Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
  • Announcements

    • GT

      Log in changes   08/07/2016

      With the upgrade there is no longer separate login ids and display names.  Your login ID is now your display name.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


TLC last won the day on March 9

TLC had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

38 Excellent

About TLC

  • Rank
    just found the gum under the counter

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,391 profile views
  1. Concerning the Bible...

    To avoid (or lessen) any confusion that might have arisen as a result of my mention of genetics, perhaps I should say something else. Regardless of any reasons how or why we find ourselves where we are at in this life (and no, I don't think that we all came into this life equally equipped, nor is this life necessarily fair when viewed only in comparison to others), our life in the flesh now appears to me to be a proving (or, proofing, in baking terms) time of sorts that is somehow or in someway preparing us for the next (eternal) life (presuming one qualifies for it.) Therefore, I think God can and will have the means to make sense of it all, in spite of what we all might think things look like now. Consequently, any reasons for what (or why) we are who we are need to be relegated to the back of the bus, because it's how we deal with it (whatever "it" is) going forward that is going to make a difference for all eternity.
  2. Concerning the Bible...

    Thanks for the kind words, T-bone. They were unexpected, but appreciated. I'm quite aware that my approach to things sometimes (unintentionally) comes off rather abrasively, and once that happens the most prudent (or at least, pragmatic) choice usually seems to be to simply shut down. I suspect that my odd methods of reasoning and speaking are largely genetic (perhaps as much as 85%), and most of time that 15% or so that isn't has to work exceedingly hard at bridging the gap between that and what is more common or normal for most people. Though, I can't say that I've ever thought or heard of it described as being "destructive in that it breaks everything down so as to expose all parts for closer examination." Frankly, I don't see it as breaking. Rather, it's a matter of very carefully taking things apart (dismantling, if you prefer) so as to be able to see and understand how, or in what other possible ways, things can, might, or should be put together to make better (or at least, some) sense of it. Although, through the process, things can and do get tested, rejected, tossed out, and/or broke. (BUT, the person themselves should be doing that within themselves, and not in or for somebody else... where it only lasts until they remember that it's not what they like or believe!) Regardless... and as unsettling and uncomfortable as it might be to admit it... the way that God has fashioned intelligence, it just doesn't automatically translate into goodness, kindness, meekness, and a whole host of other attributes directly related to and associated with believing and loving God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or any of the rest of the brethren, mankind, or the world. In fact, it more often than not finds itself in opposition to genuine godliness or spirituality, being inextricably bound to the senses and in desperate need of understanding something before being able to believe it... whereas the person that knows love, simply believes as a result of it, and bypasses the long and arduous work of "taking apart and putting together" in order to understand and believe. The "wood, hay and stubble" of lots of very smart people just ain't going to make it through the fire... So, there's a lot of "debatable" issues that don't inspire me to do much debating (like it once did.) I'd rather more selectively pick my way around the edge of something to see whether or not a few "issues of the heart" might surface. And if not, well... nothing ventured, nothing gained.
  3. What is the differentiation (or definition) an extreme dispensationalist compared to one that isn't? And what was VPW, who evidently used (or borrowed, if you prefer) scripture from previous administrations when it fit better with his own thoughts and ideas?
  4. Giving no concern to nomenclature, it's the differences propounded in where or how (or even whether) administrations actually change that (at least in part) has lead me to believe that this is precisely what the "rightly dividing" of 2Tim. 2:15 is directed towards. Not whether some pie is cut apart into even sections or bite sized chunks, and not whether the words, phrases or figures of speech of an ancient languages are correctly parsed or translated. There is no "Christ Administration." He lived in a time after the giving of the law to Israel. If there is a change in God's instructions to Israel while Christ was here on earth, I just don't see it. Sure, there was some added clarification to what the law meant... or where and when it was or wasn't applicable. But where or how do you see a change? When did he ever tell any of the 12 to abandon or end the law? It sure didn't end on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 (when they were in the temple at an hour of prayer.) Well, I'd continue, but it's undoubtedly off the topic of this thread a bit and would be better off elsewhere (where it can get ignored and, as before, buried in another dead thread. May it rest in peace...)
  5. Concerning the Bible...

    start off on crooked handlebars, and you'll think crooked is straight and straight is crooked... so best be carefully fleshing out a doctrine focused (or based) on one verse alone.
  6. Concerning the Bible...

    well, I'm inclined to think so...
  7. Concerning the Bible...

