone had the idea to look for them and some idea as to what they'd find.  Lots of things for us don't exist (even tho' they actually do) until we decide they might.



Query 1. Is this really right?  "Science" isn't an organization that speaks through a leader.  I sincerely doubt that voices of reason spoke sotto voceabout the possible existence of germs, only to be slapped down by the unreasonable back-hand of SCIENCE.  

Perhaps, and more likely, some scientists advanced the idea of a germ-theory of sickness, which may have not found immediate acceptance until the scientific method proved it.  

By "proved" I mean proof to just before the threshold of absolute certainty.  Because, lets face it, absolute certainty is unattainable.  I can't be completely sure that germs exist and cause disease.  The source of all disease may be unicorns.

Query 2. Are you suggesting that in the future we may have a firmer basis for belief in a higher power, by analogizing with other things SCIENCE was dubious about?

That sounds good to me.  When do we start putting the basis for modern belief systems to the test?  
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 04, 2008, 05:51:32 pm
I mean it slightly differently.

Although "Science" doesn't speak with one voice, certain theories are readily accepted while others are beaten down with a stick, such as String Theory (at least initially).  So there is precedence (antecedence?) for this kind of thing.

Secondly, I'm saying you can carry this concept over to the spiritual realm where it seems for some "God doesn't exist." I propose then one might suggest "God doesn't exist (until you look for him)".

I hope that's clearer.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 04, 2008, 05:59:31 pm
if an asteroid collision destroys all the humans will there still be god?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 04, 2008, 06:05:44 pm
maxim wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 14:59

if an asteroid collision destroys all the humans will there still be god?



yes.

and His will...will remain absolute good.


if you are on  the 20th floor elevator and headed down an suddenly the cable breaks ....will you call His holy name?

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 04, 2008, 06:13:29 pm
holy shit???
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 04, 2008, 07:29:43 pm
Max,

Sincerely, you're a really good guy and I thank you for it.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 04, 2008, 07:53:40 pm
studiojimi wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 14:07

TRANSLATION FROM THE ARAMAIC PESHITTA TEXTS by George M. Lamsa


Lamsa's view is highly unpopular (to put it politely) with almost all scholars across all of Christendom.  His contention is that that the New Testament was first written in Aramaic then later translated into Greek.  There's no credible evidence for this as well as there being a mountain of solid evidence to say the opposite - that indeed the entire NT was written in koine Greek.

It does make for interesting reading, but scholarship would tell us that calling an Aramaic version 'original' would not be the case.

studiojimi wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 14:07

also enlightening
http://websyte.com/alan/newage.htm


I'm wondering now if you're trying to pull my leg with all this or not...

What you may or may not realize is that a number of the theological statements made on that website are reiterations of Gnosticism.  Gnosticism has been the ancient arch-rival of the church disputed as early as the New Testament and quite hotly refuted in the second through fourth centuries.  Extremely strong consensus among Catholic, Protestant and Evangelical flavors of the church all hold to the ancient chruch creeds and the refutation of Gnosticism as a distortion of the person and message of Jesus.

So, I'm sorry my friend, but I can't agree with you on that one.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 04, 2008, 09:46:32 pm
holy cow???
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 04, 2008, 09:51:36 pm
"if you are on the 20th floor elevator and headed down an suddenly the cable breaks ....will you call His holy name?"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7DqNqh9jQ8
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on April 04, 2008, 10:00:02 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 19:29

Max,

Depending upon how one reads your reply, it comes off as blasphemy and makes me a bit uncomfortable...


Best be careful Max.  In parts of the United States blasphemy is still a crime.  I know, I know, there haven't been many convictions since the late 1920s, but still, I love the fact that you could get arrested for preaching atheism in certain states.  
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 04, 2008, 10:03:16 pm
JS wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 20:00

I love the fact that you could get arrested for preaching atheism in certain states.  


Serious?  Which states?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 04, 2008, 10:11:12 pm
"if you are on the 20th floor elevator and headed down an suddenly the cable breaks ....will you call His holy name?"

i could PRAY for divine intervention

OR

i could rely on mr otis elevatorhead to look after me


index.php/fa/8399/0/

which one would you choose?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on April 04, 2008, 10:34:23 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 22:03

JS wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 20:00

I love the fact that you could get arrested for preaching atheism in certain states.  


Serious?  Which states?


http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/Blasphemy.php

The laws are, of course, not enforced.  But "could" be.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 04, 2008, 11:04:08 pm
maxim wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 21:11

"if you are on the 20th floor elevator and headed down an suddenly the cable breaks ....will you call His holy name?"

i could PRAY for divine intervention

OR

i could rely on mr otis elevatorhead to look after me


index.php/fa/8399/0/

which one would you choose?


I would still choose prayer.  I'd rather rely on someone who could help rather than a device that still may fail.

As as the explanation you've given says the plunger "helps cushion" the impact, that may just mean you're completely paralyzed rather than dead.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on April 04, 2008, 11:13:03 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 23:04

[
I would still choose prayer.  I'd rather rely on someone who could help rather than a device that still may fail.



Is God "someone"?

Considering God's track record of assisting people in imminent fear of death, I think prayer is an unlikely solution.  Consider the untold millions of people killed by natural disasters.  I'm thinking Hurricane Katrina and the Indonesian tsunami touched the lives of at least a few people who believed in the Saviour, no?

I know.  God works in mysterious ways.  It was their time to go, and part of God's plan.

Well, if your elevator is plunging to the ground, then this too is a mysterious part of God's plan.  Does prayer dissuade God from her plan?  That makes God indecisive.  Was it not your time to go?  Then prayer is superfluous.  In either instance, prayer will not save you.  

A safety device may or may not work, but its effectiveness or failure is not a "mystery" nor a logic game.  
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 04, 2008, 11:27:04 pm
God is actually 3 persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Together they are one God.  Don't know why that's so and can't explain it.  God has just said that's who he is.

Prayer is nothing more than talking to God.  Prayer is not always a request.  Sometimes it's a statement.  Not often said, but always implied in any request of God is "according to your will".  So my prayer would be "Please Lord save me but act according to your will.  And help me to accept that".  God plainly will tell you the events that have happened (such as those in the Old and New Testament) and some of the events that will (such as those in the book of Revelations).  "Specifically Why" something happens or doesn't is a much harder answer to obtain.

"A safety device may or may not work, but its effectiveness or failure is not a "mystery" nor a logic game."

That statement is absolutely untrue and you'll recognize it when you think on it a bit further:
Then why are there black boxes in airliners?  

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on April 04, 2008, 11:59:07 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 23:27


"A safety device may or may not work, but its effectiveness or failure is not a "mystery" nor a logic game."

That statement is absolutely untrue and you'll recognize it when you think on it a bit further:
Then why are there black boxes in airliners?  




To help investigators unravel what went wrong by providing evidence to them?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Larrchild on April 05, 2008, 12:07:44 am
And they're really bright red.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 05, 2008, 12:24:07 am
JS wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 22:59

Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 23:27


"A safety device may or may not work, but its effectiveness or failure is not a "mystery" nor a logic game."

That statement is absolutely untrue and you'll recognize it when you think on it a bit further:
Then why are there black boxes in airliners?  




To help investigators unravel what went wrong by providing evidence to them?


Exactly! And if there is sufficient evidence that can be clearly understood then the failure is no longer a mystery.  If they know something happened by not why then it's a mystery until the cause is discovered.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 05, 2008, 12:34:11 am
JS wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 20:13

Barry Hufker wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 23:04

[
I would still choose prayer.  I'd rather rely on someone who could help rather than a device that still may fail.



Is God "someone"?

Considering God's track record of assisting people in imminent fear of death, I think prayer is an unlikely solution.  Consider the untold millions of people killed by natural disasters.  I'm thinking Hurricane Katrina and the Indonesian tsunami touched the lives of at least a few people who believed in the Saviour, no?

I know.  God works in mysterious ways.  It was their time to go, and part of God's plan.

Well, if your elevator is plunging to the ground, then this too is a mysterious part of God's plan.  Does prayer dissuade God from her plan?  That makes God indecisive.  Was it not your time to go?  Then prayer is superfluous.  In either instance, prayer will not save you.  

A safety device may or may not work, but its effectiveness or failure is not a "mystery" nor a logic game.  


you won't be thinking about a safety device

you will be saying LORD hold me in your everylasting arms...

that is .. . IF you can stop screaming.

before the sound of SPLABp
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on April 05, 2008, 12:43:03 am
studiojimi wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 00:34


you won't be thinking about a safety device

you will be saying LORD hold me in your everylasting arms...

that is .. . IF you can stop screaming.

before the sound of SPLABp



I can pretty much guarantee with complete certainty that whatever unsupported mythology that gets you through your day won't cross my mind when my time comes. I furthermore resent the insulting condescending tone with which you suggest that I will ever think the way you think under any circumstances.

edited for typo
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on April 05, 2008, 08:06:18 am
It is funny that religious people wouldn't just sit there and accept God's will as their plane crashes.  Or accept that they can't have children.  Or that their hair has fallen out.

Just as a guide for me, when is something God's will and when is it not?

And that I will suddenly see the "errors" of my ways when faced with a trying circumstance... when even deeply religious people cannot accept the hand that they are dealt.

This is a really interesting thread!

It seems to me that a societal structure that allows one to hope against reason and encourages belief in something other than one's "brother's and sisters" is certainly more divisive and un-illuminating than anything proposed by Darwin.

Of course, some might disagree.

tom


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 05, 2008, 10:40:25 am
JS wrote on Fri, 04 April 2008 21:43

studiojimi wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 00:34


you won't be thinking about a safety device

you will be saying LORD hold me in your everylasting arms...

that is .. . IF you can stop screaming.

before the sound of SPLABp



I can pretty much guarantee with complete certainty that whatever unsupported mythology that gets you through your day won't cross my mind when my time comes. I furthermore resent the insulting condescending tone with which you suggest that I will ever think the way you think under any circumstances.

edited for typo


no foul nor offence intended....just friendly discussion

with personal affirmation stated.


THE SEASON FOR FRIENDSHIPS.

People
are in our life for a reason,
a season or a lifetime.  
Tension may develop
in our relationships
when a person
who is in our life for a certain reason,
stays for a season or a lifetime.

We are blessed
that some souls
are attracted to us
for a specific reason.  
That reason may be
to see us through a difficult time
or
to help us achieve some goal.  
Once the resin
for their being in our life
is accomplished,
they exit the stage
of our life.  
We can bless them
as they depart,
because they leave us
in a better place
than we were
when we met them.

For any person
who came into your life for a reason,
whether that reason
was to give you a beautiful child,
help you get into college,
provide you with a home assist you
in securing employment,
lead you to a church community,
or
help you better understand
who you are as a child of God,
know that you
have been blessed.
Pray for them
as they move on their way,
and
as you move into a new life
without them.
 It's all good.
Know that this is so.

"For everything there is a season . . ."
Ecclesiastes 3:1
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 05, 2008, 11:38:16 am
Certainly no offense intended.

However you act in a situation is not for us (Christians) to decide.  It is very hard for me to act differently than you.  A tragedy is a tragedy no matter who you are.  The only comfort I have (and not a mythological one or else I wouldn't give a shit about who that person is) is knowing I have a loving Father to help me.

Someone in war who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies isn't concerned with anything but the danger.  Often times there is no time to think anything before dying.  But it is a surety God is there and that some good will come of it.

As a more peaceful example, my son was able to attend college for free because I teach full-time where he attended.  He talked about quitting in his junior year to find work in his field.  My response was, "if you quit you'll always regret it.  Besides you don't know how many generations of Hufkers had to do "the right thing" to get you to this exact time and place where you get to go to college for free."

God has guided us for generations, knowingly or not, saved or not, so, in part, my kid could go to college for free.  Now I'm not saying that's a huge deal (although the college bill would have been $120,000), and I'm not saying that's the only thing God has done for us, but for me it is a clear example of his loving-kindness just to make something good happen in our lives.

No, none of it is coincidence.  Of that I'm sure.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 05, 2008, 11:49:49 am
tom eaton wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 06:06

It is funny that religious people wouldn't just sit there and accept God's will as their plane crashes.  Or accept that they can't have children.  Or that their hair has fallen out.

Just as a guide for me, when is something God's will and when is it not?

And that I will suddenly see the "errors" of my ways when faced with a trying circumstance... when even deeply religious people cannot accept the hand that they are dealt.


Whether or not  you know it, you are expressing a specific theology about the nature of God's interaction with the world.

Firstly one must understand the difference of Gods will and the consequence of sin.  Often the two get lumped together when they should not be.  Tragedies, barrenness, physical infirmities fall in the later category, not the former.

And I agree with you that often while we are 'in the refining fire' that we see our impurities.  That's not a bad thing, but rather a joyous thing.  The process maybe painful, but the reward can be great.  It is an expression of God's mercy that he guides us through trials and empowers us with his grace to come out better people on the other side than when we first went in.

To answer your question, if one wants to know the difference between God's will and the realities of living in a sinful world, serious reading and reflection on the scriptures is needed.  Is there a specific circumstance you are thinking of?

Many Christians do indeed have a theology of suffering.  And that is a very interesting subject indeed.  

When facing suffering, I often meditate on Romans 8:28 "We know in all things that God works for the good of those who love him."  If we follow God, he will empower us to come through our suffering to a better end instead of a bitter end.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 05, 2008, 01:02:04 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 08:49


When facing suffering, I often meditate on Romans 8:28 "We know in all things that God works for the good of those who love him."  If we follow God, he will empower us to come through our suffering to a better end instead of a bitter end.



i pretty much agree

suffering is a human seeming appearance which presence an opportunity for growth and lesson learning.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 05, 2008, 03:05:46 pm
studiojimi wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 11:02

i pretty much agree


Look guys, scientific evidence of a miracle!   Very Happy  Very Happy
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 05, 2008, 04:00:57 pm
now if i can just get you to see or agree that disease, lack, limitation, despair....while yes are human experiences

they are not of God

they are the lies of the earthly human experience and do not live in the spiritual.

this has been Jesus ministry of all of this miracles and demonstration which i have supported as the message and hopefully transmit in much of my music
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Mike Peake on April 05, 2008, 07:07:37 pm
"A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."

So very true. Perhaps one day.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 05, 2008, 09:04:38 pm
In all of history there's never been such a society.  If "people" will always be "people", there never will be.

People who are unlike those around them will not only be seen as unpopular but dangerous in some cases.  It takes a risk-taker to be different in any society.  As the Japanese say, "only the tall blades of grass get cut".

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 05, 2008, 09:28:19 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 18:04

In all of history there's never been such a society.  If "people" will always be "people", there never will be.

People who are unlike those around them will not only be seen as unpopular but dangerous in some cases.  It takes a risk-taker to be different in any society.  As the Japanese say, "only the tall blades of grass get cut".





not when you use napalm

index.php/fa/8405/0/
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 05, 2008, 09:56:28 pm
What could be better in the morning than jelly and gasoline?  Or the British among us will say "not jelly, jam."!

Now, I'm waiting for the inevitable Apocalypse Now quote.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on April 05, 2008, 10:52:12 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 11:49

tom eaton wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 06:06

It is funny that religious people wouldn't just sit there and accept God's will as their plane crashes.  Or accept that they can't have children.  Or that their hair has fallen out.


Firstly one must understand the difference of Gods will and the consequence of sin.  Often the two get lumped together when they should not be.  Tragedies, barrenness, physical infirmities fall in the later category, not the former.


Children born with fatal diseases have sinned?  Amputees are ALL sinners?  I thought judgement for sin came later?  Why don't bank robbers all have limps?

And if a couple is barren and uses fertility treatment to have quintuplets and then thanks God... do you see irony, or give thanks for their blessing?

And, by your definition, then, tragedies are NOT God's will?  Are floods God's will, or tragedies brought on by the sins of man?  Mutually exclusivity would lead me to believe that there truly is no captain steering the ship.  How can you have it both ways?

-tom

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 05, 2008, 11:16:32 pm
God is ALL there is

ALL there is has a perfect outworking unfathomable by us.

but It does reveal Itself as GOOD and GREAT

Omnipotent, Omnipresent, Omniscient

but because All there is made you like Itself and in Its spiritual image, you too can create, live, move and have your being and seek your bliss and find it.

if you image anything be it postive or negative there will be increase of your focus

if i were you i'd focus more on what i really want to increase rather than

the seeming appearance of a non perfect outworking

lack, limitation, despair, disease and the like should not be ignored but certainly not respected as of God.


caution about empowering the negative
for surely that will increase in consciousness if you do and i'm not so sure you want to do that with your piece of power.

the best thing i can come up with based on the way He reveals Himself to me is

prayer and thanksgiving and praise

if you can't get into that....

well.....i have nothing more to say that can help you at least in this post
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on April 05, 2008, 11:16:50 pm
Mike Peake wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 19:07

"A free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular."

So very true. Perhaps one day.


Perhaps, in secular countries.  In the meantime, in places where the faithful have a distinct say in policy making, the unpopular  sleep with one eye open.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 05, 2008, 11:23:41 pm
It doesn't matter what "the faith" is.  Islam, Christianity, Communism, National Socialism, Dictatorship, Oligarchy, whatever.  If you are not part of the main group, you should always sleep lightly.

As Woody Allen said, "And the Lion will lay down with the lamb - only the lamb won't get much sleep."

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 05, 2008, 11:31:49 pm
tom eaton wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 20:52

Children born with fatal diseases have sinned?  Amputees are ALL sinners?  I thought judgement for sin came later?  Why don't bank robbers all have limps?


My paternal Grandfather was of Finnish descent.  Upon my conception when I first came to life, I too was Finnish.  I was Finnish not because of anything that I had personally done or chosen.  I was Finnish because of a fact which was completely out of my control --> my Father and Grandfather and Great-grandfather, etc, etc, were all Finnish.

Humanity sinned against God.  And now, as humans, we all inherit that heritage of being sinners.  

And one does not have to be a parent long to learn that even babies / toddlers are excellent at exercising manipulation, disobedience and have some nice raging temper tantrums.

tom eaton wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 20:52

And, by your definition, then, tragedies are NOT God's will?  Are floods God's will, or tragedies brought on by the sins of man?  Mutually exclusivity would lead me to believe that there truly is no captain steering the ship.  How can you have it both ways


When man fell into sin it separated / alienated him from God, other people, and all the rest of creation.  The effect of sin was disharmony.  Creation itself, because of the position God gave man over creation, was also subject to the effects of sin.  This is why in Romans 8:18-22 we read that all creation groans and waits for the people to be free from sin as the creation itself will the be released from the bondage of decay.

So yes, man's sin did affect creation and through creation out of harmony with man.

It is also interesting to note that the scripture even speaks of the land itself vomiting out its inhabitants because it is defiled by the sins of the people.  So God told his people not to do such things so they same would not happen to them as it did to those who were there before them.  Lev 18:24-28, Lev 20:22 are a few that come to mind.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 05, 2008, 11:38:57 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 21:23

It doesn't matter what "the faith" is.  Islam, Christianity, Communism, National Socialism, Dictatorship, Oligarchy, whatever.  If you are not part of the main group, you should always sleep lightly.


Don't forget to add Fundamentalist Secular Humanists to the list.  Wink

America is an odd place.  Freedom of speech has allowed voices to be heard that often (in other parts of the world) heard.  A few Christian groups are quite vocal.  Unfortunately, not always the most agreeable ones...  Sad

You can go to other nations in the world with very high proportions of Christians in the population and still see massive persecution.

It's not about numbers.  It's about the heart attitudes and actions of your neighbors no matter which side of the fence they are on.

JS wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 21:16

In the meantime, in places where the faithful have a distinct say in policy making, the unpopular  sleep with one eye open.


That's the fruit of democracy.  But that doesn't mean that politicians still don't manipulate religious organizations for power.  Or that some religious organizations don't manipulate politicians to see their goals to an end.  

It doesn't matter who you are, it would be wise to sleep with one eye open.  Especially since the other guy (whoever it may be) doesn't always run with the cleanest company.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Bill Mueller on April 06, 2008, 12:11:30 am
PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 23:31


And one does not have to be a parent long to learn that even babies / toddlers are excellent at exercising manipulation, disobedience and have some nice raging temper tantrums.




Wow Pooky,

I'm sorry, but babies DO NOT have temper tantrums. This is an ancient idea.

Babies only have survival responses. They do not get mad. They don't know how to get mad. It might look that way, but that would be painting them with an adult brush.

Babies cry because they believe their life is threatened.

This may be a obscure point within this huge, bizarre thread. But it is important to know. For your child's sake.

Best regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 06, 2008, 12:22:48 am
hide the trophy.

after you polish it
index.php/fa/8410/0/

thieves may try to steal it in the night
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 06, 2008, 01:37:24 am
Bill,

I'm sure you know about this already but I saw on Oprah (yes, I catch it from time to time) this woman claims to have "cracked the baby code".  She talked about half a dozen or so sounds babies make and what they mean.  Right or wrong, it was fascinating.

The segment ended all too soon - and when it did I threw myself on the floor and threw a temper tantrum.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 06, 2008, 01:41:02 am
"This is an ancient idea... that would be painting them with an adult brush"

let's see

you want people to consider new ideas and limit their anthropomorphising

you're in the right thread...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 06, 2008, 01:58:30 am
Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 22:11

PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 23:31


And one does not have to be a parent long to learn that even babies / toddlers are excellent at exercising manipulation, disobedience and have some nice raging temper tantrums.




