T-Bone

Now don't be too quick to blame Ron's Cat - the actual source could be someone well acquainted in the deceptive art of Fartriloquism [the one breaking wind is able to throw their sound across the room to give the appearance that someone else has passed gas]. Not to be confused with A$$hole Projection - which is an Out-of-the-Bungh*le experience.

I don't know - I've got a pretty odd sense of humor and guess some people don't know what to make of my silly stuff...In some wacky weird way this is part of how I deal with things and it's therapeutic for me.

Speaking of Gospel Harmonys, Invisible Dan, there's The Narrated Bible in Chronological Order NIV, narration by F. LaGard Smith. I don't use it as a reference but just enjoy reading the Bible as a single continuous story. Smith added a descriptive narrative in the NIV to tie events together... I don't consider his added narrative or chronological order authoritative - but it can provide some insight at times - definitely helps getting the flow of the Old Testament...It's sort of like reading The Message - which I enjoy too - maybe not useful as a reference - but may get you to look at something a little different. You know, sometimes you'll read a verse in a different version - a verse you're so familiar with - and you wind up seeing something else in it!

Thanks Gang for sharing these websites - I'm adding a bunch of these to my Favorites list. And Goey, I don't know if you've come across this one www.criticalthinking.org - it's a good one for developing clear thinking.

This has got to be one of the best threads ever on Grease Spot! I hate to be difficult - but I'm still undecided - you might have to post some more pictures...This worked out great - coinciding with my Bible study on the practical application of LUST.

Mike, perhaps I wasn't clear on referring to those books. I'm not trying to "clean up" my KJV. I refer to them for another viewpoint or perhaps see how they define a Greek or Hebrew word, or mention an historical or cultural tie in...As far as a loss of surety - I personally am confident that: the Bible is true [though I certainly don't understand it all], that Jesus died for my sins, that God answers prayer, that adultery, lying, murder, and stealing are wrong; That I should love God with all my heart,soul, mind and strength & love my neighbor as myself....I continue to study the Bible [in quite a few different translations besides KJV] to hopefully deepen my understanding of the Scriptures and develop my relationship with God as I'm sure you do too....Yeah, there's a lot of neat stuff to study in the Bible - like the Book of Revelation, the Rapture, the Holy Spirit and manifestations, etc. - - I personally don't think I've got to figure that all out, work all the kinks out and nail down the "true doctrine" or some doctrinal position so I can have intellectual confidence.....I admit I look into those things, study them - but figure I may never be as confident about what I find as I do about the "simpler" stuff....I think [in my opinion] that in the grand scheme of things - what matters most in Bible study are the things that have a direct bearing on the practical side of Christianity.

In my opinion, this is getting very confusing – trying to determine the validity of PFAL by math analogies or "backward engineering" the content of the class by analyzing his behavior behind closed Motor Coach Doors [for fear of the news]. I think it's a lot easier to analyze the class content all by itself. The way I see it [in other words my stupid opinion] there's a bunch of truth and error in PFAL and it sometimes takes a serious effort by way of critical thinking to distinguish the two. To say "truth is still truth no matter who speaks it" or the math analogy "2 + 2 = 4" is to make a gross assumption. I mentioned this in an earlier post – PFAL is a patchwork of various theological systems and that the class isn't just straight Bible – VPW quotes parts of it and then makes comments. If I were to use the math analogy I would liken the class to a physicist presenting a thesis. He would present mathematical equations [truth] along with his theories, findings, conclusions, etc. Someone good at math could check the physicist's math…In regards to doctrinal error in the class – we need to check the verses [truth] that he refers to in proving his argument – and look at them for ourselves – and ask questions to analyze his theories, conclusions, etc. For instance – just because VPW shows a bunch of verses to suggest there exists a "Law of Believing" – does that make it so? What are the implications of this idea?...I venture to say – I don't think PFAL would stand up to very close scrutiny by any serious Bible student.

Cynic, I don't have a problem with any of what you said. I think you're right. Perhaps I'm not communicating my idea very well...I see Scripture as the source of doctrine - I'm not suggesting we pull this "framework" out of thin air. A student of the Bible is seeing things that seem logically associated with other things. And that is what I am drawing the attention to - our mind plays a role in making these associations - in attempting to understand a doctrine. I think about the differences in doctrines of denominations. In my opinion, that's indicative of people seeing things a little bit differently...We're all looking at the same thing - but we each may notice some nuance of difference...And yes - perhaps my logic is flawed in certain areas, or what I "see" is something coming from a bias I have. That's one of the problems we have as imperfect humans...

Way to go, Goey !!!!!!!!!!!