    hmmm... although I'm actually not in disagreement with the lead in part, I'm concerned with where you might be headed with that. (Galatians 4:30 comes to mind.) The Torah (as you call it) was given to Israel. Considering that it wasn't given nor intended for the Gentile nations, how much need or use of it might the apostle to the Gentiles actually have (aside from fending off other zealous adherents to it)? Why suppose that for something to be written by revelation it was something "dictated" to him? I suppose it's just not how I see or think revelation works. Perhaps this isn't the best way to say it, but from my perspective... revelation is so sharp and specific (in the mind's eye) that one's view of reality is altered to such an extent that there is no other reality. Perhaps another way to say it is that his thoughts become our thoughts... and it happens so seamlessly that it* can easily be missed. *i.e., the alteration (or extension, if you prefer) of what is known to be "real." How or why did so many get into this thinking that everything that is of God, or is the "word of God," has to be some stinkin' rule or law or "commandment" of some sort? How else would you have or expect the Lord Jesus Christ (or God Himself) to communicate something to you, so that it wouldn't come across as such?
  8. Concerning the Bible...

    for me, the inherent difficulty (or problem, if you prefer) with that is where or what it leads to. namely: If it came forth like that for Paul, then why should what he wrote be all that much more credible or important than what I believe God inspires within me? (And if that doesn't strike a chord within you, perhaps it will when your own understanding of the Word is more... how shall I say it... lifted up?) Besides, exactly how does that fit with Proverbs 3:5? Being somewhat familiar with what some number of things are said and taught to be Paul's thorn in the flesh... I've found myself wondering at times why it might have been so painful for Paul. If you suppose it to be something outside of himself (i.e., other people), then I'd imagine the very most painful for Paul would be beloved Israelite brethren, who's zealousness for the law was continually perverting his gospel of grace. But, if you suppose it to be more subjective - something wrong or at odds within himself - then it's hard to imagine anything much more troublesome or painful than his being driven to break away from so many years of his own fanaticism for the law. Think it was hard for some of you to... what's the word used here at GSC... "decompress" after your years in TWI? Well, multiply the worst you can imagine by 1000 fold... and I'm still inclined to think it doesn't come close to being comparable to what Paul probably had to deal with in his mind. Trained at the feet of Gamaliel. Profited above many of his equals. But counted as dung. Rely on his own understanding of the Word? Nah. Don't think so. Galatians 1:12 says it about as plainly and as clearly as it can get. Revelation is not inspiration. (And there's a whale of a difference.) There is no mistake, no guesswork whatsoever involved. It hits the mark so cleanly and so spot on, it's... well, it's perfect!
  9. Commune of Enablers

    Well, I'm not convinced of that "mostly trained" part of your statement. But, apply it to the WC's greatly oversized "how great thou art" ego development program, and yeah - I'm all in. (Been there, done that. Damaged right along with the rest of y'alls...)
  10. Commune of Enablers

    After the events of Pentecost (Acts 2), I think so. Socialism works great until you run out of other people's monies. Which is also why they ended up so broke. No joke. (Rom.15:26.) So why did they do it? Simply because they were convinced that once all of Israel recognized the error of their ways and accepted Christ as their Messiah, he would return from the heavens (to Jerusalem) and restore the kingdom after a relatively short period of tribulation. (The time of Jacob's trouble.) So, they prepared... by selling their homes and pooling their resources. Worked just fine... until the money ran out. The attempt to "replicate" the first century church (i.e., Acts 2:4ff) was one helluva mistake, and a gross misunderstanding of when the church of the body of Christ actually first began. (take a closer look at the meaning of that word "chief" in 1 Tim.1:15.)
  11. The Trinity

    Of course, as per Heb.9:22. But the context of my question was after it was shed, and there being any further need of it (in the resurrection.) Okay, that makes sense enough to me. But not that. It's too hard for me get a clear enough picture of what you intend or mean to include (or not include) with that word "transfigured," especially given you think it can or might happen more than once. I see the resurrection as... well, perhaps for lack of any better description... a new concept. A "One-of-a-kind," first ever... birth. In that very day, the coming forth of the new and "only begotten Son of God" (see Acts13:33.) The last Adam has passed; the "second man" arrived. Nothing before or since is comparable to it.
  12. Billy Graham

    Four fingers of that point back at yourself. This "which Christ" line has been tossed around over the years (usually by staunch Trinitarians) so haphazardly and ... so outright maliciously at times, that it's truly disgusting. Which other was it that laid his life down on a cross at Calgary, that God subsequently raised from the dead and called his "only begotten Son"? None, I tell you. Absolutely none. Make no mistake about it.
  13. The Trinity

    not at that point in time.
  14. The Trinity

    from time of conception? yes. (until information via spirit is introduced)
  15. The Trinity

    okay, then how about physical senses (i.e., received into the brain via physical sensory perceptors.)