Wow Pooky,

I'm sorry, but babies DO NOT have temper tantrums. This is an ancient idea.

Babies only have survival responses. They do not get mad. They don't know how to get mad. It might look that way, but that would be painting them with an adult brush.

Babies cry because they believe their life is threatened.

This may be a obscure point within this huge, bizarre thread. But it is important to know. For your child's sake.


I've got 3 kids.  Lots of nieces and nephews as well.

I'm CERTAIN that babies (even under a year old) and toddlers do indeed get angry and have tantrums for reasons other than survival (hunger, et al) or fear of death / pain / threat.  Things like 'I want a cookie instead of mashed carrots' or 'I don't want to go to sleep' or sometimes do show a genuine reaction of fear.  Children this young can indeed experience emotion and express emotion.  I think it's equally an ancient idea that says they cannot.  Ask most any experienced mother and they can tell quite quickly from the exact cry the child is making what is going on (hunger, fear, pain, anger, fatigue, irritation).

I also quoted one scientific study earlier where a child immediately after birth chose to refuse the mother's breast (but would take the breast of other women) due to a severe emotional rejection issue during gestation.

I'm also aware of another incidence where a woman was abused by a man while pregnant.  The man would sometimes hit the abdomen.  The child after birth was always highly reactive towards males but fine towards females.

My mother was a licensed psychiatric nurse and has done decades of family counseling.  She's got countless case studies of early childhood development issues that can show the ability of small children to make significant choices in reaction to events and feelings.

So respectfully, I will have to disagree.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 06, 2008, 02:21:07 am
"I also quoted one scientific study earlier where a child immediately after birth chose to refuse the mother's breast (but would take the breast of other women) due to a severe emotional rejection issue during gestation."

huh???

did someone ask the baby why it rejected the breast?

in my experience as a gp, toddlers may indeed prefer a cookie over carrot, but under 1 yr olds?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: cerberus on April 06, 2008, 05:01:46 am
The Mike Wallace Interview
Reinhold Niebuhr
4/27/58

"Niebuhr, vice president of Union Theological Seminary in New York, on leave to the Institute for Advanced
Study at Princeton, and one of the most important and challenging religious thinkers in the world,
talks to Wallace about the separation between church and state, Catholicism,
Protestantism, anti-Semitism, communism, and nuclear war."


The Mike Wallace Interview
Francis Lally
6/22/58

"Monsignor Francis Lally, editor of one of the most influential Catholic newspapers in America, the Boston Pilot,
talks to Wallace about a lack of understanding between Catholics and non-Catholics,
the separation between church and state, dissent, diversity, and religion."


The Mike Wallace Interview
Erich Fromm
5/25/58

"Erich Fromm, psychoanalyst and social critic, talks to Wallace about society, materialism,
relationships, government, religion, and happiness."


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Bill Mueller on April 06, 2008, 09:06:22 am
PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 01:58

Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 22:11

PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 23:31


And one does not have to be a parent long to learn that even babies / toddlers are excellent at exercising manipulation, disobedience and have some nice raging temper tantrums.




Wow Pooky,

I'm sorry, but babies DO NOT have temper tantrums. This is an ancient idea.

Babies only have survival responses. They do not get mad. They don't know how to get mad. It might look that way, but that would be painting them with an adult brush.

Babies cry because they believe their life is threatened.

This may be a obscure point within this huge, bizarre thread. But it is important to know. For your child's sake.


I've got 3 kids.  Lots of nieces and nephews as well.

I'm CERTAIN that babies (even under a year old) and toddlers do indeed get angry and have tantrums for reasons other than survival (hunger, et al) or fear of death / pain / threat.  Things like 'I want a cookie instead of mashed carrots' or 'I don't want to go to sleep' or sometimes do show a genuine reaction of fear.  Children this young can indeed experience emotion and express emotion.  I think it's equally an ancient idea that says they cannot.  Ask most any experienced mother and they can tell quite quickly from the exact cry the child is making what is going on (hunger, fear, pain, anger, fatigue, irritation).

I also quoted one scientific study earlier where a child immediately after birth chose to refuse the mother's breast (but would take the breast of other women) due to a severe emotional rejection issue during gestation.

I'm also aware of another incidence where a woman was abused by a man while pregnant.  The man would sometimes hit the abdomen.  The child after birth was always highly reactive towards males but fine towards females.

My mother was a licensed psychiatric nurse and has done decades of family counseling.  She's got countless case studies of early childhood development issues that can show the ability of small children to make significant choices in reaction to events and feelings.

So respectfully, I will have to disagree.


Nathan,

All of the things that you describe can be survival issues from the perspective of a baby.

My point is that babies have NO power, NO control and do not think like adults. Attributing adult emotions and motivations is a bad way to view a baby, because it can cause the adult to loose sympathy and empathy for the child, creating a straw man to be angry with, instead of understanding the real motivations of the baby.

I have children too. Five boys.

I also managed the company that publishes Glenn Doman's books, How to Teach your Baby to Read, How to Teach Your Baby Math, How to Give Your Baby Encyclopedic Knowledge, and more, and for the last twenty six years have helped brain-injured children both as vice chairman of the board of directors of the Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential and as the creator of Electronic Auditory Stimulation effect (EASe) audio CD series and soon EASe Video Games for autistic children.

So understanding and helping children is very high on my list. From the books above, you can clearly see that I don't believe that baby's are incapable of intelligent thought. Quite the contrary. They are FAR more capable than almost ANY adult in learning language and quantity, both through their ears and eyes. But their motivations are very different and they do not get "angry".

Also, toddlers who throw tantrums are taught to throw tantrums. While I was at the Institutes we had a very interesting family come in. Both parents were deaf but their baby had normal hearing. When this baby cried, he would do so by holding his breath, turning his face red, with tears streaming down his face, but he would NOT MAKE A SOUND. He had learned that making sounds did not work, so he gave up. Toddlers who throw tantrums, do so because they have been TAUGHT that tantrums are an effective way to meet their needs. This is a different motivation than getting "angry".

Best Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on April 06, 2008, 09:36:21 am
Bill-

My wife is a clinical music therapist working in the Early Intervention system... this year one of her children is a hearing child of deaf parents... the capacities of children to adapt to their environment to get their needs met is mind blowing.  The child has no need to be verbal at home, but has to come to terms with the fact that there is a downside to NOT being verbal outside the home.  

She has had many, many autism cases over the years... I had forgotten that you were involved in this stuff!

And NASA.

And ZZ Top.

Hmmm.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Bill Mueller on April 06, 2008, 10:40:27 am
tom eaton wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 09:36

Bill-

My wife is a clinical music therapist working in the Early Intervention system... this year one of her children is a hearing child of deaf parents... the capacities of children to adapt to their environment to get their needs met is mind blowing.  The child has no need to be verbal at home, but has to come to terms with the fact that there is a downside to NOT being verbal outside the home.  

She has had many, many autism cases over the years... I had forgotten that you were involved in this stuff!

And NASA.

And ZZ Top.

Hmmm.





Tom,

Yeah, but what I would REALLY love, is to have a nice studio in the Northeast someplace, where musicians would come in and play acoustic folk music for me to sooth my soul.

That would be really cool.

Best Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on April 06, 2008, 01:12:27 pm
Fair enough.  I'll try to get us back on topic, though...

Covet not thy fellow engineer's space exploration contract.
Covet not thy fellow engineer's years of well earned experience.
Love and bless thy fellow engineer and his or her pursuits and family.
Be not ashamed of the sins that have caused your hair to receed.
They were likely not my sins anyway.
Thank someone every day for letting me make music for a living.

t
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 06, 2008, 03:53:27 pm
Bill Mueller wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 07:06

All of the things that you describe can be survival issues from the perspective of a baby.

My point is that babies have NO power, NO control and do not think like adults. Attributing adult emotions and motivations is a bad way to view a baby, because it can cause the adult to loose sympathy and empathy for the child, creating a straw man to be angry with, instead of understanding the real motivations of the baby.

I have children too. Five boys.

I also managed the company that publishes Glenn Doman's books, How to Teach your Baby to Read, How to Teach Your Baby Math, How to Give Your Baby Encyclopedic Knowledge, and more, and for the last twenty six years have helped brain-injured children both as vice chairman of the board of directors of the Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential and as the creator of Electronic Auditory Stimulation effect (EASe) audio CD series and soon EASe Video Games for autistic children.

So understanding and helping children is very high on my list. From the books above, you can clearly see that I don't believe that baby's are incapable of intelligent thought. Quite the contrary. They are FAR more capable than almost ANY adult in learning language and quantity, both through their ears and eyes. But their motivations are very different and they do not get "angry".

Also, toddlers who throw tantrums are taught to throw tantrums. While I was at the Institutes we had a very interesting family come in. Both parents were deaf but their baby had normal hearing. When this baby cried, he would do so by holding his breath, turning his face red, with tears streaming down his face, but he would NOT MAKE A SOUND. He had learned that making sounds did not work, so he gave up. Toddlers who throw tantrums, do so because they have been TAUGHT that tantrums are an effective way to meet their needs. This is a different motivation than getting "angry".

Best Regards,

Bill


I greatly repsect the fact that your opinions are born out of a lot of experience.

My opinions are also born out of some experience.  I too work with kids (mostly underprivileged) , have some limited training in that area.  I've also done some visiting in PICU with my mother and some of the people she's worked with and have had a lot of interaction with teams of doctors, nurses, psychs, etc.  Though they have different training, both my parents have decades of experience as counselors.  Etc, etc.

I don't disagree with you on most of your points.  However, infants and toddlers do experience emotions.  Their emotions may not be complex like ours as they are developing along with their thoughts, but they do indeed have emotion and are able to show it - even within their more instinctual responses.  I have no disagreement that their thoughts are extremely undeveloped.  But I do believe that the ability to experience emotion is indeed present.

On that point we may have to agree to disagree.

I wish I could respond more, but I need to leave for a road trip immediately.

Peace.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 06, 2008, 03:55:45 pm
maxim wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 00:21

"I also quoted one scientific study earlier where a child immediately after birth chose to refuse the mother's breast (but would take the breast of other women) due to a severe emotional rejection issue during gestation."

huh???

did someone ask the baby why it rejected the breast?


Extensive study was done by the psychiatric team.  Their conclusion was the the rejection by the baby of exclusively the mothers breast had to do with the fact that the mother during the whole gestation did not want the baby and strongly desired to abort.  The baby was kept to term and birth purely by the wishes of the father.  As I stated before, the baby would readily and hungrily latch on to other lactating mothers.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Bill Mueller on April 06, 2008, 04:53:37 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 15:55

maxim wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 00:21

"I also quoted one scientific study earlier where a child immediately after birth chose to refuse the mother's breast (but would take the breast of other women) due to a severe emotional rejection issue during gestation."

huh???

did someone ask the baby why it rejected the breast?


Extensive study was done by the psychiatric team.  Their conclusion was the the rejection by the baby of exclusively the mothers breast had to do with the fact that the mother during the whole gestation did not want the baby and strongly desired to abort.  The baby was kept to term and birth purely by the wishes of the father.  As I stated before, the baby would readily and hungrily latch on to other lactating mothers.


Fella's,

Now tell me this is not a PURE survival story!

Best Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 06, 2008, 05:10:32 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 12:55

 the baby would readily and hungrily latch on to other lactating mothers.



i can identify.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 06, 2008, 10:11:55 pm
having worked as a psychiatry registrar, i know that the a "team of psychiatrists" is no guarantee of factuality

the mother clearly had issues

that alone would influence latching


" ...But I do believe that the ability to experience emotion is indeed present."

it would be very naive to argue otherwise

however, you were making point that a baby could "manipulate", with the implication that it could therefore "sin"

this is where, i believe, bill took umbrage

for the first year, a human is, hardly, even aware of "self", let alone "others"






Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 07, 2008, 04:24:10 pm
Bill Mueller wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 14:53

Fella's,

Now tell me this is not a PURE survival story!


Ok.  As per your request - Bill, it's not a pure survival story.  Wink Wink

I don't deny that there may be some survival instinct there.  But I doubt that's the only factor going on here.  

In fact, if it were pure survival instinct, why wouldn't the hungry baby feed from the breast?  - especially if you say, that the baby does not have the cognitive intelligence not know what an abortion is and is concerned only about survival?  For a baby, hunger is one of the primary survival instincts.  But this baby chose to rather starve than take the mother's breast - but would feed from other mothers, bottles, etc.

A baby can feel extreme rejection.  There's an emotional reception / perception by the baby and a reaction to that emotion.  The baby can perceive the rejection of the mother and reciprocates with rejection.

I'd also point out that there are times when babies will wake up to feed every hour.  The kid isn't doing that because it needs to eat for survival.  The child is doing it because it desires the nurture of the mother's breast.

Whenever I've gone into the children's hospital here (very highly respected in North America), I'm always amazed at how much attention the entire staff pays to the emotional state of the kids - from toddlers to pre-mature babies.  The staff considers these issues of nurture and rejection as paramount to the child's emotional and thus physical condition.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 07, 2008, 04:50:03 pm
maxim wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 20:11

having worked as a psychiatry registrar, i know that the a "team of psychiatrists" is no guarantee of factuality


We agree here.  Wink

maxim wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 20:11

" ...But I do believe that the ability to experience emotion is indeed present."

it would be very naive to argue otherwise


We agree here too.

maxim wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 20:11

however, you were making point that a baby could "manipulate", with the implication that it could therefore "sin"

this is where, i believe, bill took umbrage

for the first year, a human is, hardly, even aware of "self", let alone "others"


Actually, that was not my argument.  I used the manipulation of small children as an example of this inherent behavior, not as a cause.

What I originally said was this:

PookyNMR wrote on Sat, 05 April 2008 21:31

My paternal Grandfather was of Finnish descent.  Upon my conception when I first came to life, I too was Finnish.  I was Finnish not because of anything that I had personally done or chosen.  I was Finnish because of a fact which was completely out of my control --> my Father and Grandfather and Great-grandfather, etc, etc, were all Finnish.

Humanity sinned against God.  And now, as humans, we all inherit that heritage of being sinners.


Sin is an inherent problem.  It is part of the human nature.  This is why the Bible talks about, through faith, exchanging our 'adam nature' and accepting 'Christ's' nature' of humanity.  Through Christ we can begin the process (which he will ultimately finish) of transforming into a better humanity - a humanity that bears the image of God and having the kind of life that God has (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control, etc.)

maxim wrote on Sun, 06 April 2008 20:11

for the first year, a human is, hardly, even aware of "self", let alone "others"


I'd mostly agree with this.  Babies have a very basic sense of self-awareness.  And their awareness of others is something that indeed grows over time.  But they are aware.

Even if they don't have complex cognitive abilities to categorize and formulate what's going on, they are aware.  And because they are aware, they can react.  I'd even go so far as to say that the human spirit has a great role in this all - something that is beyond mere thoughts and emotions, but rather deeper intuitions and perceptions.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 07, 2008, 06:37:12 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 07 April 2008 13:50


Actually, that was not my argument.  



do we ever finally get argued out?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 07, 2008, 07:24:34 pm
studiojimi wrote on Mon, 07 April 2008 16:37

do we ever finally get argued out?


Yeah.  When my trophy finally arrives.  Wink  Razz  Wink
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 07, 2008, 07:28:56 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 07 April 2008 16:24

studiojimi wrote on Mon, 07 April 2008 16:37

do we ever finally get argued out?


Yeah.  When my trophy finally arrives.  Wink  Razz  Wink

index.php/fa/8427/0/

be blessed!

you are a child of the KING.

and HE loooooooooooves you like the best thing he ever made
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on April 07, 2008, 10:25:24 pm
index.php/fa/8429/0/
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 08, 2008, 12:36:32 am
a Christian would want Jesus' name on the trophy don't you think?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 08, 2008, 12:56:09 am
On *that* trophy... huh...


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Bill Mueller on April 08, 2008, 09:44:20 am
PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 07 April 2008 16:24

especially if you say, that the baby does not have the cognitive intelligence


Pooky,

I said that babies do not think like ADULTS, not that they do not have "cognitive intelligence". Those are your words not mine. My wife and I actually have taught all our children to read and recognize quantity before they were a year old. My kids all go to college extremely early and all play multiple musical instruments and such. My twenty five year old son just took his medical boards on Friday.

I BELIEVE in babies.I BELIEVE in brain-injured children too. I have seen them do things that well adults would consider totally impossible.

Babies don't sin, they don't connive, deceive, get angry, or any of the negative attributes that adults display. They are innocent little creatures dependent entirely on (sometimes un-empathetic) adults for their survival. NOTHING is trivial to a baby because they KNOW they are gonners without constant care.

Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. It just forces me to return to a thread that I would rather leave alone.

Best Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 08, 2008, 10:22:26 am
[quote title=Bill Mueller wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 06:44]
PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 07 April 2008 16:24



Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. It just forces me to return to a thread that I would rather leave alone.

Best Regards,

Bill




see what a little trophy can do to a guy?

i believe you come in pure and go out pure

but the time inbetween is the earthly experience

where we learn learn learn to have dominion over the "cattle" ideas and thoughts.

it's a challenge but there is a victor available in each and everone of us.....the indwelling CHRIST light within.  from which all things are possible.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 08, 2008, 03:58:26 pm
i want my trophy back.


Life explained !

On the first day, God created the dog and said:

'Sit all day by the door of your house and bark at anyone who comes in or walks past. For this, I will give you a life span of twenty years.'

The dog said: 'That's a long time to be barking. How about only ten years and I'll give you back the other ten?'

So God agreed.

On the second day, God created the monkey and said:

'Entertain people, do tricks, and make them laugh. For this, I'll give you a twenty-year life span.'

The monkey said: 'Monkey tricks for twenty years? That's a pretty long time to perform. How about I give you back ten like the Dog did?'

And God agreed.

On the third day, God created the cow and said:

'You must go into the field with the farmer all day long and suffer under the sun, have calves and give milk to support the farmer's family. For this, I will give you a life span of sixty years.'

The cow said: 'That's kind of a tough life you want me to live for sixty years. How about twenty and I'll give back the other forty?'

And God agreed again.

On the fourth day, God created man and said:

'Eat, sleep, play, marry and enjoy your life. For this, I'll give you twenty years.'

But man said: 'Only twenty years? Could you possibly give me my twenty, the forty the cow gave back, the ten the monkey gave back, and the ten
the dog gave back; that makes eighty, okay?'

'Okay,' said God, 'You asked for it.'

So that is why for our first twenty years we eat, sleep, play and enjoy ourselves. For the next forty years we slave in the sun to support our family. For the next ten years we do monkey tricks to entertain the grandchildren. And for the last ten years we sit on the front porch and bark at everyone.

Life has now been explained to you.

There is no need to thank me for this valuable information. I'm doing it as a public service.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 08, 2008, 04:34:20 pm
Bill Mueller wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 07:44

Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. It just forces me to return to a thread that I would rather leave alone.



My apologies.  I must not have understood you correctly.  I'm not attempting to put words in your mouth, but rather understand exactly what you are trying to say by reflecting back (kind of like an active listening technique).

I'm honestly conversing with you with all kind and respectful intentions.

Bill Mueller wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 07:44

Babies don't sin


Whether or not a child under the age of 1 actually commits a sin is a even a moot point.  We just may have to agree to disagree.

Tom asked a theological question, so I offered a theological answer.  

All of humanity is conceived and born into sin.  It is part of our nature.  So whether or not a child has yet to actually commit a sinful act, the child is indeed a sinner as sin is part of our human nature.

With a last name like Mueller, I assume that you are of German descent.  Your 'German-ness' is part of your nature.  You are German not by action or by choice, but by that which is inherently given to you by your ancestry.

Same concept here.

You may agree or disagree, but that is the theological answer based on the Bible.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 08, 2008, 05:06:13 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 13:34



With a last name like Mueller, I assume that you are of German descent.  Your 'German-ness' is part of your nature.  You are German not by action or by choice, but by that which is inherently given to you by your ancestry.

Same concept here.

You may agree or disagree, but that is the theological answer based on the Bible.






WOW

talk about profiling.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Bill Mueller on April 08, 2008, 06:03:04 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 16:34

Bill Mueller wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 07:44

Please don't attempt to put words in my mouth. It just forces me to return to a thread that I would rather leave alone.



My apologies.  I must not have understood you correctly.  I'm not attempting to put words in your mouth, but rather understand exactly what you are trying to say by reflecting back (kind of like an active listening technique).

I'm honestly conversing with you with all kind and respectful intentions.

Bill Mueller wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 07:44

Babies don't sin


Whether or not a child under the age of 1 actually commits a sin is a even a moot point.  We just may have to agree to disagree.

Tom asked a theological question, so I offered a theological answer.  

All of humanity is conceived and born into sin.  It is part of our nature.  So whether or not a child has yet to actually commit a sinful act, the child is indeed a sinner as sin is part of our human nature.

With a last name like Mueller, I assume that you are of German descent.  Your 'German-ness' is part of your nature.  You are German not by action or by choice, but by that which is inherently given to you by your ancestry.

Same concept here.

You may agree or disagree, but that is the theological answer based on the Bible.





Nathan,

Ok, we are much closer to an understanding now. I was taught that the age of reason was six and before that, a child was not capable of INTENTIONAL sin. Clearly that is an arbitrary number, but the concept is acceptable to me. How's that fit into your view?

Best Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 08, 2008, 06:35:45 pm
While all of us are born with a sinful nature, sin is an act of the will ("I will" or "I won't" do such and such).  In order to sin there must be an understanding of consequence.  If a baby dies immediately after birth, does it go to hell?  If a person is never mentally capable at any age to know right from wrong, does that person go to hell?  Did all the "Holy Innocents" who were slaughtered by Herod go to hell?

To my mind the answer is of course, no.  
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 08, 2008, 09:14:32 pm
"I was taught that the age of reason was six and before that, a child was not capable of INTENTIONAL sin. Clearly that is an arbitrary number, but the concept is acceptable to me."

morality is a social condition

imo, as soon as a child develops a "theory of mind", they are capable of immoral decisions

ime, that's about 3-4 years

hell, even dogs know when they've been "bad"...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 08, 2008, 11:53:15 pm
Bill Mueller wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 16:03

Ok, we are much closer to an understanding now. I was taught that the age of reason was six and before that, a child was not capable of INTENTIONAL sin. Clearly that is an arbitrary number, but the concept is acceptable to me. How's that fit into your view?


I'm (honestly) curious, where did you learn that teaching?  I've heard various teachings of ways to deal with the difficult questions about the nature of sin and our relationship to it.  I'm just curious to know which specific line of thought you are coming from so I can more easily understand your position.

You bring up an excellent point about the issue of intentionality.  But lack of intentionality does not vindicate one from a possible sinful action.  Nor does it excuse one from their nature.

I could agree that a small child could be void the intent to do wrong.  

My experience with my kids and cookie jars, however, has taught me that intentional disobedience does come much earlier than six!  Smile  I'm sure that if we both asked our wives they may probably be able to point out a number of incidents where our actions may not have been 'intentional', but damaging none the less.  Smile
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 09, 2008, 12:05:20 am
"...But lack of intentionality does not vindicate one from a possible sinful action."

i'm no nazarene/mohammedan/judean, but i would have thought that the key to the teachings of abraham is the concept of FREE WILL...



Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 09, 2008, 12:19:45 am
Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 16:35

While all of us are born with a sinful nature, sin is an act of the will ("I will" or "I won't" do such and such).  In order to sin there must be an understanding of consequence.  If a baby dies immediately after birth, does it go to hell?  If a person is never mentally capable at any age to know right from wrong, does that person go to hell?  Did all the "Holy Innocents" who were slaughtered by Herod go to hell?

To my mind the answer is of course, no.  


Sin is a complex concept.

For example:  There is an 'act' of sin.  There is a 'state' of sin.

From one perspective, the state of being 'in sin' at it's core is being separated from God.  One does not need to be aware of intent, consequences, or anything for that matter.

The question of what happens to a baby if it dies at birth (or at an age too young for cognition of faith) is an old argument with a few view points.  This is a fringe topic where there's no clear black and white teaching.

I belong to the following camp, and take this with a big grain of salt.

God does not view people completely individualistically.  Biblically, God views us corporately.  

We can see examples of household salvation because of the faith of one member (Rehab, the Phillipi jailer, wife with unbelieving husband, etc).  We can also see examples of household judgement because of the actions of some members.

My current personal belief is that those who were born into households of faith before they were given the ability to cognitively believe will receive the benefit of their heritage of faith.  Those who were born into households that have chosen to reject God will reap the heritage of their household.

I could be wrong, but the argument for inclusion in the corporate is strongest in my opinion.

I do know those who take an individualist view and believe that those who are below the age of cognitive faith will find mercy regardless of the family heritage.

Sorry for the short explanation, but I'm in beautiful Banff, AB right now and it's time to go for a brew with the crew.  Smile
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 09, 2008, 12:24:00 am
sins are mistakes....nothing more.



if you know Him


i mean if you . . .really really really know Him


your bill is paid in consciousness and mistakes are "crossed" out
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on April 09, 2008, 08:48:55 am
So there's no distinction between malice and mistake?

Weird.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Bill Mueller on April 09, 2008, 10:53:27 am
tom eaton wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 08:48

So there's no distinction between malice and mistake?

Weird.


Yeah,

I think these guys are just making this up as they go.

Pooky, the age of reason thing is basic Catholic doctrine.

Best Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 09, 2008, 11:13:22 am
tom eaton wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 07:48

So there's no distinction between malice and mistake?

Weird.


Yes, there is a difference.  

One happens by accident and one happens on purpose.  Even if your mistake was an accident, you may still need to apologize and you might still feel remorse.  If you are purposefully, out of malice trying to wrong-do, chances are you aren't remorseful for your behavior.  You might even know you did it out of malice, but you wouldn't apologize or stop.

Mistakes are accidents.  You can still slip into error.  Repentance doesn't mean you'll never make a mistake again.  But, like Barry said, if you understand the consequences and keep making "mistakes", they are no longer mistakes.  They are intended malice.  I think Jesus makes a pretty clear distinction between the two, but that's just one person's perspective.

Once, a friend knocked my violin bow off of my music stand, and it fell to the floor and snapped in half.  It was a mistake, an accident.  There would have been a great difference if she had done it on purpose, or not felt sorry.

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on April 09, 2008, 11:31:25 am
So Jimi would say that your friend sinned when he broke your bow.  Clear enough.  Like shooting someone, just a mistake.  I mean, a sin. Crap, I made a mistake. Was that a sin?  
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 09, 2008, 12:24:19 pm
tom eaton wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 10:31

So Jimi would say that your friend sinned when he broke your bow.  Clear enough.  Like shooting someone, just a mistake.  I mean, a sin. Crap, I made a mistake. Was that a sin?  



HA!  I'm glad to see you're keeping your sense of humor about this.

Jimi is a big boy, he can speak for himself.  Besides, I no more can tell what's in his head than you can.   Laughing

The violin bow thing was just an example.  Here's another example that was given to me (take it or leave it):

A man is beating his wife.  There's lot of reasons why stuff like this happens, but suffice it to say he is doing it, and this guy goes to church and the whole works.  Now, if he just loses his temper, I mean completely flies off the handle sometimes and beats his wife, but then repents.... it was a mistake.  A really horrible mistake that seems unforgivable in our eyes.  But God will forgive the man.  (His wife might not, but God will).

However, if he just says, "Well, where I come from we beat our wives, and that's all there is to it," and continues to beat his wife just because, that's malice.  

Are they both sin?  Err.... I'm not sure I can answer that.  Probably, but I'm balking at this point.  I think God cares more about your motivations.  

In the first example: If my friend tipped my bow onto the floor because she hated me, that would have been a sin.  Not the breaking of the bow so much as the hatred for me.  In the second example:  the dude's sin is not necessarily the violence so much as it is that he isn't loving and protecting his wife.  

Don't believe for a second that I am condoning domestic violence with this example.  I'm just saying God wants you to be healthy inside yourself, and your actions and behaviors will become more healthy because of it.  

When the dude begins to love and cherish his wife.... he's going to stop beating her.  That sounds so simple to us, but for a guy like that it would probably be a life-changing revelation.  

The Bible's summary of this is that your words and actions are an overflow of what is in your heart.  

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 09, 2008, 12:38:23 pm
If the man beats his wife (once)and repents (to rethink, to change one's heart), it is a sin which God will forgive.  But there is something terribly wrong somewhere.  Part of repentance then would be to get treatment so it doesn't happen again.  It is important to note remorse and repentance are two very different things.

If he habitually beats his wife, she should leave him for her safety and that of any children.  If he won't get help, she and the kids should never return. Then let God decide what should happen next.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 09, 2008, 12:41:28 pm
Thank you for clarifying that better than I could, Barry.

You are very correct.  There is no Biblical direction that I know of which says you must subject yourself to violence from your partner.

J
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 09, 2008, 03:45:05 pm
studiojimi wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 21:24

sins are mistakes....nothing more.



if you know Him


i mean if you . . .really really really know Him


your bill is paid in consciousness and mistakes are "crossed" out



this is the simple gift and solution

you can type page after page but not much needs to be said about this.

God is the answer--and this in not debate-able.....

sowhat is the question?

the answer will always be the same.

and i cannot spend valuable time complicating it

He either is or isn't for and if he isn't

may He have mercy on your soul.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 09, 2008, 04:18:21 pm
studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 14:45

studiojimi wrote on Tue, 08 April 2008 21:24

sins are mistakes....nothing more.



if you know Him


i mean if you . . .really really really know Him


your bill is paid in consciousness and mistakes are "crossed" out



this is the simple gift and solution

you can type page after page but not much needs to be said about this.

God is the answer--and this in not debate-able.....

sowhat is the question?

the answer will always be the same.

and i cannot spend valuable time complicating it

He either is or isn't for and if he isn't

may He have mercy on your soul.


Ah, sorry to disagree, brother Jimi.

Jesus always allowed people to ask questions of him.  Even tho' Jesus knew the answers, the people asking didn't.  

And even after that, Jesus didn't give a quiz!  Remember the rich young ruler?  Do we ever know what became of him?  I don't believe so.  Sometimes we see the fruits of our discussion.  Sometimes we don't.  

I am sorry that you see this as complicating a simple question.  But the many pages of this thread and millennia of history disagree with your assertion.  Christianity may be a lot of things, but I have never viewed it as "simple".  

Why do you think I started this thread?  So people can pat me on the head?  Nooooo...... I guessed that some people might like to have a chance to ask questions or state their views(about religion or whatever) and be taken seriously.  I certainly feel as tho' my time and opinions have been treated with great respect (thank you everyone).

At any rate, if not this thread, then I hope you can find something else which is a more valuable use of your time.    Confused

Jess
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 09, 2008, 04:23:18 pm
my time is not at issue

i will continue short posts and all this goobledegook is silly to me
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 09, 2008, 04:26:01 pm
studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 15:23

my time is not at issue

i will continue short posts and all this goobledegook is silly to me



Oh, I must have misunderstood you.  

I'm sorry you find it silly.  I find it highly engaging and challenging.  

Best,
Jess
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on April 09, 2008, 05:04:25 pm
studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 15:45


God is the answer--and this in not debate-able.....



In that case, why bother "discussing" the matter at all?  

Or is this not a discussion at all?



 
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 09, 2008, 07:25:24 pm
i think it means 'not able to debate it'...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 09, 2008, 09:48:48 pm
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 13:26

studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 15:23

my time is not at issue

i will continue short posts and all this goobledegook is silly to me



Oh, I must have misunderstood you.  

I'm sorry you find it silly.  I find it highly engaging and challenging.  

Best,
Jess


i find it more engaging and challenging to keep my consciousness on Him rather than spar about Him


as i say...for me thanks and praise...
serves Him and serves me better


and i can do that here, church, the bank and thrifty drugs

anywhere anytime ...all the time!
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on April 09, 2008, 10:32:31 pm
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 16:26

studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 15:23

my time is not at issue

i will continue short posts and all this goobledegook is silly to me



Oh, I must have misunderstood you.  

I'm sorry you find it silly.  I find it highly engaging and challenging.  

Best,
Jess


It was a nice try, Jessica, but all threads that begin as a debate on religion must come to a screeching halt by the sheer force of jimi's inanity.  There's nothing left to do with this thread except post pictures of Mike Huckabee in unamusing scenarios.  I'm sure we all find that terribly enriching.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 09, 2008, 11:26:36 pm
JS wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 19:32

Jessica A. Engle wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 16:26

studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 15:23

my time is not at issue

i will continue short posts and all this goobledegook is silly to me



Oh, I must have misunderstood you.  

I'm sorry you find it silly.  I find it highly engaging and challenging.  

Best,
Jess


It was a nice try, Jessica, but all threads that begin as a debate on religion must come to a screeching halt by the sheer force of jimi's inanity.  There's nothing left to do with this thread except post pictures of Mike Huckabee in unamusing scenarios.  I'm sure we all find that terribly enriching.


JS no need to get personal and call names.

rest assured i'm quite content so understand the Truth that what you say or think about me is none of my spiritual business.

i find the huckabee photo collection a hoot and a hobby

too bad for you if you don't dig it

i've had a ball with it and a few others have in enjoyed it as well

is it me. . . or are you just having a bad day?? hmmmm?

God Bless.

your studiojimi

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 10, 2008, 09:34:17 am
studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 20:48

Jessica A. Engle wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 13:26

studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 15:23

my time is not at issue

i will continue short posts and all this goobledegook is silly to me



Oh, I must have misunderstood you.  

I'm sorry you find it silly.  I find it highly engaging and challenging.  

Best,
Jess


i find it more engaging and challenging to keep my consciousness on Him rather than spar about Him


as i say...for me thanks and praise...serves me better


and i can do that here, church, the bank and thrify drugs

anywhere anytime ...all the time!



I think you misunderstand the difference between a "spar" and intelligent conversation.  Not everyone asks questions to pick fights.  Some people are "seeking".  Some are just curious.  Have you forgotten what it was like to be a "seeker"?  I haven't.

I grow weary of your obstinance.  Why do you constantly imply that my discussions with others about this are somehow lacking in "thanks and praise" or that it is somehow below you?  You are free to leave at any time, yet you stay and ridicule myself and others.  And it is, in fact, ridicule.  

And to some extent, what others say and think about you SHOULD be a matter of your spiritual business.  I am glad you are content.  Very glad, in fact.  But you are constantly and repeatedly a stumbling block for others.   I wish it were not so, and I wish I wasn't angry enough to say that about you, who seem at times to be a good fellow of good humor and patience and understanding.  

Please don't try to speculate as to whether or not I am having a bad day.  I'll tell you flat out that I am.  You've finally instigated anger from me.  Now we're both hippocrites in the eyes of everyone here.  

It is likely that I will regret my anger later.  But in the heat of the moment, I guess I am willing to shame the Lord to satisfy my personal feelings.  And that is truly shameful.  But God loves ME as much as he loves YOU.  So maybe He'll bring something PRODUCTIVE out of MY anger instead of something BANAL.  At least that is what I am praying for at the moment.

Sorry.  To everyone.

Jessica  
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 10, 2008, 10:06:49 am
too blessed to be stressed here or anywhere.

(and not superior and i know it can appear that way at time from some of the things i say)

and for sho' not angry....
perhaps these are just seeker growing pains?

suggestion

let go...let God.


and for the new seekers

(hey great band name idea)

PERFECT WORK.

Perfect work with perfect pay
is yours today
without delay.  
Open your mind.
Receive the task.
Get to work
and
release your past.

God has a plan
and
you fit right in it.  
Today is the day
to just begin following
the plan.  
You have the talent,
you have got the skill.
Remember to pray
and
let God fulfill it.

You are Spirit.  
You are God's own child.  
Today is your day,
you cannot be denied.
Faith is your key,
it opens the door
to opportunities that chase you
and
knock down your door.

Put your best foot forward.
Believe in yourself.
 God's plan
for you is unfolding today.
God
gave you power.  
Use it for good.  
May the blessings of God
pour upon you.  
You have got what it takes,
the time is now,
to move forward and know
your blessings abound.

Perfect work with perfect pay
is yours today
without delay!

Editor's note -- from the "Alphabet of Life
(Page 3-6):
Consider the letter U.  
Unlimited wealth is your birthright.  

" . . . I work and who can hinder it?"
Isaiah 43:13
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on April 10, 2008, 10:44:54 am
The hammer of Jessica is mighty indeed.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: weepit on April 10, 2008, 11:20:36 am
studiojimi wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 09:06



(and not superior and i know it can appear that way at time from some of the things i say)




Trust when I tell you with 100% honesty that no one here thinks you are superior.  In any way, shape or form.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Bill Mueller on April 10, 2008, 11:20:37 am
Jessica,

Thanks for your candor. Don't worry about your passion. No one needs an apology.

Best Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 10, 2008, 12:54:48 pm
weepit wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 08:20

studiojimi wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 09:06



(and not superior and i know it can appear that way at time from some of the things i say)




Trust when I tell you with 100% honesty that no one here thinks you are superior.  In any way, shape or form.




that's good as i don't care what you think anyway

that is none of my spiritual business.




and remember

danickster's observation
Quote:


   
The hammer of Jessica is mighty indeed.


when you don't resonate use a hammer on them!
now that's Christlike!

index.php/fa/8469/0/
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: ScotcH on April 10, 2008, 12:58:23 pm
I enjoy reading threads like this, mostly because I'm bored at work, but also to learn something about the art of debate, and to occasionally poke a stick in to the hornet's nest.

What really irritates me however, is all this fucking bible quoting that's going on for no reason other than preaching.  The quotes that are relevant to the debate and discussion, I can understand ... but come on now ... quoting just for the hell of it?  Please ... if I want preaching, I'll go to church, or open a thread titled "stories from the bible" or something.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: bblackwood on April 10, 2008, 01:01:08 pm
This thread had so much promise...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 10, 2008, 01:20:09 pm
studiojimi wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 11:54


and remember

danickster's observation
Quote:


   
The hammer of Jessica is mighty indeed.


when you don't resonate use a hammer on them!
now that's Christlike!

index.php/fa/8469/0/


Jimi,

If you feel the need to mock my spirituality, please do it via PM.  I simply draw the line when you start making vague comments like this about where I stand in Christ.  I'm doing the best I can.

If you have a rebuttal to the things I have said to you (and I would GLADLY be proven wrong), please feel free to share, here or via PM or write it on the f*cking sky I do not care.  I promise I will listen and evaluate your words as un-biasedly as I can.  If not, please just accept the fact that you are actively hurting my feelings and embarassing me in front of everyone, whether you intend to or not, and please stop.

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: CCC on April 10, 2008, 01:22:47 pm
studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 23:26


i find the huckabee photo collection a hoot and a hobby

too bad for you if you don't dig it

i've had a ball with it and a few others have in enjoyed it as well



So far I don't see too many people chiming in to support you with respect to the great enjoyment you are spreading with your Huckabee fetish.

studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 23:26


is it me. . . or are you just having a bad day?? hmmmm?



It's you.

As far as I'm concerned, every day above ground is a good day.  And in any case I enjoy your posts insofar as they consistently reinforce rather than challenge my views.  

studiojimi wrote on Wed, 09 April 2008 23:26


God Bless.

your studiojimi




May you be touched by the noodly appendage of the flying spaghetti monster.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 10, 2008, 01:58:57 pm
ScotcH wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 09:58

I enjoy reading threads like this, mostly because I'm bored at work, but also to learn something about the art of debate, and to occasionally poke a stick in to the hornet's nest.

What really irritates me however, is all this fucking bible quoting that's going on for no reason other than preaching.  The quotes that are relevant to the debate and discussion, I can understand ... but come on now ... quoting just for the hell of it?  Please ... if I want preaching, I'll go to church, or open a thread titled "stories from the bible" or something.



i think it is fine and dandy that you feel like that

i have two solutions for you

use ignore to the people who offend you

or

open your understanding we all have a right to free speech and use your divine gifts of love and tolerance.


scotch (and to a few others) i hope you continue to include us all and continue to tell us how you really feel and allow the rest of us to do the same.

God bless.
studiojimi
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: ScotcH on April 10, 2008, 02:31:54 pm
studiojimi wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 13:58



i think it is fine and dandy that you feel like that

i have two solutions for you

use ignore to the people who offend you

or

open your understanding we all have a right to free speech and use your divine gifts of love and tolerance.


scotch (and to a few others) i hope you continue to include us all and continue to tell us how you really feel and allow the rest of us to do the same.

God bless.
studiojimi


Jimi:  I don't like the ignore feature, simply because I believe that even the most irritating and stupid people (no, I don't mean you!) have something good and useful to say at least SOME of the time.  I have no choice but to use the occasional  Rolling Eyes emoticon and move on.  I just wish I didn't have to, that's all, since really the preaching has nothing to do with the debate, and makes the other points you make harder to take seriously.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: cerberus on April 10, 2008, 04:24:39 pm
i'd like to see bruno putzeys return to posting on this forum.
any thoughts on this from anyone ?

jeff dinces
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 10, 2008, 05:23:54 pm
ScotcH wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 11:31

  I just wish I didn't have to, that's all, since really the preaching has nothing to do with the debate, and makes the other points you make harder to take seriously.


don't we all wish we didn't have to do something everyday.

love and tolerance bro.

is everyone here to please one another?

i'm certainly not here to do that.

we all have are right to self expression and to create the way we  want to do such with the techniques we personally are endowed with

but to criticize and reprimand and attempt to sqealch another?

whatever points i make are my opinions and knowledge based on my experience and some of that requires personal affirmation techniques....and i don't really care to keep re-stating that i will exercise my freedom of self expression regardless of your wishes. you don't need to hear and i don't want to re claim it.

back off a bit on the control issues.

if you don't like the gifts i bring...just say no thanks and keep on truckin'

this thread could be about so much more than admonishing each other tediously.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 10, 2008, 06:32:36 pm
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 12:01

This thread had so much promise...


Where did you get *that* crazy idea...  Shocked  Wink


Jimi, you might consider "less is more" and even the ocean pounding on the beach eventually turns rocks to sand.  A change of subject, a change of expression, just "a change" is good from time to time.

I understand you are happy in the Lord and want to proclaim it, but even the best pitchers know to throw a "change up" once in a while.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 10, 2008, 06:45:10 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 15:32

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 12:01

This thread had so much promise...


Where did you get *that* crazy idea...  Shocked  Wink


Jimi, you might consider "less is more" and even the ocean pounding on the beach eventually turns rocks to sand.  A change of subject, a change of expression, just "a change" is good from time to time.

I understand you are happy in the Lord and want to proclaim it, but even the best pitchers know to throw a "change up" once in a while.




JEEPERS

what's with all the suggestions

personal change is our own individual responsibility

i don't see myself as the "inferior" one in this situation.

can this thread STOP being about me...that is not my desire.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Bill Mueller on April 10, 2008, 07:17:43 pm
studiojimi wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 18:45

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 15:32

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 12:01

This thread had so much promise...


Where did you get *that* crazy idea...  Shocked  Wink


Jimi, you might consider "less is more" and even the ocean pounding on the beach eventually turns rocks to sand.  A change of subject, a change of expression, just "a change" is good from time to time.

I understand you are happy in the Lord and want to proclaim it, but even the best pitchers know to throw a "change up" once in a while.




JEEPERS

what's with all the suggestions

personal change is our own individual responsibility

i don't see myself as the "inferior" one in this situation.

can this thread STOP being about me...that is not my desire.


Jimi,

This thread has become about how you treat people. You can't really change that anymore. A moment of humility could help you a lot.

Best Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 10, 2008, 07:30:45 pm
to me is is about a few being judgmental.

and that just don't fly with me.

but i still don't care how you feel about what you think you see.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on April 10, 2008, 08:22:20 pm
If you truly don't care what other people think, why are you here trying to pontificate?  People's judgments are not validated by whether they "fly" with you.  

We know how you feel, and you don't seem interested in an intelligent conversation, rather you state your "truths" as the only way and distract from Jessica's intention of a creative, explorational discussion about a greater spirituality.

And now it has become about you, sadly.

-tom
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 10, 2008, 08:33:14 pm
Jimi,

I'm not trying to hurt your feelings or offend you.  No one wants to change you.  I'm just talking about lightening up a little.

It's a little bit like someone who keeps saying the same thing over and over.  You heard it the first time.  You enjoyed it. And now you want a little bit of a change.  There's nothing wrong with the person and what they said, it's just that a new topic or way of presenting the subject would be nice.  That's all.

Please take this as *friendly* advice from someone who cares about you and your feelings.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 10, 2008, 09:19:13 pm
i think the huckabee thread demonstrates that if you can't get your point across in one post, doing it 150 times isn't going to make it any clearer


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Strummer on April 10, 2008, 11:35:30 pm
studiojimi wrote on Thu, 10 April 2008 19:30


but i still don't care how you feel about what you think you see.




There you have it, there it is.

The end


(I wish)
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 12, 2008, 07:42:27 pm
So a couple days have gone by and I've been thinking about whether or not I should write something here.  Or what I should say.  And I'm still undecided.

I guess what I should say is that I'm not mad at anyone, and I stand by what I said before about how impressed I am with the civility of everyone here.  I've learned more than I knew before about each person who has posted, contributed their thoughts and experiences, and I'll chalk that up as a win.

If it is The End, (and I'm not necessarily saying it shouldn't be, you can decide that one) I felt it should be on a better note.  

All my best,
Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 12, 2008, 10:16:56 pm
how about this note:

no matter what you believe in, it's wrong

like every other part of your body, your brain isn't perfect

just don't hurt other people for personal gain and you'll be in paradise before you know it...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on April 13, 2008, 12:14:27 am
maxim wrote on Sat, 12 April 2008 22:16

no matter what you believe in, it's wrong


do you really believe that?  because that'd make it, like, wrong.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 13, 2008, 01:46:18 am
i don't believe it

i know it...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 13, 2008, 02:14:13 am
Because your brain isn't perfect, even if you "know it" there's still a huge likelihood you're wrong.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 13, 2008, 02:32:34 am
absolutely...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 13, 2008, 11:42:24 am
I'm glad you said "absolutely" 'cause I was afraid I was wrong.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 13, 2008, 02:11:03 pm
You are wrong.  But if I believe so, does that mean you're actually right?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: John Ivan on April 13, 2008, 02:29:05 pm
Ah .. Indeed. Here we have it.. For me personally, I sometimes have a nagging feeling that we're not alone. However, basing my path through life on this idea is dangerous for me. We are so often wrong about so many things that I can't see making the necessary judgments required to Have Faith.

As I've mentioned before, the only problem I have with other people and their faith is that they inevitably pass judgment on others within this frame work and then they are elected to public office and our world crashes..

I don't mean to imply that all people of faith are represented by the current batch of Morons in the executive branch but for some reason, I still hear people refer to GWBs' Faith as one of his only redeeming qualities. I think that his twisted view of "God's World" is his biggest problem..

The lingering concept that others will be heading toward Hell is enough to make me physically sick. Until God Herself appears and explains all this, I just can't take part.. I know others can and I respect this, so long as the respect is two way street..

Ivan...................
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on April 13, 2008, 08:00:58 pm
What he said.

Great post, John.

-tom
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 13, 2008, 08:18:48 pm
John Ivan wrote on Sun, 13 April 2008 13:29


I don't mean to imply that all people of faith are represented by the current batch of Morons in the executive branch but for some reason, I still hear people refer to GWBs' Faith as one of his only redeeming qualities. I think that his twisted view of "God's World" is his biggest problem..

Ivan...................


John,

I think that's his greatest flaw as well.  But I wonder, was there any way we (voters, Christians, anybody) could have known what was in his heart?  How do you discern between a faithful person who is true to God's word (or even remotely close) and one who is purposely and maliciously astray?  Is it only by their actions, or do you find other kinds of observations tip you off as well?

I would be interested to hear what you think.  

Edit:  In other words..... (other than starting wars in middle eastern countries), is the passing of judgement your only qualm?  I am astonished you can limit it to one thing, to be honest.  But maybe this one thing sums up all the others in my mind, the more I consider it.

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: John Ivan on April 13, 2008, 09:31:46 pm
Jessica,

In 2000, it's doubtful that we could have known how full of fear and hate GWBs' heart would become. In 2004, I knew. I absolutely knew for sure. Like I know my own name, I had no doubt at all that he was bent on continuing and expanding War for the sake of War {and white Christians being Gods people}, and that he wanted to privatize every part of the government he could because he believes that only certain people should be rich.. I'm convinced of all this..

The method we should use for figuring out who's a "Good Christian" or who's a "Bad Christian" is the same method we who are NOT Christians should use to decide who's "Good" or "Bad". We must monitor one another's behavior and make judgments based on criteria we ALL agree on. {I, wont break into your house, steel your car, beat your child, be dishonest or unfaithful, use hate or anger to get what I want,  etc...}.

So yes, it is words AND deed's that tip us off.

When I refer to the passing of judgment, I think it's worth remembering that when you run the free world, this has huge implications. These poor judgments turn to action and we end up having what we have now. Other people of Faith have been in the white house and have done a pretty good job, at least of running the day to day. So, it's not as simple as the passing of judgment being my only qualm.

The new breed of super Christian believes that Murder is justified. They Govern based on their "Bet" that they are God's people and they can do no wrong. They then make decisions about how they will protect Gods kingdom on Earth. These decisions grow into dead people in the desert, a scary national air space system, the worst justice department maybe ever, and as you know, the list is much more impressive than I can demonstrate here.

As it turns out, I'm not limiting it to one thing. But in fact hundreds of things that are the result of mentally ill people ruining our world.

Ivan....................

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 13, 2008, 09:44:21 pm
Google Bush, Africa and Geldof, and it turns out GWB has been OK for at least some parts of the world. We may yet discover unseen motives, but as of now I'm prepared to take this on face value.

Although I've resigned from this conversation out of the sheer pointlessness of saying anything, one thing that strikes me is how under the umbrella term "christian" we see what appear to me to be quite literally different "faiths", i.e. different ideas of what faith means, what Christ means, ad infinitum. Apparently, arguing about faith is like arguing about food. Some of the flavors available here I find quite palatable, others less so.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: John Ivan on April 13, 2008, 09:52:04 pm
mgod wrote on Sun, 13 April 2008 21:44

Google Bush, Africa and Geldof, and it turns out GWB has been OK for at least some parts of the world. We may yet discover unseen motives, but as of now I'm prepared to take this on face value.

Although I've resigned from this conversation out of the sheer pointlessness of saying anything, one thing that strikes me is how under the umbrella term "christian" we see what appear to me to be quite literally different "faiths", i.e. different ideas of what faith means, what Christ means, ad infinitum. Apparently, arguing about faith is like arguing about food. Some of the flavors available here I find quite palatable, others less so.

DS




Fair enough. I hope I find out one day the he's only stupid. Not evil AND stupid..

I don't think the conversation is pointless ..It takes some banter to reveal ourselves.I too think we are talking about several completely different religions but the folks I know who are the kind of Christians I like calling friend are not being aggressive enough about denouncing others using the term "Christian". This may be easy for me to say because I don't know what it's like to have someone hijack my Faith, it's just my opinion. An observation.

Ivan.........................
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 13, 2008, 10:06:49 pm
by the latest count >30% of all people who believe in "god", are followers of moses, an egyptian who believed in a skygod

the very many flavours of hinduism and its offspring, buddhism, are also related to the basic skygod/s formula (???aryan expansion)

i'm not sure about the non-indoeuropean beliefs, but most of them concern themselves with earth spirits (??african origin) or philosophy (taoism)

however, unlike food, faith is NOT ESSENTIAL for survival

one can get along without it very well


btw, i'm quite happy to judge gwb

there is only ONE commandment

DO NO HURT OTHERS FOR PERSONAL GAIN

he has failed...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 13, 2008, 11:41:25 pm
Max,

I'm not sure I understand this sentence you wrote:
by the latest count >30% of all people who believe in "god", are followers of moses, an egyptian who believed in a skygod...

Are you saying Moses was an Egyptian?  See that's what I don't understand and I don't want to mis-read your post.  But in case it is, Moses was a Hebrew (Jew) who was adopted by the Egyptian Royal Family.

But I am eager to understand you better.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 14, 2008, 01:08:02 am
barry

let's accept that moses was a real person (a grand assumption, but let's run with it)

what we know about him is that he was an egyptian prince who helped the jewish slaves escape to  judea

all of that sounds plausible

he may indeed have been adopted, and perhaps, even found in the marshes

he may have even been jewish

but he GREW UP as an egyptian and that's what matters

his god is not much different to ra or thoth or marduk...
Title: moses
Post by: studiojimi on April 14, 2008, 10:01:06 am
actually you are both wrong.

(as usual)

moses was found in a little basket wrapped in swaddling clothes

coming down the nile river.  

a little known fact,

he was also black.

he was sent by God

when they found the basket....they queried asked each other...

who is this little baby? how did this little baby appear here so suddenly and seemingly from out of no where?

and they looked down upon him and were astonished the baby spoke saying,









"I'ze mosis."

i hope this helps you resolve the moses issue.

he also was a recording artist

index.php/fa/8511/0/
Title: Re: moses
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 14, 2008, 11:11:44 am
Jimi,

not to derail our conversation too much, but I was wondering if you would just take a moment and tell us a little about yourself.  It occurs to me that I know pretty much nothing about you.

When did you become a Christian?  What sort of struggles led you to become a believer?  It is my experience that only when someone hits a wall of some kind do they seek out greater meaning for themself through God.  Do you have a family?  Or a dog?  I know you are a drummer, what made you take up that instrument?  You can tell us anything you want, really.  You don't have to, but I would be glad if you did.

We can still discuss whether or not Moses was a Jew, or if it even matters.  I'm interested in that discussion.  But it would be a lot easier for me to accept your point of view (humor?) if you could explain to us how you have come to your conclusions.  Surely you must have some autonomy inside you somewhere.  I know you do.  

I'll even go first, if that makes you feel less singled-out:  

I wish I had a dog.  I used to have one; her name was Pooki and we adopted her from someone at a flea market who didn't want her anymore, back when I was a kid.  She was about half-terrier, half-pommeranian I reckon.  Super smart, too.  She lived to be very old, around 12 years.  She died the first week I moved away to college, so I wasn't with her when she passed.  My parents never took our pets to the vet, so I don't know why she died, either.  I really miss her a lot, she was my best friend for a long time.  Still have her collar and tags.  I especially loved grooming her, strange as that sounds.  

Jessica
Title: Re: moses
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 14, 2008, 12:37:36 pm
Moses was indeed a Jew who was found in the marshes by Pharoah's daughter and was as an Egyptian prince.  His God is different.  Moses met God out in the desert when God spoke to him through a "burning bush" - a bush on fire but not being consumed by it.  This God brought 7 plagues upon Egypt (for those keeping track, the number 7 is associated with the Holy Spirit).  With each plague, Pharaoh prayed to his gods.  Of course no counter to the plagues came from them.

God's final plague was the killing of the first born in each household.  This recalls Christ as God's Son and his sacrifice for humanity.  The Jews were not affected by this curse because they wiped blood over the door frame of their houses.  The Angel of Death passed over these houses - hence the Jewish Feast of Passover.  After this plague, Pharaoh - whose son had died - demanded the Hebrews leave Egypt.  After they left, Pharaoh regretted his decision and went after them.  God parted the Red Sea allowing the Hebrews to cross but crashed the sea down on Pharaoh and his men when they too tried to cross.  Soon after, Moses received the 10 Commandments and the Jews wandered in the desert 40 (the number of completion) years because of their idolatry.

For those wanting the Bible summarized in one sentence, "The Devil did it and we helped".
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Larrchild on April 14, 2008, 12:42:22 pm
index.php/fa/8514/0/
So basically, Flip Wilson was right then...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 14, 2008, 01:23:31 pm
maxim wrote on Sun, 13 April 2008 23:08

but he GREW UP as an egyptian and that's what matters

his god is not much different to ra or thoth or marduk...


That's only partially true.  If you read the story (Exodus 2), you will find that for a significant time, he was raised by his mother.  So it is likely that before he entered the royal court that he had some basic familiarity with Hebrew custom.

Being raised later in the royal court, I'm sure he was familiar with ra, isis, etc.

But it is clear that the God of the exodus revealed himself as Yahweh (YHWH), "I Am."

Whether or not he had known and even worshiped other Gods before he met Yahweh, the God of his Hebrew ancestors, is immaterial.  God will call whomever he desires.  God made covenant with Abraham who was an idolater.  
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 14, 2008, 01:24:28 pm
discussing my personal life is not what i want to do in this thread

perhaps PM or telephone

i had a nice chat with barry hufker last week

very enjoyable

i will say this

i have had a few dogs in my day.

(don't jump on that line guys)

a cocker named bobo

a cat named queenie

i had a boxer that my grandfather found in the woods but my mom would not let me have him for some reason



then a terrier named kippy

then many years went by

as an adult i have had

a rottweiler named rhina

a harlequin great dane named amadeus

a terrier mix named marvin who got hit by a car early in our relationship named after marvin gaye
an now i have Timothy my current terrier mix

this is young Timoteo as my immigrant workers call him

he snaps at all of my clients when they come back from the bathroom....and the client keep returning ...go figure

index.php/fa/8515/0/
Title: Re: moses
Post by: John Ivan on April 14, 2008, 01:41:28 pm
Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 14 April 2008 12:37



God's final plague was the killing of the first born in each household.  This recalls Christ as God's Son and his sacrifice for humanity.  The Jews were not affected by this curse because they wiped blood over the door frame of their houses.  


Wow Man!! That is some pretty brutal stuff.


Ivan....................
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 14, 2008, 02:38:51 pm
If you think that is brutal, you should read how all of the ancient near east used to live (or die)...  But take that plague and put it in the context of Pharaoh's order to kill all the male Hebrew boys and it makes more sense.  God is speaking in a language that they will understand.
Title: Re: moses
Post by: studiojimi on April 14, 2008, 02:39:41 pm
John Ivan wrote on Mon, 14 April 2008 10:41

Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 14 April 2008 12:37



God's final plague was the killing of the first born in each household.  This recalls Christ as God's Son and his sacrifice for humanity.  The Jews were not affected by this curse because they wiped blood over the door frame of their houses.  


Wow Man!! That is some pretty brutal stuff.


Ivan....................




hence the term

blood of the lamb?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 14, 2008, 03:27:52 pm
Jimi,

Thanks for sharing.

And I've just resigned myself to the fact that I'm not as cool as Barry.  It's OK.

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 14, 2008, 06:45:50 pm
Damn straight.
Title: Re: moses
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 14, 2008, 06:47:44 pm
John Ivan wrote on Mon, 14 April 2008 12:41

Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 14 April 2008 12:37



God's final plague was the killing of the first born in each household.  This recalls Christ as God's Son and his sacrifice for humanity.  The Jews were not affected by this curse because they wiped blood over the door frame of their houses.  


Wow Man!! That is some pretty brutal stuff.


Ivan....................



Some people's hearts are so hard it takes a dramatic lesson to get them to pay attention to what you have to say (and to convince them you're serious).
Title: Re: moses
Post by: John Ivan on April 14, 2008, 07:48:25 pm
Yes indeed Barry. The problem is, if I employ this tactic, I go to jail Shocked  Shocked .. There are certainly people who need to pay attention to what is being said in this world.. I can't make them all sick though.. To bad..

Ivan....................
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 14, 2008, 08:32:26 pm
that story is the reason i have an issue with the whole book

dostoyevsky asked the question:

"is the happiness of the world worth the life of an innocent child"

that's what i call evolution of thought...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 14, 2008, 09:00:01 pm
Are any humans truly innocent?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 14, 2008, 09:13:05 pm
maxim wrote on Mon, 14 April 2008 19:32

that story is the reason i have an issue with the whole book

dostoyevsky asked the question:

"is the happiness of the world worth the life of an innocent child"

that's what i call evolution of thought...


"Is the salvation of the world worth the life of one innocent man?"  That's what *I* call evolution of thought.  Mine is not a rhetorical question as it has an answer: Yes apparently it is.

I mean this sincerely and without any snarkiness: Max, have you read the Bible all the way through?  It makes a big difference on your perspective depending upon whether you have or haven't.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 14, 2008, 10:35:51 pm
i agree with you, barry, that the new testament was a great improvement on the old

jesus's judaism 2.0 (christianity) version, which contained the story of ultimate forgiveness, was a MAJOR upgrade, unfortunately, many christians have failed to take it onboard, because they believe jesus to be divine and, therefore, different to all the other "children of god"

mohammad's judaism 2.5 (islam) version fixed that bug, by reconfirming that idolatry is not allowed, but faied to provide a path to UNDERSTANDING the moral structure

petrarch's judaism 3.0 (humanism) allowed for the intellect to enter the picture, and is the CURRENT doctrine

HOWEVER, none of that is necessary, if you accept the cartesian axiom:

"i think therefore i am"





Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 14, 2008, 10:40:44 pm
"...Being raised later in the royal court, I'm sure he was familiar with ra, isis, etc.

But it is clear that the God of the exodus revealed himself as Yahweh (YHWH), "I Am.""

the god of the old testament is imbued with all the same attributes as the other principal gods of the canaan mythology

the only difference is that all the other gods are proclaimed to be "idols", and, therefore, illegal
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 14, 2008, 11:47:20 pm
Max,

But it is different yet.  Jesus is Completely Man and Completely GOD.  He is totally both in one body.  That's why his sacrifice works.  You see, he is the Priest (which means "bridge") between God and Man.  Because he is fully both he can fully represent both sides to bring about a reconciliation.  That is what makes him unique and capable.

With regard to other cultures in the Middle East at that time, all other cultures had many gods, only the Hebrews had monotheism.  And it is that *One* who told the Hebrews not to have any other.  That is why the Jews wandered in the desert for 40 years (again, 40 being the number of completion) as atonement for worshiping a golden calf while Moses was on Mt. Sinai receiving God's 10 Commandments.

So things are indeed substantially different than you've identified.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 14, 2008, 11:54:57 pm
how so?

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 14, 2008, 11:58:33 pm
Well... as I mentioned.  Jesus is also divine, the Hebrews have only 1 God... you know, the one who performed miracles, just as Jesus does later... that sorta thing... that sort of "makes all the difference in the world" stuff...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 15, 2008, 12:07:35 am
i never said that hebrews believed in more than one god, just that it looked very much like the other gods around

as for jesus's divinity, barry, you are also divine...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 15, 2008, 12:08:52 am
Thanks Max! I've always thought you have nice eyes.  We should have coffee some time (soon).

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 15, 2008, 12:12:04 am
sounds heavenly...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 15, 2008, 12:24:59 am
maxim wrote on Mon, 14 April 2008 20:35

i agree with you, barry, that the new testament was a great improvement on the old


Can't understand one without the other.

Even though the OT is focused heavily on justice, it would be inaccurate to say that it ignores mercy.

maxim wrote on Mon, 14 April 2008 20:35

jesus's judaism 2.0 (christianity) version, which contained the story of ultimate forgiveness, was a MAJOR upgrade, unfortunately, many christians have failed to take it onboard, because they believe jesus to be divine and, therefore, different to all the other "children of god"


Jesus himself affirmed his divinity.  That wasn't a later Christian invention.

That fact provides for us a blessing not a curse.  In so far as Christ shared our humanity, we shall share in his divinity.

maxim wrote on Mon, 14 April 2008 20:35

"i think therefore i am"


A clear expression of an individualist world view.  

How about, "We are, therefore I am."

The Africans have a saying, "motho ke motho ba batho ba bangwumuntu ngumuntu ngabantu"  - "A person can only be a person through others."


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 15, 2008, 09:27:19 am
PookyNMR wrote on Mon, 14 April 2008 21:24


Jesus himself affirmed his divinity.


and confirmed yours and mine as well.

nuff said.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 15, 2008, 11:56:09 am
One can go round and round about Moses, divinity, the Exodus, and not see the point.

Its important to know that Hebrew is a deeply complex language, and most words have multiple meanings and angles from which they can be seen. Was Moses a real person? If so, its a story of slavery, victimization, mass bloodletting and finally liberation. What will you do with that story? Judaism is a religion of the present tense. What are you doing with the story, now that you know it?

But whether or not Moses was real person, there's greater depth to the story. The Hebrew word for Egypt, Miztrayim, also means "The Narrow Realm". Maybe this only refers to the kingdom along the Nile. But given that its a Hebrew word, one is also required to look for the inner meaning. The tradition points you to the Narrow Realm inside you. So, potentially, Moses is the prince inside your mind or spirit which leads you out of your own narrowness. This is a story which is alive every minute of every day, not simply as a matter of faith or a heroic fairy story. Then of course, you're required to act upon this awareness, every minute of every day. Not an easy path. Easier to call it history and remove it to a book.

Every religion or path has the capacity to suffer from calcification, the tendency of people, usually for the sake of some internal sense of security, to make it material, earth-bound, fixed and immovable. The Torah was no exception. There are no exceptions, because people are people. Jesus pointed to the Temple and shouted "The Kingdom of God is Within!" He attempted to remind the people of Judea just what Judaism is and to take their attention off the bright shiny edifice that had become the purported home of "god".

Jesus knew that all people are Jews, whether they subscribe to 1.0, 2.0, or 3.0. He tried to remind them. Judaism is best viewed as a description of reality. Of course, any path that hasn't gotten too stuck in dogma is exactly that, an attempt to describe the world. This is the meaning of "chosen people": people who made a choice. All people are self-chosen, once they choose the path of struggling with "god", with something outside of their limiting and calcified focus on a small self - simply an animal that has an experience of itself thinking - and attempt to come to grips with the idea that there is a One that the Two (duality - self/other) dwell inside. There's a maturity required and then a large responsibility that this carries, though.

YMMV, of course. Especially if you're holding tight to a book, rather than the light itself. (Which is not to say that for some folks a book doesn't become a road to the light - whatever works).

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 15, 2008, 01:15:23 pm
mgod wrote on Tue, 15 April 2008 09:56

One can go round and round about Moses, divinity, the Exodus, and not see the point.


I agree.  We can often get so myopic over various small points, that we loose sight of the big picture, without which the small points make no sense.

mgod wrote on Tue, 15 April 2008 09:56

YMMV, of course. Especially if you're holding tight to a book, rather than the light itself. (Which is not to say that for some folks a book doesn't become a road to the light - whatever works).


I take a different view on things than you do on a number of your previous points.  

But I'd agree with the last statement.  The book points to something.  For people both within and outside of the faith, there's a tendency to focus on misunderstood details so that the big picture, the reason, the person behind the book is over looked.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 15, 2008, 01:46:23 pm
mgod wrote on Tue, 15 April 2008 10:56

One can go round and round about Moses, divinity, the Exodus, and not see the point.

Its important to know that Hebrew is a deeply complex language, and most words have multiple meanings and angles from which they can be seen. Was Moses a real person? If so, its a story of slavery, victimization, mass bloodletting and finally liberation. What will you do with that story? Judaism is a religion of the present tense. What are you doing with the story, now that you know it?

But whether or not Moses was real person, there's greater depth to the story. The Hebrew word for Egypt, Miztrayim, also means "The Narrow Realm". Maybe this only refers to the kingdom along the Nile. But given that its a Hebrew word, one is also required to look for the inner meaning. The tradition points you to the Narrow Realm inside you. So, potentially, Moses is the prince inside your mind or spirit which leads you out of your own narrowness. This is a story which is alive every minute of every day, not simply as a matter of faith or a heroic fairy story. Then of course, you're required to act upon this awareness, every minute of every day. Not an easy path. Easier to call it history and remove it to a book.

Every religion or path has the capacity to suffer from calcification, the tendency of people, usually for the sake of some internal sense of security, to make it material, earth-bound, fixed and immovable. The Torah was no exception. There are no exceptions, because people are people. Jesus pointed to the Temple and shouted "The Kingdom of God is Within!" He attempted to remind the people of Judea just what Judaism is and to take their attention off the bright shiny edifice that had become the purported home of "god".

Jesus knew that all people are Jews, whether they subscribe to 1.0, 2.0., or 3.0. He tried to remind them. Judaism is best viewed as a description of reality. Of course, any path that hasn't gotten too stuck in dogma is exactly that, an attempt to describe the world. This is the meaning of "chosen people": people who made a choice. All people are self-chosen, once they choose the path of struggling with "god", with something outside of their limiting and calcified focus on a small self - simply an animal that has an experience of itself thinking - and attempt to come to grips with the idea that there is a One that the Two (duality - self/other) dwell inside. There's a maturity required and then a large responsibility that this carries, though.

YMMV, of course. Especially if you're holding tight to a book, rather than the light itself. (Which is not to say that for some folks a book doesn't become a road to the light - whatever works).

DS


Dan, so eloquently and beautifully stated.  Great insights and a positive "challenge" to all to come to grips with this subject.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 15, 2008, 03:13:43 pm
i resonate well with Dan's post

we all are also "entitled" to our own moses inspired

"wilderness experience'

and when we are ready to get up on out of it

God is there to lead us in to the Promised Land (experience)

and some of us (his children)

like Moses

never make it in this human life time.

i'm praising God right now for right now that i am out of wilderness thinking experience and can see a much brighter light filled place for my thoughts, words, ideas, actions and reactions to be created and manifest substance regardless of the opinions of those outside my relationship to Him

i've been saying this in all of my posts

and will continue to believe and receive

hendrix even asked..."are you experienced?"
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 15, 2008, 08:53:21 pm
have you ever been experienced?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: jetbase on April 15, 2008, 10:44:23 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 03:15

mgod wrote on Tue, 15 April 2008 09:56

One can go round and round about Moses, divinity, the Exodus, and not see the point.


I agree.  We can often get so myopic over various small points, that we loose sight of the big picture, without which the small points make no sense.

mgod wrote on Tue, 15 April 2008 09:56

YMMV, of course. Especially if you're holding tight to a book, rather than the light itself. (Which is not to say that for some folks a book doesn't become a road to the light - whatever works).


I take a different view on things than you do on a number of your previous points.  

But I'd agree with the last statement.  The book points to something.  For people both within and outside of the faith, there's a tendency to focus on misunderstood details so that the big picture, the reason, the person behind the book is over looked.


At the risk of sounding like I'm scholarly or something (I'm not), I've read the Bible - old & new testament - in it's entirety roughly 10 times in my life over a period of about 15 years. I'm talking about lightly reading it, not studying (though I think it's worth studying too). After that time I realised that the book had an overall & consistent character. I believe it points towards the character of God, which I guess would be the purpose of the Bible in the first place. I see it as a guide to a relationship, rather than a rulebook.

Dan, that's real interesting what you say about Moses. I have no reason to believe that Moses didn't exist, but I had never thought of applying his story to myself like that, either, & I'd never heard of the "narrow land". Food for thought!
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on April 15, 2008, 10:53:08 pm
Is anyone truly innocent?

Nathan had asked, and it reminded me of how in...

eastern religious or spiritual thought, there is no real good and bad, right and wrong, there only is what is.

Enlightenment comes through the path, and it comes faster for those who are able to transcend their more selfish side, but punishment is just being what you become if you are doing selfish things.

I find it a bit more liberal, and closer to the reality that I have experienced, but that is due to my path.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 16, 2008, 12:44:43 am
Glenn,

I'm ashamed to say you have read the Bible in its entirety much more often than I (*much* more often than I!).  I believe you have summarized it very well - and indeed the only way it truly can be interpreted - a relationship with God (through Jesus).  That's all God has ever wanted - a close, personal relationship with each one of us.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 16, 2008, 12:48:07 am
Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 15 April 2008 21:44

Glenn,

I'm ashamed to say you have read the Bible in its entirety much more often than I (*much* more often than I!).  I believe you have summarized it very well - and indeed the only way it truly can be interpreted - a relationship with God (through Jesus).  That's all God has ever wanted - a close, personal relationship with each one of us.





and He sent His Son (Jesus) to deliver a new commandment

a very simple one.

"love one another."


can you work with it?

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 16, 2008, 01:04:26 am
"What will you do with that story?"

stories is all we KNOW, mind...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 16, 2008, 10:09:42 am
Barry Hufker wrote on Tue, 15 April 2008 21:44


... and indeed the only way it truly can be interpreted - a relationship with God (through Jesus).  That's all God has ever wanted - a close, personal relationship with each one of us.

Now Barry, the only way? And only through Jesus? And knowing the mind of god? I believe that that is most definitely not the way it can truly be interpreted, and I'm still standing.

Bailiff...

It seems to me that this discussion itself shows that the spiritual texts are something we project ourselves on to. How we use them reflects the workings of our minds, not god's. If in fact there is a god consciousness behind any of it, I think that this was its intent, to give us something to reflect ourselves.

But I see both testaments as serving a very different function, and one that you have to read Sri Yukteswar to really get.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 16, 2008, 10:31:02 am
maxim wrote on Tue, 15 April 2008 22:04

stories is all we KNOW, mind...
True enough Max, but we all have our narrowness. There's not one of us can't use the story.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 16, 2008, 10:53:40 am
Dan,

I believe the scriptures were given to us for us to use to reflect upon, just as you.  They show us our nature as humans, the state we are in and our relationship with God.  Throughout both testaments, God shows a personal involvement in the lives of his people, beginning with Adam and Eve (where God walks with them in the cool of the evening) right up to Revelations where it says (paraphrasing)  He will be their God and they will be his people.

With regard to Jesus being the only way, I am only repeating what Jesus himself has said: I am *the* way, *the* truth and *the* life.  No one comes to the Father except by me.  I added the emphasis to distinguish that sentence from this one, which is *not* what he said: I am *a* way, *a* truth and *a* life.

If Jesus says it is his way or not at all, I am in no position to argue (with him or anyone else).  All I can tell you is what he said.  And being God, I figure he knows...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 16, 2008, 10:55:29 am
But you're quoting contemporary English.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 16, 2008, 11:32:34 am
mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 08:55

But you're quoting contemporary English.


Do you know ancient Greek?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 16, 2008, 11:38:38 am
No, I'm quoting scripture.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 16, 2008, 11:39:16 am
We've done this already.

Language is used in many ways. Holding fast to one particular view of Jesus' sayings, as reflected in contemporary English or contemporary views of ancient Greek, says nothing about what may be in the words. What did Jesus mean by Light? How many ways can we see that? An individual may grip one meaning, but that in no way suggests, let alone proves, that that death grip is all there is to be had. Fixing it in place is calcification, is dogma, is the exact opposite of the constant motion that lies in the meaning.

Or not, depending upon your own reflection, as seen by you in the text.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 16, 2008, 11:54:57 am
mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 08:09

It seems to me that this discussion itself shows that the spiritual texts are something we project ourselves on to. How we use them reflects the workings of our minds, not god's.


In a sense, I agree with you.  Our world view, of which most of us are not conscious, greatly affects how we view the text and defines the limitations of theological views.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 08:09

But I see both testaments as serving a very different function, and one that you have to read Sri Yukteswar to really get.


I don't think that a yogic guru is the only one with a handle on the nature and function of the OT and NT....

First of all calling the OT and NT "testaments" is a little bit of a mis-nomer.  They are more properly the 'Old Covenant' and the 'New Covenant.'  If you are able to read through the scripture and pay close attention to all the covenant language (of which there is a lot), you will see that they actually have a lot of similarity between the old and the new, a deep congruity - the covenant of God with people.

One of the differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is that under the old one we could never keep our half.  Under the new one, Jesus keeps our half, ratifies the covenant in his blood, and gives us more than we expected and deserved.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 16, 2008, 11:55:11 am
OK, having done this one, let's skip it!   Smile
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 16, 2008, 12:20:18 pm
mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 09:39

We've done this already.

Language is used in many ways. Holding fast to one particular view of Jesus' sayings, as reflected in contemporary English or contemporary views of ancient Greek, says nothing about what may be in the words


We have done this many times before.

Contemporary people (both now and through the ages) have an excellent grip on ancient Greek.  Many, many folks know it as well as their first tongue, including historical idioms, and those other little nuances that add to communication.

It's not a translation issue.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 09:39

What did Jesus mean by Light? How many ways can we see that? An individual may grip one meaning, but that in no way suggests, let alone proves, that that death grip is all there is to be had. Fixing it in place is calcification, is dogma, is the exact opposite of the constant motion that lies in the meaning.


We can find what Jesus meant by studying the context.  One of the ideas that we learn when studying exegesis or translation is that words and even phrases are useless aside from their context.  If we separate words from their contexts we move much farther away from their intended meaning.  Sure you can still get meaning out of them, but it won't be an intended meaning of the text.

In a limited sense, I'd agree that trying to codify one single meaning (hermeneutic) for all time would be foolish as our changing world views throughout history skew our perceptions based on our current situational challenges, culture, etc.  BUT, no matter what part of history we're in and what our current world view is (modern, post-modern), we still must take all words, phrases, passages in their full context if we're at all interested in their intended meaning.

I know more gnosticized thinkers are always looking for deeper, hidden spiritual meanings.  But if the apostle John had something to say about it in his NT writings, the only 'secret word' is Jesus, the true 'logos' - the creative power of God.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 16, 2008, 12:28:44 pm
not so fast there . . . . .

Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 07:53



With regard to Jesus being the only way, I am only repeating what Jesus himself has said: I am *the* way, *the* truth and *the* life.  No one comes to the Father except by me.  I added the emphasis to distinguish that sentence from this one, which is *not* what he said: I am *a* way, *a* truth and *a* life.

If Jesus says it is his way or not at all, I am in no position to argue (with him or anyone else).  All I can tell you is what he said.  And being God, I figure he knows...



I AM

what i say I AM is all the God i'm ever gonna get so i had better take responsibilty for my I AM which is all i have ever needed that  God so freely gave to each and every one of us.


I AM His

and because I AM a child of a loving and grace filled KING

who is ALL THERE IS.  

I AM heir to the Kingdom....

so much so that it is OK to rubber neck.

my brother / Wayshower Jesus came to remind me

of who and whose I AM.

He knew it.  


He said it.


He believed it.  

I believe it.  

THAT settles it.

all free for the claiming:

I AM the Way lives in me.

I AM the Truth lives in me.

I AM the Light and the Life lives in me.

Amen.

and i agree and so it is and so it shall be.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 16, 2008, 12:40:34 pm
OK, here is what (I hope) is a new take on the discussion of translation and literalism.

If there was a completely verified translation of the Bible, or if you could read the original text in it's original language.... would that change your mind about whether or not you believe/don't believe in the message?

This is kind of rhetorical, but you're free to share your answer if you want (or if you dare!)  *wink*

Personally, I don't really need to see a direct translation.  I never really found that to be an obstacle between me and believing on Jesus.  The encounters that made me believe what the Bible said was true was through other people who were kind to me, and who called Jesus lord.  The book came later, to be quite honest.  

God doesn't need a book or words or any given translation to get His message through, I think.  He's just trying to give us something else to go on, in the (unfortunate) case that no one kind comes along first.  Seeing other people who believed, and being loved by them convinced me God was where it's at.  Then I wanted to know more, so I began to read.

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 16, 2008, 02:26:11 pm
Nicely put Jessica (as usual). What strikes me about your experience and your position is that its inclusive, which to me is a sign that its headed in the right direction. Exclusivity leads us inevitably away from truth.

This is the danger and the dangerousness of the truly convicted. As a result, Nathan, there's very little point in you and I having this conversation.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 08:54

In a sense, I agree with you.  Our world view, of which most of us are not conscious, greatly affects how we view the text and defines the limitations of theological views.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 08:09

But I see both testaments as serving a very different function, and one that you have to read Sri Yukteswar to really get.


I don't think that a yogic guru is the only one with a handle on the nature and function of the OT and NT....


Your condescending dismissal of Yukestswar (a part of your world view, of which you are not conscious) as a "yogic guru" tells us that you will, for now, remain unwilling to see. If you knew his work and had read him, you might have a grasp of this - its far beyond "yogic guru". It would help to understand the meaning of yoga. Yuketeswar frames the entire spiritual perception of mankind in a way which helps us see how it evolves, in precise accord with how things are actually playing out. Funny, that.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 08:54


First of all calling the OT and NT "testaments" is a little bit of a mis-nomer.  They are more properly the 'Old Covenant' and the 'New Covenant.'  If you are able to read through the scripture and pay close attention to all the covenant language (of which there is a lot), you will see that they actually have a lot of similarity between the old and the new, a deep congruity - the covenant of God with people.

About this you're simply wrong. You can choose to live your life  subject to this illusion, that's your business, but its a waste.

There. Now - I've said it. I've expressed the other view with the same convictedness that you express yours. If we believe you, and we don't agree with you, we're doomed. But you're wrong - so you're doomed. (Not really - you're wrong but you're not doomed). Pretty insulting isn't it? Just as insulting as declarations of Jesus being the only way, of old covenants being superceded. Calling these books testaments makes them books - calling them covenants divides us - yet again. You call it correct - I call it incorrect and attempt to make war between people in so doing.

This is the entire problem with religious conviction - it so often leads to exclusivity. I understand that people do this in order to make themselves feel better, but such a fixed place is the direct path to forced conversion, jihadism, crusade, violence, mass murder in the name of love. If you're right, then everyone who doesn't agree is wrong. As I said before, many flavors - I like Jessica's.

Is it any wonder that there is so much strife between the different Hebraic branches? We have insults and condescension  like "Jesus is the only way" and "the new covenant supercedes the old one" thrown about like we're talking about the weather. Well, you guys can keep your Jesus and your covenant - I've got my Jesus, and he's nicer, and a lot more friendly to a lot more people. Or is that you're misrepresenting him?

There is a place in which Hinduism and Hebraic religion tell the exact same story, describe the exact same world - but to reach that place one has to be in motion, like light.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 09:20


We have done this many times before.

Contemporary people (both now and through the ages) have an excellent grip on ancient Greek.  Many, many folks know it as well as their first tongue, including historical idioms, and those other little nuances that add to communication.It's not a translation issue.

Correct - its an understanding issue. But the rest of that was pretty cute, people knowing ancient greek like it was their first tongue. Weird, wacky stuff.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 09:20


...I know more gnosticized thinkers are always looking for deeper, hidden spiritual meanings.  But if the apostle John had something to say about it in his NT writings, the only 'secret word' is Jesus, the true 'logos' - the creative power of God.


Who said secret? Deeper meaning isn't hidden meaning, it simply requires more work. But if one already knows all, like one's mother tongue, no more work is needed. So easy to dismiss, especially when its a threat to the bedrock of "belief".

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 16, 2008, 03:05:00 pm
I love reading your point of view, Dan.  You always make me feel like I am learning something important and worthwhile.

I believe what the Bible says.  Everyone is free to interpret, and my interpretation says that if God was not inclusive (if he was exclusive) there would have never been a place for me.  If there was a place for me, then I believe there is a place for anyone.  

I have also had myself baptized and have professed in front of others that I believe Jesus is the only way to God, and I wanted him to be my savior.  I chose to accept the place that was offered.

Now, I exclusively belong to Jesus.  This does not mean, however, I have a right or obligation to treat others exclusively.  I remember how much I struggled before I reached a time when I wanted to profess my faith in Jesus and be baptized.  I remember being put-off when people badgered me with the shoulds and should-nots.  Those were not the things which drew me to God.  So I don't expect using them to draw others to God.  

I later learned the shoulds and should-nots on my own, and I choose to obey (as best I can) because I love the Lord.  I learned from observation that this was why the other Christians loved me.... not because they wanted to see me following a book of rules.  Because they loved God, and by extension, me.  

If/when this happens to you, especially if you were as desperate as I was, it will rock your world.  

It is what we mean when we say those ubiquitous little words, "God is Love".

Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 16, 2008, 03:15:40 pm
mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:26

Nicely put Jessica (as usual). What strikes me about your experience and your position is that its inclusive, which to me is a sign that its headed in the right direction. Exclusivity leads us inevitably away from truth.

This is the danger and the dangerousness of the truly convicted. As a result, Nathan, there's very little point in you and I having this conversation.


Believe it or not, despite my expression of my opinions here related to specific topics, I do embrace what is technically referred to as a generous orthodoxy (a la Brain McLaren, et al).  I do believe that there is great value in listening and learning from other people from other religions.  I also believe that God is inclusive and invitational.  Human choice causes the exclusion.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:26

Your condescending dismissal of Yukestswar (a part of your world view, of which you are not conscious) as a "yogic guru" tells us that you will, for now, remain unwilling to see. If you knew his work and had read him, you might have a grasp of this - its far beyond "yogic guru". It would help to understand the meaning of yoga. Yuketeswar frames the entire spiritual perception of mankind in a way which helps us see how it evolves, in precise accord with how things are actually playing out. Funny, that.


I was not condescending or even totally dismissive towards Yukestswar.  That's your perception.  I called him a 'yogic guru' as that's how he's described on several internet searches.

For all I know he could be a wonderful and insightful man with a number of good things to say.  In fact, I'd like to believe so.

What I take issue with is your assertion that one 'has' to read his writings to truly understand the difference between the OT and NT.  There have been 2 millennia of study of the subject by myriad of people from various backgrounds.  It's a silly suggestion to state that one guru only truly knows what's going on.  That would be exclusive.  I'm saying, let's be inclusive of a much wider and historically deeper number of voices.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:26

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 08:54


First of all calling the OT and NT "testaments" is a little bit of a mis-nomer.  They are more properly the 'Old Covenant' and the 'New Covenant.'  If you are able to read through the scripture and pay close attention to all the covenant language (of which there is a lot), you will see that they actually have a lot of similarity between the old and the new, a deep congruity - the covenant of God with people.


About this you're simply wrong. You can choose to live your life  subject to this illusion, that's your business, but its a waste.

There. Now - I've said it. I've expressed the other view with the same convictedness that you express yours. If we believe you, and we don't agree with you, we're doomed. But you're wrong - so you're doomed. (Not really - you're wrong but you're not doomed). Pretty insulting isn't it? Just as insulting as declarations of Jesus being the only way, of old covenants being superceded. Calling these books testaments makes them books - calling them covenants divides us - yet again. You call it correct - I call it incorrect and attempt to make war between people in so doing.



I don't mind people disagreeing with me.  But I based my statements on what is widely regarded as scholarly fact.  If you've got other evidence, let's hear it.

Whether or not one calls them testaments or covenants does nothing to exclude anyone.  Now your getting silly.  What it does is help expose that there is more than meets the eye with just a minor scratching of the surface to show that the two are indeed very connected.

I've got no problem with others having different opinions.  But if someone is going to state an opinion of Jesus / the Bible as fact, when I believe there is significant evidence otherwise, I'll say so.

Your problem seems to be exclusivity.  Let's look at it this way.  Not all spirits are the same.  Not every spirit out there that speaks is good.  Just because something is spirit does not make it good.  

God speaks to us "so that we may live" as (biblically / historically) the other nations listening to other spirits were dying in their foolishness.  That's clear in the text.  In a sense God must be exclusive as there are other spiritual powers seeking our devotion which are destructive.  So God sets before us a choice - choose life or your own self destruction.

But you see even then, it's not God excluding, but God inviting.  It's the people that do the excluding by choosing to follow what they believe is 'good in their own eyes.'

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:26

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 09:20


We have done this many times before.

Contemporary people (both now and through the ages) have an excellent grip on ancient Greek.  Many, many folks know it as well as their first tongue, including historical idioms, and those other little nuances that add to communication.It's not a translation issue.

Correct - its an understanding issue. But the rest of that was pretty cute, people knowing ancient greek like it was their first tongue. Weird, wacky stuff.


I know many, many people who know ancient Greek and can analyze it just as well as english.  One can learn ancient greek at any reputable seminary or secular university.  May sound wacky to you, but it's very real reality.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:26

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 09:20


...I know more gnosticized thinkers are always looking for deeper, hidden spiritual meanings.  But if the apostle John had something to say about it in his NT writings, the only 'secret word' is Jesus, the true 'logos' - the creative power of God.


Who said secret? Deeper meaning isn't hidden meaning, it simply requires more work. But if one already knows all, like one's mother tongue, no more work is needed. So easy to dismiss, especially when its a threat to the bedrock of "belief".


I agree, deeper meanings to require a bit of work.  The the question comes, what kind of work do we have to do to find a legitimate deeper meaning?

I don't dismiss.  I take every question, no matter how hard seriously.  Threats to belief are a good thing as you have an opportunity to discover more of the truth.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 16, 2008, 03:51:51 pm
Jessica A. Engle wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:05


If/when this happens to you, especially if you were as desperate as I was, it will rock your world.

What makes you think it hasn't, simply because I don't describe anything in the form of your experience and I don't declare it?

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 16, 2008, 04:06:04 pm
I wasn't addressing it specifically to you, Dan.  Sorry if that was unclear.

I would have to know a whole lot more about you to make such an assessment.  And even then, my assessment would probably mean exactly squat.  I'm nobody in the grand scheme.  

I can't see into your heart, I can only read your words and listen.


Jessica
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 16, 2008, 06:00:22 pm
And that would be true of everyone. Seems to me the safest bet as a christian is to assume that everyone is already in the light.

DS

PS - just seen on bumper sticker:

"Zeus is God
Read the Iliad"

Laughing  Laughing  Laughing
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 16, 2008, 07:17:57 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:15


I was not condescending or even totally dismissive towards Yukestswar.  That's your perception.  I called him a 'yogic guru' as that's how he's described on several internet searches.


That's like searching Pope and coming up with "an important bishop." Not a substitute for knowing who he was or what he wrote. He wouldn't be referred to that simply by the SRF.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:15


What I take issue with is your assertion that one 'has' to read his writings to truly understand the difference between the OT and NT.  There have been 2 millennia of study of the subject by myriad of people from various backgrounds. It's a silly suggestion to state that one guru only truly knows what's going on.  That would be exclusive.  I'm saying, let's be inclusive of a much wider and historically deeper number of voices.

That's nicely said, but its a bit of a change of subject. What I said about Yukteswar's writing had nothing to do with differences between the OT and the NT, and I didn't suggest that. Among the subjects he wrote about is the nature and cycles of spiritual perception, and from that we can see where ALL spiritual texts, from really ancient stuff like the Torah and the Gita to the NT fit into our own evolution. If one is going to know anything about the larger picture, where "testaments" fit into things one has to read something that exists outside those testaments, like Yukteswar. How do we know the NT is real? It says so! How do I know my old friend who's gone schizophrenic gets messages from god telling him which way to turn when he's driving? He says so!

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:15


I don't mind people disagreeing with me.  But I based my statements on what is widely regarded as scholarly fact.  If you've got other evidence, let's hear it.

I haven't seen any fact so far, just conviction born of faith. We've already been through the conversation in which we learn that the scholars you agree with deal in fact, and the ones you don't like don't.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me either. But presenting articles of faith as fact is where everybody gets into trouble. I don't mind your conclusions one little bit. I just know them to be incorrect, non-factual. Presenting spiritual conviction as fact is a primary source of war.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:15


Whether or not one calls them testaments or covenants does nothing to exclude anyone. Now your getting silly. What it does is help expose that there is more than meets the eye with just a minor scratching of the surface to show that the two are indeed very connected.
I'm getting silly? You reframed this from testaments to covenants. The concept of superseceding has been used to justify war against Jews for over a thousand years.

There are millions of Jews who's lives and faith  have been de-legitimized in the eyes of subscribers to the so-called new or replacement covenant. You may think it silly. I prefer to discuss books rather than presume who or what god still finds favorable. You said testament is incorrect, that there are really old and new covenants. Tell that to the dead.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:15


I've got no problem with others having different opinions.  But if someone is going to state an opinion of Jesus / the Bible as fact, when I believe there is significant evidence otherwise, I'll say so.

So, there's a fact vs. opinion problem here? Seems to be personal choice as to which is which.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:15


Your problem seems to be exclusivity.  Let's look at it this way.  Not all spirits are the same.  Not every spirit out there that speaks is good.  Just because something is spirit does not make it good.  

You state this as a fact. Prove it. A couple weeks ago you stated good works proceed from faith. That's another absurd assertion that went unchallenged. Goods works proceed from good people. The idea that a person needs faith to be good is incredible hubris. Speak for yourself - I can accept that your own good works proceed from your faith, but I know many agnostics and atheists who have no problem performing good works. That ain't an exclusive club.

Nathan, it appears to me that you have a desire to state personal dogma as if it is fact in the world outside of you. How do we know all spirit is not good? You presume evil spirits? fine. I presume not. I presume evil proceeds from both spritual rigidity and from human fear. I state it as a fact, for your sake.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:15


I know many, many people who know ancient Greek and can analyze it just as well as english.  One can learn ancient greek at any reputable seminary or secular university. May sound wacky to you, but it's very real reality.

And yet they come to opposite conclusions from others who speak ancient greek as if its their mother tongue. How thorough is this mastery of greek then, if there are differences? Perhaps that mastery is subject to pre-existing opinion? I know you find Bart Ehrman anathema, yet he is quite well schooled.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 09:20


I agree, deeper meanings to require a bit of work.  The the question comes, what kind of work do we have to do to find a legitimate deeper meaning?

If I get you, your idea of legitimacy is exclusively  your own choice. I would likely choose other. Who's choice is more legitimate?

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 16, 2008, 08:21:11 pm
many of my colleagues do good things EVERY DAY, without needing approval from beyond

it MAKES SENSE to be generous and kind...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 16, 2008, 08:24:25 pm
fwiw, hinduism was brought to india by the aryans, most likely, from mesopotamia, so judaism and hinduism share a common ancestor
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 16, 2008, 10:22:41 pm
mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 17:17

How do we know the NT is real? It says so!


There's more to it than that, and I'm sure you know it.  There's everything from archeological evidence to hostile historical authentication to a wide variety of other criticisms.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 17:17

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:15


I don't mind people disagreeing with me.  But I based my statements on what is widely regarded as scholarly fact.  If you've got other evidence, let's hear it.

I haven't seen any fact so far, just conviction born of faith. We've already been through the conversation in which we learn that the scholars you agree with deal in fact, and the ones you don't like don't.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me either. But presenting articles of faith as fact is where everybody gets into trouble. I don't mind your conclusions one little bit. I just know them to be incorrect, non-factual.


"Articles of faith?"  I think you're above those comments, Dan.  

In one sentence you say I present you nothing but 'faith', yet in another you acknowledge our conversations about the different scholars (schools of thought).

With all due respect, my friend, you are doing the exact thing that you are charging me.  But I'm not going to call some of the evidence that you've presented as 'articles of faith.'  I'll acknowledge it for the scholarly work that it is.  I don't agree with some of it, but I'll kindly acknowledge it.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 17:17

Presenting spiritual conviction as fact is a primary source of war.


There's a difference between 'spiritual conviction' and discussion of things like confirmed historical facts as well as discussions on keeping sayings in their proper larger context.

I'd argue that most of the worlds wars, however, are motivated by more that discussion of spiritual facts.  Conquest for land and wealth I'm thinking would be a primary source.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 17:17

I'm getting silly? You reframed this from testaments to covenants. The concept of superseceding has been used to justify war against Jews for over a thousand years.


A lot of bad things have been done by folks who identify from every single religion and non-religious school of thought.  No one is exempt.  I'm honestly saddened for the Jews.  But their history is not spotless either.  They're just as human as the rest of us.

That said, I'd argue the probably more good than things have been done by people in all the same camps.  Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians who believe in Jesus and his new covenant.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 17:17

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:15


Your problem seems to be exclusivity.  Let's look at it this way.  Not all spirits are the same.  Not every spirit out there that speaks is good.  Just because something is spirit does not make it good.  


You state this as a fact. Prove it.


Two proofs.

First:  That's a concept from the Bible.  1 John 4 comes to mind off the top of my head.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204;&am p;version=31;

The next proof would be the experiences that I've had working with kids who have dabbled with the occult.  Anyone else who has done work with such folks or done such dabbling themselves knows through experience that there are some dark spiritual forces out there.

I've also had many friends travel into remote places all over the globe who have seen many cultures who dabble with all sorts of spiritualism / animism.  Regardless of what they believe they've experienced stuff that was undeniably evil.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 17:17

A couple weeks ago you stated good works proceed from faith. That's another absurd assertion that went unchallenged. Goods works proceed from good people. The idea that a person needs faith to be good is incredible hubris.  Speak for yourself - I can accept that your own good works proceed from your faith, but I know many agnostics and atheists who have no problem performing good works. That ain't an exclusive club.


Good works proceeding from faith is a clear biblical concept.

However, given what you've said, I'd postulate that your definition of faith is narrow.  Faith is not limited to religious ideas and actions.  

Faith is not mere 'beliefs and ideas.'  Faith precedes all action.  It's the substance that motivates beliefs and turns beliefs into actions.  If there's an action, it's based on some sort of faith system.  It does not have to be related to anything religious.  You believe a chair will hold you.  It becomes faith when you sit in that chair.  You believe it's your duty to provide for your family.  Out of faith, you hold down employment.

People can do good works out of faith, even if that faith is not based solely on God.  They can have faith that social justice is an important moral value for us all and act out of that.  Whatever the case, they are acting out of faith.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 17:17

Nathan, it appears to me that you have a desire to state personal dogma as if it is fact in the world outside of you. How do we know all spirit is not good? You presume evil spirits? fine. I presume not. I presume evil proceeds from both spritual rigidity and from human fear. I state it as a fact, for your sake.


Whether or not you are aware, you are espousing a gnostic view point (all spirit is good).  I am espousing a biblical one (test the spirits, not all are good).

I have my stance, you have yours.  Nothing wrong with that.  In fact, for the sake of discussion, I think it's good we've come to this place to identify it.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 17:17

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:15


I know many, many people who know ancient Greek and can analyze it just as well as english.  One can learn ancient greek at any reputable seminary or secular university. May sound wacky to you, but it's very real reality.

And yet they come to opposite conclusions from others who speak ancient greek as if its their mother tongue. How thorough is this mastery of greek then, if there are differences? Perhaps that mastery is subject to pre-existing opinion? I know you find Bart Ehrman anathema, yet he is quite well schooled.


It's not Ehrman's knowledge of Greek that gets him such a bad reputation with mainline scholarship.  It's that they are charging him with historical revisionism.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 17:17

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 09:20


I agree, deeper meanings to require a bit of work.  The the question comes, what kind of work do we have to do to find a legitimate deeper meaning?

If I get you, your idea of legitimacy is exclusively  your own choice. I would likely choose other. Who's choice is more legitimate?


No.  The idea of legitimacy has to do with the process at which one arrives at one's conclusions.  The idea of legitimate processes can be reasonably objective.

This is why I agree with you, that one indeed needs to to some work.

My question remains, however - what kind of work needs to be done to get a legitimate answer?

A little reading into audiophile claims can show what wild conclusions can come from flawed process.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 16, 2008, 10:46:13 pm
maxim wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 18:24

fwiw, hinduism was brought to india by the aryans, most likely, from mesopotamia, so judaism and hinduism share a common ancestor


I've read similar things.  Ancient Persian religious beliefs which were a precursor to Zoroastrianism and like eastern mysticisms.  Judaism was definitely aware of such things.  In fact, some scholars believe that some of the origins are traced from one of Noah's grandsons, Nimrod, from which we get Baalism and other Babylonian mystery religions.  So pre-judaism does seem to be involved.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 17, 2008, 12:26:58 am
PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 17:17

How do we know the NT is real? It says so!

There's more to it than that, and I'm sure you know it.  There's everything from archeological evidence to hostile historical authentication to a wide variety of other criticisms.

There is some authentication of events which parallel events described in the NT - but there is no and there can be no factual evidence for the theological claims of the NT. That requires a specific application of faith. Which is unprovable.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:15


In one sentence you say I present you nothing but 'faith', yet in another you acknowledge our conversations about the different scholars (schools of thought).

That was a different conversation, and it focused on opinion, not fact.
PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22


With all due respect, my friend, you are doing the exact thing that you are charging me.

Yes I am - deliberately.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22


There's a difference between 'spiritual conviction' and discussion of things like confirmed historical facts as well as discussions on keeping sayings in their proper larger context.

True, but it seems to me, and it may just be your manner of expression, that you present your discussion in the form of "facts" that are anything but. I have no issue at all with you seeing the world as you do, but please don't present the rest of us with a "fact" that isn't consistent with what many of the rest of us experience. Earlier today you referred to a new covenant as if its fact - fine and dandy for you. Not for everyone. Proclaiming it as fact is a very bad idea, as bloody history does prove. There are, btw, many Jewish convictions I don't hold, and which, proclaimed in here as fact, would certainly lead to some offense. Best to keep that to oneself, and act strictly within one's own life on those convictions.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22


I'd argue that most of the worlds wars, however, are motivated by more that discussion of spiritual facts.  Conquest for land and wealth I'm thinking would be a primary source.

That's another one. Doesn't negate theological coercion as a big one.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22


A lot of bad things have been done by folks who identify from every single religion and non-religious school of thought.  No one is exempt.  I'm honestly saddened for the Jews.  But their history is not spotless either.  They're just as human as the rest of us. That said, I'd argue the probably more good than things have been done by people in all the same camps.  Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Christians who believe in Jesus and his new covenant.

And how does that bear on the violence created by replacement theology? Aren't you arguing that others were bad, so its OK that Christians were bad, too? Based on your argument the replacement covenant offered no improvement over the old. Its kind of you to be saddened for the murdered. I'll let my grandparents know. Replacement theology, which is a natural result of the concept that one covenant supercedes another, is precisely the kind of dogma which has damaged the west for century upon century. Thank god its on its way out.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22


mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 17:17

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 12:15


Your problem seems to be exclusivity.  Let's look at it this way.  Not all spirits are the same.  Not every spirit out there that speaks is good.  Just because something is spirit does not make it good.  


You state this as a fact. Prove it.


Two proofs.

First:  That's a concept from the Bible.  1 John 4 comes to mind off the top of my head.

Oy - I said proof - not quotes from the bible. That's not proof. That's your personal belief and works fine as that. This is the crux of the whole conversation - something which is an article of faith for you, real for you, gets blurred with the common  experience we share. We may not all see the same color and yet we can call it green, because the relationship of the eye's functions to the frequencies of light is consistent enough that whatever color we're seeing, we can agree its "green". John may be fact for you - for most of the world its not. You no doubt think you're right about it. Groovy. Most of the rest of world knows you're wrong. So, somehow, John does not qualify as fact, or proof, in the world of consensual reality. Personal conviction is just fine though, until you insist on foisting John's "truth" on the rest of us.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22


The next proof would be the experiences that I've had working with kids who have dabbled with the occult.  Anyone else who has done work with such folks or done such dabbling themselves knows through experience that there are some dark spiritual forces out there.

I've also had many friends travel into remote places all over the globe who have seen many cultures who dabble with all sorts of spiritualism / animism.  Regardless of what they believe they've experienced stuff that was undeniably evil.

Undeniable to you - still within the framework of ordinary human madness to me. Or did you see heads turning clear around on shoulders? Film at 11? Its groovy anecdotes is what it is. Not proof. I'm not asking you to provide proof for yourself, but for me. Real proof. But the whole assertion is wrong.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22

Good works proceeding from faith is a clear biblical concept.

So what? The Bible's "truth" is a clear biblical concept too, which provides no evidence whatsoever. And again requires a specific form of faith. Not my form.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22


However, given what you've said, I'd postulate that your definition of faith is narrow.  Faith is not limited to religious ideas and actions.


You're point about good works was narrow and specifically about religious faith. I'm not dumb.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22


Faith is not mere 'beliefs and ideas.'  Faith precedes all action.  It's the substance that motivates beliefs and turns beliefs into actions.  If there's an action, it's based on some sort of faith system.  It does not have to be related to anything religious.  You believe a chair will hold you.  It becomes faith when you sit in that chair.  You believe it's your duty to provide for your family.  Out of faith, you hold down employment.

This argument is reaching and falling short - its not what you argued before. My employment (or recent lack thereof) has absolutely 0 to do with faith. When I sit in the chair, it becomes experience, not faith. They're categorically different.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22


People can do good works out of faith, even if that faith is not based solely on God.  They can have faith that social justice is an important moral value for us all and act out of that.  

Yes, they certainly can. They can also do good works out of no faith whatsoever but the simple recognition that doing good makes their own life safer. This requires mere survival instinct and not a whit of faith. It doesn't even require morality. Goodness does not necessarily proceed from faith. It proceeds from goodness.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22


Whether or not you are aware, you are espousing a gnostic view point (all spirit is good).  I am espousing a biblical one (test the spirits, not all are good).
Actually I didn't say all spirit is good. I simply said there are no evil spirits. Eenie meenie chili beanie...

But the gnostics thought that god was suspect.

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22

It's not Ehrman's knowledge of Greek that gets him such a bad reputation with mainline scholarship.  It's that they are charging him with historical revisionism.

There's plenty of mainline scholarship that finds Ehrman quite credible. But perhaps not your specific breed of mainline. His reputation is quite good with much of the academic world. Sure, you can go online and find critiques. You can also find the opposite. You can find almost anything online. ("except Alice...").

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22


A little reading into audiophile claims can show what wild conclusions can come from flawed process.

Well, if you want to go there, you'll probably wish you hadn't. I'm the last person on PSW you want to have that conversation with.

Again, Joseph Campbell: "I don't need faith - I have experience." This is as true of audiophilia as religion. Folks who haven't put in the observation time have no basis for opinion. But who ever needed a basis for opinion?

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 17, 2008, 12:27:47 am
Subsequently, I would imagine this is where we get the phrase, "What a nimrod".  That was a saying when I was young anyway.  And now I'm going to revive it.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 17, 2008, 06:16:54 am
Well then...

DS

PS - something I want to clarify in all the pointless parsing that precedes:

While the book of John may be the absolute irrevocable word of god for roughly one billion people in this world, for roughly 5 billion it ranges from wisdom to nonsense, from outright lie to utter meaninglessness. For me personally, it doesn't mean much - while its subject matter means everything the book itself is primarily meaningful to me as the source of action, both good and evil, that people take based on what they think it says.

This is the world of this discussion. Asserting a belief that is deeply held with all the conviction in one's heart bumps up against the rest of the world - sometimes violently. One may know one is right - the rest of the world knows you're wrong. So how factual is that fact? Belief born of experience is different from belief born of faith. That's the whole point of faith (I believe). Its a deeply personal leap that you make with conviction inside yourself regardless of experience.

That's not to say that belief is controverted by fact, it means that they are two very different things. Proof of the cause of faith is an existential non-sequiter. You can prove your faith by actions - good or ill - but proving what causes your faith is like painting your inner landscape - its inherently personal. "Fact" is beside the point.

Treating inner conviction as outer fact is highly problematic - anyone can do it, from priests to schizophrenics, and claim legitimacy. As I wrote earlier, one of my oldest friends has lost it - and roams the country behaving as if his inner landscape of religious conviction is the same as the landscape of Florida and Nebraska and wherever else he drifts. No problem until he enters the lives of the christian communities he goes in search of, and in which he is embraced at first (and briefly). He has the facts of his world, his frame of reference, and they work just fine within him. But his religious conviction leads him to hurt people, especially those he allows closest to him. (I'm safe because "the sweet one" only lets him talk to me every few years). Hurting those who love him is OK though, because its god's instruction - and that's simply a "fact". Coerced conversion was also OK - because it was god's instruction.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on April 17, 2008, 08:29:42 am
Good morning, Dan!

Flawed though your assertions clearly are (edit: sarcasm!), I believe in, and have faith in, each and every point you've made.

My personal complication is that, having married a woman of Jewish descent, my son is (by their law) Jewish.  This puts me in a particularly awkward situation as someone who is very spiritual but entirely unreligious.

Cultural history is a heavy weight for a three year old.  Especially when your father bears no such weight, and has no interest in carrying it.

-tom
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 17, 2008, 08:47:49 am
tom,

there have been many secular jews, who have contributed to the world's knowledge

your son is as jewish as frank sinatra is italian

which is both a lot, and not very much

there are cultural traditions which have been passed down generations and there are new experiences that are unique to your son

being jewish isn't about believing in yahweh or having a piece of your penis chopped off

it's about having a love for learning and understanding, it's about humour and tragedy in one sentence, it's about the accumulated knowledge and history, it's about, dare i say it, tolerance, which is what a certain jew from nazareth preached

to me, anyway, it's about being a citizen of the world

the holy book is about freedom from slavery and respect for other human beings

no matter who the parents...

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on April 17, 2008, 08:55:46 am
Let me fix that for you...

Quote:

there are cultural traditions which have been passed down generations and there are new experiences that are unique to your son

being human isn't about believing in yahweh or having a piece of your penis chopped off

it's about having a love for learning and understanding, it's about humour and tragedy in one sentence, it's about the accumulated knowledge and history, it's about, dare i say it, tolerance.

to me, anyway, it's about being a citizen of the world



i don't know what to think about it, honestly.  i don't like categories. i do appreciate your thoughts, and of course my desire is for him to be the best himself he can be.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 17, 2008, 09:32:25 am
being human isn't about being jewish

being jewish is just a part of being human...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 17, 2008, 10:27:55 am
tom eaton wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 05:29

Good morning, Dan!

Flawed though your assertions clearly are, I believe in, and have faith in, each and every point you've made.

-tom

I'd be delighted to read your critique of my flawed assertions. Particularly if you can prove faith.

My suggestion: don't sweat "jewish law". As a reasonably law abiding citizen of the US, my experience is that laws are for the law-abiding. Break the law, no problem. The fundamental social organizational unit of jewish life is  the individual in relationship to whatever god is, i.e. the dweller in duality in relationship to oneness. Observation of law may have an impact if you live in a community in which the opinion of others about non-observance means something - it clearly does in Israel. It doesn't where I live. My own community is pretty small, because the people who relate to judaism like I do tend to lack the ability ot self-organize. There's nothing for us to gather around but the wind.

Max has addressed prime jewish cultural values. But to my mid, being jewish mean something else.

But somehow I don't think this is really an issue for you.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 17, 2008, 12:07:11 pm
mgod wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 07:27


Max has addressed prime jewish cultural values. But to my mid, being jewish mean something else.






what about your high and low freqs?
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 17, 2008, 12:31:08 pm
mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 22:26

True, but it seems to me, and it may just be your manner of expression, that you present your discussion in the form of "facts" that are anything but. I have no issue at all with you seeing the world as you do, but please don't present the rest of us with a "fact" that isn't consistent with what many of the rest of us experience. Earlier today you referred to a new covenant as if its fact - fine and dandy for you. Not for everyone. Proclaiming it as fact is a very bad idea, as bloody history does prove. There are, btw, many Jewish convictions I don't hold, and which, proclaimed in here as fact, would certainly lead to some offense. Best to keep that to oneself, and act strictly within one's own life on those convictions.


Fair enough.  I do present my thoughts strongly and I state things as I see them.

But we must delineate between two things that we are talking about which are different, yet frequently get intermixed.  There's two types of 'facts' that we're arguing.  One is theology - specifically what does the Bible say and what is considered Christian orthodoxy.  The other are facts, such as historical facts, that are verified by academia (eg. dating of the NT and the gnostic writings).

My stating the naming of the OT and NT being more properly termed the 'covenants' is rooted in the fact that it lines up with generic Christian orthodoxy.  It is also based in the historical origins of the words and the original ascriptions as OT and NT or Old covenant and New covenant.  You may not like it, and disagree with the theology of it and the ramifications of it, but that does not change the historicity.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 22:26

And how does that bear on the violence created by replacement theology? Aren't you arguing that others were bad, so its OK that Christians were bad, too? Based on your argument the replacement covenant offered no improvement over the old. Its kind of you to be saddened for the murdered. I'll let my grandparents know.


I am saying that atrocities have been committed by people who ascribe to every single different theological thought system.  So on that basis you can't poo poo Christains any more than Jews or Muslims.  How would you react if someone were to blame Jews for the atrocities they perpetuated based on the Torah?  

It's more a human problem than a theological one.  I don't argue that people don't twist theologies to justify their means and ends.  But as history evolves, people see their history and usually learn from it.  That's everyone's collective journey with God.

BTW, there is a big difference between replacement theology and the other types of covenant theology(s).  I was never arguing replacement theology.  Your words, not mine.  Replacement theo is still popular is some circles, but definitely not all.  Many Christians still believe in Jesus as the covenant fulfillment, the inclusion of the gentiles into the covenant family and the importance of the remaining of the Jewish people in the covenant family by faith.  It's not a replacement, it's a ratification that makes God's actions more inclusive (all people can now be a part of the family of God) and our membership is now no longer because of ethnicity or ceremony, but by faith.  Christianity is a jewish religion that has taken an inclusive step through God's act of sending Jesus.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 22:26

You're point about good works was narrow and specifically about religious faith. I'm not dumb.


Yes, but you removed my comments from the context of my argument.  In that specific context I was specifically talking about the fruit of faith in God being good works.  However, that that does not mean that I'm stating that faith is purely related to religion only, nor does it mean that I'm stating that a person cannot do good things from another faith system.  Those are you thoughts, not mine.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 22:26

PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 19:22


Faith is not mere 'beliefs and ideas.'  Faith precedes all action.  It's the substance that motivates beliefs and turns beliefs into actions.  If there's an action, it's based on some sort of faith system.  It does not have to be related to anything religious.  You believe a chair will hold you.  It becomes faith when you sit in that chair.  You believe it's your duty to provide for your family.  Out of faith, you hold down employment.

This argument is reaching and falling short - its not what you argued before. My employment (or recent lack thereof) has absolutely 0 to do with faith. When I sit in the chair, it becomes experience, not faith. They're categorically different.


But it is indeed what I have been stating about faith in this and every other thread where faith becomes a topic.

When you sit in a chair, yes it is an experience.  BUT it is an experience that was born out of faith in the belief that the chair would hold you up as it was designed.

Your employment does have to do with faith.  Not a religious faith, but a faith that you need to work to support your family, a faith that it is good to be a contributor to society, a faith that without income your finances will diminish.

Experience / evidence -> Belief -> Faith -> Action.

Faith and beliefs are not the same thing.  Faith is the substance that motivates beliefs and turns beliefs into actions.  The beliefs don't have to be religious.  Not everything you or I believe is religious.  Do you believe that drinking clean water is healthy?  Me too!  Our belief in clean water as healthy becomes the faith to actually drink clean water as and essential part of our diets.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 22:26

They can also do good works out of no faith whatsoever but the simple recognition that doing good makes their own life safer.


No, they can't do any works, good or bad, apart from faith.  They may not have 'religious' faith, but they may have 'moral' faith or 'social justice' faith.  But every action is preceded by faith.

That 'recognition of safety' is the belief system and the action on the belief system is the evidence of the faith in that belief.  Non religious, but faith none the less.

mgod wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 22:26

Goodness does not necessarily proceed from faith. It proceeds from goodness.


Yes, it does proceed from faith.  Just not always a specific faith in a specific God.  But as long as there's an action, there's faith.

Everyone has faith of all different kinds.  It's integral to our existence.  The difference is our belief systems behind our faith.

My point was that Faith in God, hearing is voice and following him, produces the good works.  It's the wonderful side benefit.  But whether you read the OT or the NT (Habbakuk 2 or Hebrews 10), the first original point was that "Without faith, it is impossible to please God."  Faith is the thing God is looking for.  Hearing God and following him - it doesn't get more inclusive than that.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: ScotcH on April 17, 2008, 12:35:45 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Wed, 16 April 2008 22:22

Faith is not mere 'beliefs and ideas.'  Faith precedes all action.  It's the substance that motivates beliefs and turns beliefs into actions.  If there's an action, it's based on some sort of faith system.  It does not have to be related to anything religious.  You believe a chair will hold you.  It becomes faith when you sit in that chair.  You believe it's your duty to provide for your family.  Out of faith, you hold down employment.

People can do good works out of faith, even if that faith is not based solely on God.  They can have faith that social justice is an important moral value for us all and act out of that.  Whatever the case, they are acting out of faith.



With that arguement, you can "prove" that everyone has faith.  Of course this is MUCH different that faith as it relates to this discussions.  Here we're dicussing faith in a higher power of some sort.  My faith that a chair will hold me stems from the engineering that goes into it.  Providign for my family is knowledge that they will starve if I don't ... not really faith, just a fact.  There is a BIG difference.  Faith with a captial F is not required to do good.


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 17, 2008, 01:03:16 pm
It's true.  Faith with a capital "F" is absolutely not required to "do good".  But good works won't get you into heaven.

People often say "I've led a good life.  I think my good works outweigh my bad ones."  What does that mean?  How many "good works" does it take to outweigh one bad one?  If one is really honest with one's self, it is readily apparent bad works easily outweigh any good ones.  And no matter what your works, even if they do somehow outweigh the bad ones, you can't work your way into heaven.  That's a common fallacy. It is God's forgiveness of your bad works (sins) that gets you into heaven.  He knows what you've done and have failed to do.  It is his "house".  He decides who comes in and why.  If he says it is his forgiveness of your transgressions, then how can you argue?  It's his house...

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 17, 2008, 01:21:29 pm
ScotcH wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 10:35

With that arguement, you can "prove" that everyone has faith


Yes.  That is my point.  Everyone does have faith.  Just in different things.

ScotcH wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 10:35

Of course this is MUCH different that faith as it relates to this discussions.  Here we're dicussing faith in a higher power of some sort.


Not necessarily.  There are other faith / belief systems that come into play, even when discussing a higher power.  Faith in science, academia, 'spirituality' or lack thereof, etc.

ScotcH wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 10:35

My faith that a chair will hold me stems from the engineering that goes into it.  Providign for my family is knowledge that they will starve if I don't ... not really faith, just a fact.  There is a BIG difference.  Faith with a captial F is not required to do good.


"Captial F Faith" - You're slipping back into the idea that faith is innately tied to the religious, when it is not.  

Experience / evidence -> belief -> faith -> action.

You believe in the 'engineering' of the chair.  That belief turns into a faith in 'engineering' when you sit in the chair.

Your belief in starvation from not working (based on excellent evidence, I might add) becomes faith when you take action and go to work to bring home the bacon.

As I stated before, one can do 'good' from many various faith systems (including non-religious).  Journeying towards a 'state of goodness' may be another issue.

But back to the original issue, if one is looking to please God, they must have faith.  And the kind of faith is one that hears his voice and follows him.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: weepit on April 17, 2008, 01:31:30 pm
Before this river
Becomes an ocean
Before you throw my heart back on the floor
Oh baby I reconsider
My foolish notion
Well I need someone to hold me
But I'll wait for something more

Yes I've gotta have faith...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/5/5b/200px-GeorgeMichaelFaithAlbumcover.jpg
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 17, 2008, 01:32:22 pm
Nathan, I had no idea you subscribed to the Course in Miracles. Your explanation of Faith in engineering is quite mystical.

And as to one of your questions: I'm horrified when anyone does violence to another whether they use theology or psychosis (to the frequent combination of the two) as a basis for it.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: ScotcH on April 17, 2008, 03:16:06 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 13:21

You believe in the 'engineering' of the chair.  That belief turns into a faith in 'engineering' when you sit in the chair.

Your belief in starvation from not working (based on excellent evidence, I might add) becomes faith when you take action and go to work to bring home the bacon.



Are you kidding me?  I might accept that I have "faith" in proven theories of science and basic physics.  But the chair supports my weight not because of faith, but because the material it's made of has certain measurable properties that exceed the mass of my body.  This is not faith ... it is accepted fact.

The other Faith has no proof whatsoever ... which is why it's Faith!

Barry:  Your interpretation seesm to be at odds with Pooky's ... he suggests that even people with faith (in say ... physics) can get into Heaven just fine.  Sounds good to me!  I'll keep my current belief system (in science, and general ethics/morality as defined by me), and I'll see you guys at the pub in the sky!
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 17, 2008, 03:44:59 pm
i think it might be better explained like this as

jesus would tell it in a parable of times of the day:

picture this

it's a hot day

you are my son

i am your father and i own the only swimming pool in town

but because you are my son, someday you will own it  

life is like jumping in the swimming pool for the very first time

i'm always in the pool and it is full of happy people having much fun and contentment and they are always thanking me to be out of the heat and telling me how much they love me.

i've always loved them.

it's way hot and you don't want nor have to stay out there and be miserable while we are in here having one heaven of a good time

you want to cool off.  

you know you do.

chillin'

it's the best thing you could be doing on a day like today.

i'm calling you to come to me.

i wan't you by my side

i beckon you to jump into my loving arms

and you are either gonna have to trust me

that i will catch you when you jump

and i will never let you drown or be harmed ever ever ever

for you are my son

and you have me in you and i made you creative just like I AM

come on in

i'm never afraid and there is no need for you to be unlike me

cuz being unlike me is just a plain hellish experience

if you insist on staying out of the water...i'll patiently wait for you

either you use your ability to use your courage and faith today

or you don't....i still love you if you can't do it

but come on in the water's fine and so is the music!

index.php/fa/8546/0/
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 17, 2008, 03:51:57 pm
ScotcH wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 13:16

Are you kidding me?  I might accept that I have "faith" in proven theories of science and basic physics.  But the chair supports my weight not because of faith, but because the material it's made of has certain measurable properties that exceed the mass of my body.  This is not faith ... it is accepted fact.


No.  You're misunderstanding what I'm communicating.  The focus isn't on the chair or whether it can or cannot hold you.  The part where faith comes in has nothing to do with the chair actually holding you up.

Faith comes in where your beliefs (that the chair will hold you up) turn into action -->  you decide and proceed to sit in the chair because of your beliefs.  

Evidence / experience -> belief -> faith -> action.

You your 'belief' may be rooted in 'accepted facts.'  That part is immaterial whether they are 'accepted facts', experiences, feelings, or incomplete evidence.  The point is that there is some sort of belief.  When the belief (whatever it is and whatever it's nature) becomes an action, faith has be exercised.

Belief into action = faith

ScotcH wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 13:16

The other Faith has no proof whatsoever ... which is why it's Faith!


I'll disagree on three points.

Firstly, you again seem to be lumping faith into a category of religious or mystical beliefs.  Faith is a much more universal concept.

Next, faith and the action it produces does not happen in a vacuum.  Faith comes from beliefs.  Beliefs do not happen in a vacuum either.  Those beliefs are rooted in some sort of evidence.  That evidence may very well be incomplete, be experiential, whatever.  But there is evidence and reason for the belief to take place.

So at best you can say that faith may be based on incomplete evidence.

Next, when engaging in these discussions, it becomes inevitable to accept the ad ridiculum / ad abusrdum point that philosophically there never is such a thing as proof.  And even further, what most consider proof, is really actually the testimony of others.  The proof is not always seen by ones eyes, but rather the testimony believed and made into a faith system out of which one acts.

ScotcH wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 13:16

Barry:  Your interpretation seesm to be at odds with Pooky's ... he suggests that even people with faith (in say ... physics) can get into Heaven just fine.  Sounds good to me!  I'll keep my current belief system (in science, and general ethics/morality as defined by me), and I'll see you guys at the pub in the sky!



No, you're not carefully reading what I'm saying.  Faith is the stuff that God cares about.  Specifically faith in Jesus.  I was contrasting the idea of faith vs. works, which is a major theme of the New Testament.

Barry's point about forgiveness is one of the benefits of our faith in Christ.  Through faith in Christ we are forgiven of our sin that separates us from God and we are reconciled to God.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 17, 2008, 06:04:06 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 12:51

Faith is the stuff that God cares about.  Specifically faith in Jesus.

Oh well. Guess I'm not loved by that God, since you state it as a fact.

Or are you just being exclusionary and insulting? (That's a rhetorical question).

Fortunately the God of the Hebrews, the one Jesus talked a lot about, has no limits like that.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 17, 2008, 06:19:22 pm
mgod wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 15:04

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 12:51

Faith is the stuff that God cares about.  Specifically faith in Jesus.

Oh well. Guess I'm not loved by that God, since you state it as a fact.

Or are you just being exclusionary and insulting? (That's a rhetorical question).

Fortunately the God of the Hebrews, the one Jesus talked a lot about, has no limits like that.

DS




he prayed without ceasing

his life was a prayer

ours should be

dan is included in the love of God.

we all are.

JC said

"the Father and I are ONE."

to me he was showing us who WE are and to use the I AM

I AM one with God and personalize it

He came to show us who and whose we are.

it might be a good idea for all of us to include ourselves in this Divine Birthrite as Kids of the King.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 17, 2008, 06:27:21 pm
Nicely said Jimi.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 17, 2008, 06:35:14 pm
thanks Dan

and if  you didn't have me banned from PMs in your account i would have privately told  you

"it's a miracle" Shocked  Shocked  Shocked  Very Happy
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 17, 2008, 06:38:35 pm
I didn't ban you, or anyone.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 17, 2008, 06:56:08 pm
Barry:  Your interpretation seesm to be at odds with Pooky's ... he suggests that even people with faith (in say ... physics) can get into Heaven just fine.  Sounds good to me!  I'll keep my current belief system (in science, and general ethics/morality as defined by me), and I'll see you guys at the pub in the sky!

No, Nathan and I are saying the same thing.  It isn't just faith, it is faith in God through Jesus Christ which results in salvation.  I was just agreeing that one doesn't need a "faith of salvation" to do good works.  And then as I said, "works" don't get a person into heaven.

Now, if there is a pub in the sky, the first round is on me.  Can I pay for it with "good works"?   Very Happy



Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 17, 2008, 07:39:18 pm
I'll just have a root beer, thanks!

Jess
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 17, 2008, 10:50:37 pm
mgod wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 16:04

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 12:51

Faith is the stuff that God cares about.  Specifically faith in Jesus.

Oh well. Guess I'm not loved by that God, since you state it as a fact.

Or are you just being exclusionary and insulting? (That's a rhetorical question).


Come on, Dan.  You're above those comments and ad hominem attacks.

Being loved by God has nothing to the position of one's faith and no one has suggested otherwise.  

Whether or not we chose to accept the invitation to be reconciled to God through Jesus is our choice.  Exclusion is our choice.

mgod wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 16:04

Fortunately the God of the Hebrews, the one Jesus talked a lot about, has no limits like that.


The God of the Hebrews according to the OT / Hebrew bible indeed had limits.  Being a member of the covenant family was determined by ethnicity (Jewish) and ceremony (circumcision, sacrificial system, law keeping).  It was either Yahweh or the highway.

All the main world religions contain some sort of exclusivity.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 17, 2008, 11:15:45 pm
except humanism...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 17, 2008, 11:23:30 pm
Even humanism.  God is excluded.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 17, 2008, 11:30:28 pm
I'm just glad he acknowledged it's a religion.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 18, 2008, 01:45:38 am
PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 19:50

mgod wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 16:04

PookyNMR wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 12:51

Faith is the stuff that God cares about.  Specifically faith in Jesus.

Oh well. Guess I'm not loved by that God, since you state it as a fact.

Or are you just being exclusionary and insulting? (That's a rhetorical question).


Come on, Dan.  You're above those comments and ad hominem attacks.

Being loved by God has nothing to the position of one's faith and no one has suggested otherwise.  

Whether or not we chose to accept the invitation to be reconciled to God through Jesus is our choice.  Exclusion is our choice.


Massive edit:

Every time you re-assert that point you insult the faith of every person who doesn't believe as you do. Including me. Should we presume its un-intentional?

I choose to be reconciled to god without Jesus. That's how we do it in my faith. The way you express it, either I'm right, or you're right. The difference is, mine doesn't condemn yours. Well let me express myself in a similar manner. Jesus isn't necessary. I have that on VERY good authority. Works for you? Groovy. There are plenty of other ways, depending on one's heart and intent. Including the perfectly fine choice to not want it at all. Faith is personal. Your style of presenting it makes it universal and authoritarian with you in the driver's seat.

This is of course, as I said a day or two ago, completely pointless. Appealing for kindness and consideration to others to the religiously convicted is apparently like asking the scorpion not to sting. I have no care for what your dogmatic assertions have to say about me. But these forums are widely read - to my mind, to my spirit's heart, its just appalling that anyone would have to read that their beliefs are regarded by others as inevitably forcing them away from god. One thing it isn't is christian. In my holy book, loving your neighbor includes not insulting their beliefs by hammering your own at them.

For the 3rd time - I'll take Jessica's approach. She shows, and rightly, that kindness is THE way. All the bible learnin' and defendin' in the world don't mean squat if it drives people away.

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 18, 2008, 03:39:36 am
"Even humanism. God is excluded."

so you admit that god is human

therefore, humans are divine...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: maxim on April 18, 2008, 03:49:34 am
"I'm just glad he acknowledged it's a religion."

humanism (judaism 3.0) replaces god with human "spirit"

petrarch was a good christian, after all

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrarch

there is still a (much misplaced) FAITH in the inherent "goodness" and fairness of that spirit in this model

rationalism is under no such delusion...


Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 18, 2008, 10:23:30 am
mgod wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 22:45

 I have no care for what your dogmatic assertions have to say about me.

DS



when i said this last week i was admonished by Bill Mueller to be more humble

not sure where he feels he has the right

to "try" to insult me like that.



and warned by the admin that i was going to be banned if i kept up such hubris

and that a mod on this board insists that i be banned for the way i choose to express myself.

i must applaud dan for using his power

and taking a stand for what he truly believes

this is a very important American freedom i would gladly be banned for when partaking of my freedom.

kudos for using your God given power and righteous judgment

"For God has not given us a spirit of fear
but of power and of love
and
a sound mind."



EYESIGHT OR INSIGHT?

I walk by insight
not by eyesight.  
When my eyesight reveals
that a door of opportunity
is closed,
my insight reminds me that
'God is the door.'  
God's door
is forever open
to me and everyone,
at all times.  
God
never shuts anyone out.

When my eyesight
suggests that I should be afraid,
my insight reminds me
that God never gave  me
a spirit of fear.
My insight
points me to the truth
that God is with me
every moment
of the day and night.
No matter how dangerous
the circumstance appears,
I can count on God
to open a door or window
that leads to freedom.
II Timothy 1:7:  
"For God has not given us a spirit of fear
but of power and of love
and
a sound mind."

When my eyesight proclaims
that things have gone
'sour,'
my insight 'kicks in' and says,
"Oh ye of little faith.  
All things
are working together for good.
Trust me
to see you through."  
Everyday,
I pray that my insight
may guide my eyesight.
Because I have asked,
in prayer,
I have received.
Praise God!

"For we walk by faith, not by sight."
II Corinthians 5:7




Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 18, 2008, 11:37:51 am
maxim wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 02:39

"Even humanism. God is excluded."

so you admit that god is human

therefore, humans are divine...


No, I'm saying someone is excluded.  Humanism claims itself to be god, so God, by necessity, is excluded from that philosophy.  To see why I say Humanism claims  man is god, see my earlier post.

BTW, there is no reason to believe or accept that any religion is 2.0, 3.0 of something else.  That is a fallacy in and of itself.

For me that would be like saying a horse is cow 2.0.

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 18, 2008, 12:21:59 pm
mgod wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 23:45

Every time you re-assert that point you insult the faith of every person who doesn't believe as you do. Including me. Should we presume its un-intentional?


It's not an insult.  There's no malicious intent.  Quite the opposite.  It's a statement of the most basic orthodox Christian theology.  If one chooses to feel insulted, that's their choice of reaction.  If you are convinced it as an incorrect statement, then you have nothing to fear and chalk it up to a discussion with others who see things differently.

I choose to feel no offense or insult when you state the things that you do and take joy in the conversation - even with the hope that there still may be somethings that I can learn from you.

mgod wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 23:45

I choose to be reconciled to god without Jesus. That's how we do it in my faith. The way you express, either I'm right, or you're right.


You said 'in my faith' - are you referring to Kabbalah?  IIRC, that's what you've said before.  I'm just trying to identify with what you are saying there.

I know for anyone with a post-modern mindset that the idea of a truth and authority beyond themselves, particularly a truth that is more absolute and not relative, is unpopular.  The way I see it, however, not all roads lead to God.  So yes, there is a line and one of us will be wrong and the other right.  Could be me.  Could be you.  Thankfully, God's the judge.  Or maybe we're both wrong and Allah is going to smite us both something fierce.  

mgod wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 23:45

The difference is, mine doesn't condemn yours. Well let me express myself in a similar manner. Jesus isn't necessary. I have that on VERY good authority. Works for you? Groovy. There are plenty of other ways, depending on one's heart and intent. Including the perfectly fine choice to not want it at all. Faith is personal. Your style of presenting it makes it universal and authoritarian with you in the driver's seat.


Doesn't put me in the drivers seat, it puts Jesus in the drivers seat.  I'm just following him as best I can.  If you're right and Jesus is unnecessary, then I'm deserving of pity.

I am curious to hear what you have to say about your specific beliefs.  If you'd be willing to expand in detail on the ideas above, I'd like to hear it.

mgod wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 23:45

I have no care for what your dogmatic assertions have to say about me. But these forums are widely read - to my mind, to my spirit's heart, its just appalling that anyone would have to read that their beliefs are regarded by others as inevitably forcing them away from god. One thing it isn't is christian. In my holy book, loving your neighbor includes not insulting their beliefs by hammering your own at them.


First of all, my assertions aren't 'about you' - they're about all of humanity, myself included.  I've not made a single personal disparaging remark.  Take a step back, read this objectively and not so personally.  None of this discussion is meant as something personal against you.  

Sure some people may not agree with the details they read, but further separation from God is purely their choice.  I may be very blunt and to the point in my writing style.  Do you think that's the turn off?  Or might it be some of the insults and ad hominem attacks in the discussions.  I've endured a number of those.

Facts are all discussions of faith draw some sort of line and set some sort of standard.  If not, 'god' would be perfectly happy with chaotic anarchy.  Especially from within our own faiths, we are convicted of areas where we are not following and need to change.  Should we be offend at our own faiths if they tell us something we don't like to hear?

If all roads lead to God, then indeed I am to be pitied.  If salvation is universal for all regardless of faith and/ or deeds then we've both wasted our lives in our respective faiths.

If all roads don't lead to God and there isn't universal salvation for all no mater what, then there is a dividing line and some sort of exclusivity.

I don't know much about Kabbalah, but if it's anything like orthodox Judaism, there is indeed a dividing line and exclusivity.  Some are in, and some are out.  So in that sense your faith is just like mine and there's not ground to judge me.  My faith has a criteria of some sort, and unless you believe in pure universalism, so does yours.

If there is truth in the words of Jesus, then some of us need to ponder that seriously.  If Jesus was a liar, then Christians have some serious thinking to do.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 18, 2008, 12:34:25 pm
PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 09:21

 If Jesus was a liar, then Christians have some serious thinking to do.



Jesus is not a liar but still we all ....ALL...everybody

have "serious thinking to do."

continued blessings with your studies and may Truth be revealed to you that will include the love of indwelling Christ within each and everyone of us in your findings.  and the gift waiting patiently for the consciousness awareness raising to occur.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: PookyNMR on April 18, 2008, 12:47:31 pm
studiojimi wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 10:34

PookyNMR wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 09:21

 If Jesus was a liar, then Christians have some serious thinking to do.



Jesus is not a liar but still we all ....ALL...everybody

have "serious thinking to do."


Touch
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Jessica A. Engle on April 18, 2008, 01:30:40 pm
studiojimi wrote on Fri, 18 April 2008 09:23

mgod wrote on Thu, 17 April 2008 22:45

 I have no care for what your dogmatic assertions have to say about me.

DS



when i said this last week i was admonished by Bill Mueller to be more humble

not sure where he feels he has the right

to "try" to insult me like that.



and warned by the admin that i was going to be banned if i kept up such hubris

and that a mod on this board insists that i be banned for the way i choose to express myself.

i must applaud dan for using his power

and taking a stand for what he truly believes

this is a very important American freedom i would gladly be banned for when partaking of my freedom.

kudos for using your God given power and righteous judgment

"For God has not given us a spirit of fear
but of power and of love
and
a sound mind."





One just has to be careful to make a distinction between disagreeing with the view another person holds and telling a person that they are wrong.  (I'm not accusing you of this, I'm just speaking in a generality).  We all feel what we believe is "correct", otherwise we wouldn't believe it.  And people's feelings are very, very important (whether they care to admit it or not).  

Respect for a person's feelings (and by extention their beliefs) is not the same as admitting that They are right and You are wrong.  It's not a concession or a defeat.  It is, quite simply, respect.

Dan,

Despite your glowing approval.... I'm not doing anything special, here.  I'm just trying to learn.  So is everyone else, otherwise I believe this thread would have died a long time ago.  It's clear to me that we all want to talk about this, and I think that is great.  It certainly validates my feelings on the subject, and why I wanted to start this in the first place.

Jessica

Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on April 20, 2008, 12:05:13 pm
Being able to open one's mind to actually learn and understanding that people's opinions are important to them are qualities that should not be underestimated, but you may not realize that yet.

In defense of Jimi:  I think there is a party going on in Jimi's head most of the time, and that party is fueled by his love of the trinity.  Party on, dude.  It does make it a bit difficult to turn it down, and if you have been at a party where the music was loud, it is a drag when the neighbor comes over and rains on the parade.

But turn it down we must at times, out of deference for the lives of others.  

Regarding scholars:

Nathan and Dan are IMO scholars.  I am not.  I get lost in the scholarly stuff.  But i think tha tthe small bit I get out of it is worthy of reading it.  Go scholars!

I would love to believe that there is a magical invisible place run by an all-powerful guy, that will take care of all my needs when I am dead.

But for me the difference is wanting to believe and finding a reason to believe.  It just seems too good to be true, and with a lack of evidence in my life, I am just trying to make a plan B.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 20, 2008, 12:41:47 pm
danickstr wrote on Sun, 20 April 2008 09:05



In defense of Jimi:  I think there is a party going on in Jimi's head most of the time, and that party is fueled by his love of the trinity.  Party on, dude.  It does make it a bit difficult to turn it down, and if you have been at a party where the music was loud, it is a drag when the neighbor comes over and rains on the parade.




i've been to jail more than once for refusing to turn down the music.

i'm not afraid to go again.

Nick

this i know

Jesus loves you and so do I.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: cerberus on April 20, 2008, 05:15:10 pm
"Number 3: You have the right to freeeee Speech. as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it. Know your rights. These are
your rights. All 3 of 'em"  -joe strummer

jeff dinces
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 21, 2008, 01:47:09 am
I would love to believe that there is a magical invisible place run by an all-powerful guy, that will take care of all my needs when I am dead.

But for me the difference is wanting to believe and finding a reason to believe. It just seems too good to be true, and with a lack of evidence in my life, I am just trying to make a plan B.


Nick, take a chance and ask for belief (faith).  Ask it sincerely with an open mind and an open heart.  Ask it seriously.  Ask for proof from God. Then pay close attention.  Listen carefully. Maybe not at the moment you ask, but shortly thereafter, you'll get a response.  Why not immediately?  A response might come in an instant or it might come in a moment taking you by surprise but clearly giving you an answer.  Have faith and a little patience.  But when the answer comes, accept that answer as yours.  Don't shy away from it.


What have you got to lose?  And you might really gain something...
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on April 21, 2008, 10:49:56 pm
thanks to Jimi and Barry for their kind sentiments.  Cool
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: Barry Hufker on April 21, 2008, 11:36:30 pm
I never want to push... but no matter how I come off I have what I believe to be your best interest at heart.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on April 22, 2008, 09:12:51 am
Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 21 April 2008 23:36

no matter how I come off I have what I believe to be your best interest at heart.



To me, that kind of thing is exactly the problem that has been discussed here.  Certain people, groups of people, nations, religions undertake actions of all kinds with what they believe to be the best interests of others.

We try to install "democracy" in other countries because it will be good for them.  

It is hard to offer anyone advice without seeming superior, but to assume knowledge of the best spiritual interests of another is beyond strange to me.  

If you have confidence in your convictions, Barry, couldn't you say "what I KNOW to be your best interest"?  That's what people are getting frustrated with Jimi about, the absolute, unwavering truth he finds in his own convictions.

It's an inside/outside question again... are "people of faith" superior to us heathen?  And if so, can they undertake whatever actions/suggestions necessary to bring us around, knowing that it is in our best interest?  Doesn't that sound like a rather old story?

No interest in picking on you, Professor (!), but just continuing the conversation with my gut reaction to what you wrote...

-t





Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 22, 2008, 09:44:32 am
tom eaton wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 06:12

 That's what people are getting frustrated with Jimi about, the absolute, unwavering truth he finds in his own convictions.




ane your frustrations are your stuff either collectively or individually

you can't have my stuff and i don't want your stuff

are we clear on that?

i will say this:

when .....no.....IF i were to get frustrated i would go to the Lord in prayer and meditation and seek and find the answers i need in the secret place of the most high....and yes that is a superior place for superior people....any people who decide to make the superior choice....IF i accept those negative things i can go the Father in the stillness and find the answers i need every time, ontime, right on time and in the right place which can include the saloon or anywhere my spirit leads me.

the answer/solution to frustration is always God.

any other problems/challenges any of you desire to continually own?

God told Abraham:

look EAST WEST NORTH SOUTH
you can have as far as you can see

it's in your contract as a Child of the KING

so the only question is
how far are you willing to look?

apparently not very far.  (oooo was that a judgment?)

many of you seem to have a lot of suggestions for me for how i should be so you will be more comfortable

i have a few for you

love, tolerance, forgiveness, acceptance, patience.

keep it real.

get out of the "control room" for a minute

and don't forget the immortable words of elder George Clinton

"funk (spirit) not only moves....it re-moves--dig?"


i need to pass the plate up in here.

i should be getting paid for this shit.

you clearly are not properly impressed!

the difference between us is this:

i'm not the one who will be more warm and gushy if you invite more God into your consciousness and life and affairs...

YOU WILL.
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: tom eaton on April 22, 2008, 10:16:13 am
Jimi, I am impressed with your conviction, and did not state that I was frustrated at all.

You might want to read what I said a little more literally, and not take me to task for something I didn't write.  That would smack of an underlying agenda.

-tom
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: mgod on April 22, 2008, 11:03:25 am
1) Thank you Nick but I'm not a scholar and would never claim to be. I'm a perpetual and insatiable student (of all things), and the stacks of books on this subject alone piled around my bedroom to which I haven't yet gotten are appalling to see. What we are and what's going on has preoccupied me since I felt my brain turn on laying in the grass, looking at the stars and contemplating what I'd been told about god and infinity on a summer night in NJ when I was about 8. After that no one could recruit me for a game of "war" or get me into a fistfight without jumping me. I knew it was a waste of time. I was like a less bleak version of the little Alvy Singer in "Annie Hall" who won't do his homework because he found out the universe will all end someday, so what's the point? By the time my father fell over dead when I was 15, (I outlived him 2 weeks ago), I'd come to the conclusion that the only point, the only justification for all of this was love. Yes, I was a hippy.

My high school and college years were so filled with music that I failed to devote any time at all to the hard sciences, which I'll never be able to catch up with. I laid the ground for philosophy and art, but not for chemistry and physics. I'm no perfesser, like our friend BH.

2) I'm going to suggest the idea of a threshold of need. Its different for everyone, and what comes in response to that need is unique to the individual. Look at AA. I've been in bands (and relationships) with people in AA, and people who should be in AA. A physical addiction is really hard to beat. AA, in my understanding, succeeds by giving a philosophical, social and spiritual structure to someone who's need is right out there, who's threshold of need is pretty low - they're not going to be able to do much until they attend to it. That stuff is easy for me because my body completely rejects alcohol and most drugs, the good ones and the pharmaceutical ones too.

My need is for answers. That's a fairly high threshold because for the most part I can get along physically without them. Keep myself numb with a bit of TV and distracted by work, and I'm semi-good.

As it turns out though, I'm pretty good (or god is pretty good if you want to go that way) at very subtly engineering myself into situations that drive me to the brink of desperation if something doesn't come along and push me into a new level of awareness and understanding. Some might say its god, some might say its just neurosis, some might say its my higher self, many might say it many other things. I'm not going to venture an opinion here, but I do have the experience I have, and it informs what's really going on. Works for me. By the time I had cancer and 11 months later a heart attack, I had already wedged myself into untenable situations that weren't going to resolve without massive restructuring of myself internally. I've had great help with all this. So cancer was major surgery, much pain, and a huge hit to my finances from which I may never recover (that's America!) , but - it was also a breeze. I found it kind of fun to really engage in truly life-and-death issues, and not just everyday trivia. So what had come in answer to my internal need for resolving external situations I had created was perfect, perfectly timed and paved the road for sailing through more apparent crises. Call it god, call it coincidence - whatever works for you. By the time I woke up in the hospital from a heart attack, my daughter got to see me burst out laughing when informed that I'd had one. What next, you know?

How seriously will we take all this? I'll be damned if I'll ever understand how my mother could go into and out of Auschwitz and be taken on what they now call the death march as a teenager, and still sing everyday when I was little, but I think I owe it to her to sing as well.

My parents were raised orthodox but life brought them more deeply into the world than their parents had been (until they themselves were gassed and incinerated). Its maybe easy to to stay fixed in place, rigid in orthodoxy, until life conspires to expose you to a wide world. They raised me within judaism, but with openness to what life itself is, which can't be constrained by a single point of observation. Yeshua his own self, walking in Judea, railed against orthodoxy and rigidity.

"A Course In Miracles" arrived in answer to a need. One of the ideas it offers is that everything we see is a reflection of our own internal selves. We create how we see. This goes a long way towards explaining the dialog we're having here. Einstein tends to support this idea, btw.  Oh, how I love him:

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest -- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security."

As to what's really going on, is it god or just my own consciousness, I'm not sure there's a difference. "The Kingdom of God is Within," the man said, and one of his followers said "If you bring forth what is inside you it will save you."

DS
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 22, 2008, 12:50:58 pm
tom eaton wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 07:16

Jimi, I am impressed with your conviction, and did not state that I was frustrated at all.

You might want to read what I said a little more literally, and not take me to task for something I didn't write.  That would smack of an underlying agenda.

-tom



my response is to any of the seemingly "frustrated" (if any) that you were mentioning

don't YOU take it too personally!

no problem bro

good coffee great day ahead...let's enjoy it!

blessings

SJ
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: studiojimi on April 22, 2008, 03:44:21 pm
mgod wrote on Tue, 22 April 2008 08:03

1)
As to what's really going on, is it god or just my own consciousness, I'm not sure there's a difference. "The Kingdom of God is Within," the man said, and one of his followers said "If you bring forth what is inside you it will save you."

DS



i can easily identify and work with that
Title: Re: Untitled.
Post by: danickstr on April 22, 2008, 07:45:21 pm
Dan that is a great post, and wow, what a ride.  The amount of books surrounding you may weaken your argument about scholarship.

It always seemed to me that being raised around the Jewish faith was a good experience for people, and my favorite story to tell about this is the one where I was driving on Fairfax and...

Outside a temple an old man and a young boy were discussing something, and the way that the old man was engaging the boy was like an equal.  I was at a light and the old man said something like, "I had never thought of it like that",and he stopped and scratched his beard, and just looked at the boy. There are other reasons I like Judaism and it has a lot to do with the willingness to accept reason that that culture seems to imbue in its constituents.

That kind of equality and opportunity is less prevalent in other cultures, from my experience.