An exciting announcement for those who suffer from thinking-exhaustion. The pharmaceutical experts [and we use that term loosely] at Wonders are Yummy have concocted the ultimate one-pill-does-it-all! After years of research [and we use that term loosely], studying the effects of pills from other manufacturers and field experimentation they have come up with a pill that is totally, thoroughly, and throughly original [and we use those terms loosely]. What is usually described by faithful users as a "miracle of science" [and they probably use that term loosely], is really a very simple formula for success: Copy the ingredients used in the competitor's pills, throw in a few of their own choosing, and energize the mix with the Force from Star Wars. These are some of the benefits that thousands have claimed the Pill for Abundant Living offers: Makes life meaningful. Increases prosperity. Develops more harmony in the home. Enables you to separate truth from error. Overcomes fear and worry. Helps maintain a positive attitude. Tired of thinking? Let the Pill for Abundant Living do that for you! Possible side effects: Wonders are Yummy adamantly warns those on the Pill that discontinuing use can lead to becoming a channel for Linda Blair, Ted Patrick or Larry King [whoever gets through the trap door first]… Reputable pharmacists, psychologists, philosophers, theologians, informed mechanics, and people who have an acute sense of nonsense list possible side effects from continued use of the Pill: loss of contact with family and friends, inexplicable draining of finances, adultery, divorce, frequent change of addresses and employment, abnormally stunted career advancement, seeing demons behind every tree, inability to communicate with people who don't use the Pill, sleep deprivation, overwhelming sense of meeting burn-out, flagrant disdain for the viewpoints of others, increased wear and tear on living room furniture, loss of intellectual appetite, increased desire to use the powers of the mind to control traffic lights, and absolute obeisance to the Pill and the manufacturers of the Pill.

Have you tried ministering to your cat? Oh wait - you both have to believe - and it's obvious your attitude has gone downhill.

Happy B-Day, Sirguessalot...looked at your website - some pretty neat stuff!!!!

One time after a long meeting we were late getting to the kitchen [or was it Adam's Alley? or whatever they called it] - and Darth VaderlinDylan in charge of the kitchen would NOT give us our sack suppers...Another time: I was working in the kitchen by myself one morning having to dish out peanut butter. This 5 gallon bucket of peanut butter was soooooooo thick - I think it was Deaf Smith brand - or one of those natural, very very very exceeding abundantly thick kind. I was hungry - usually was [refer back to previous incident]. I put a spoonful of it in my mouth - - - and choked - couldn't breathe. Thoughts are scrambling through my head: a memory of gagging on a peppermint when I was 6 years old, my obituary in Rome City Paper, my wife and kid leaving the campus in shame. I finally heaved it out - but to this day I still love peanut butter - as long as I don't have to be sneaky about eating it.

Okay - I understand the idea - that truth is truth no matter who is speaking it. But here is where I have a problem. I get the idea from the PFAL Patrol that truth is like an Erector Set - you can put all the different pieces together any which way you want. When you have something made up of more than one part it's a system. PFAL is a patchwork of various [and I might add dubious] theological systems. Very simply - unless he [or anyone] just quotes the Bible - verbatim - you've got something added to the truth. As in - you make a comment about a verse - it may be right - it may be wrong. I don't recall PFAL being non-stop KJV and nothing else. That's what I mean about Erector Set assembly. I question the way he puts it all together on the different topics. Nothing wrong with anyone putting ideas together and making comments, quoting the Bible, etc. I notice "in my opinion" is used a lot on Grease Spot. I use it myself or sometimes use "I think" - I don't see that in PFAL - I think to most simple-minded readers the ideas in PFAL come across as rock-solid, unbiased thoroughly/throughly researched God's honest truth. Of course that's just my opinion - I may be wrong.

Cynic "Jesus was the Messiah promised in Old Testament scriptures. Jesus was born of a virgin. Jesus suffered and died. Jesus made propitiation for sins. Jesus was raised from the dead. Jesus ascended into heaven. Jesus will return from heaven. Jesus will have his elect gathered. Jesus will render vengeance to them who know not God and who do not obey the gospel. The preceding paragraph consists of a topical collection of propositional statements based on indications of various scriptures. There is no single place in Scripture that states all that is affirmed by those statements. The statements have a historical/eschatological aspect and an aspect of communicating proper belief, thus are doctrinal in character. The statements elude McGrath's rather Kantian account of the relationship between Scripture and doctrine, however, because they function to repeat biblical testimony, rather than to interpret it. I think it doubtful that you or McGrath could find many thoughtful and informed theologians, philosophers, teachers, accountants, mechanics, painters, barflies, or strippers either to conclude the statements are vacant of doctrinal content or to separate them from Scripture by characterizing them as a humanly constructed interpretive framework." Cynic, we [the informed mechanic helping me adjust the carburetor on my truck and myself] agree those statements are full of doctrinal stuff. But we fail to see your reasoning in equating them with Scripture. And I'm NEVER loaning any books to an informed stripper ever again!

In my opinion, many of these arguments about PFAL's relationship to the Bible is like comparing apples to oranges. I thought PFAL was supposed to be an aid to Bible study [in other words it's NOT the Bible]- "designed to set before the reader the basic keys in the Word of God so that Genesis to Revelation will unfold…" [in VPW's own words, page 4 of PFAL]. It would make more sense to compare it to other books that also claim to help the reader understand the Bible. There's a lot of them out there. An analogy may illustrate the way I see Bible study aids. The information in the Bible is like a valuable resource [a gold mine]. Books that help me dig for the gold are tools. The tools are not the gold. Some people think their tools are made of gold. I can't help but think that the people who are so enamored with PFAL are easily impressed or haven't done much "comparison shopping." It's as if they've been going grocery shopping for years at the corner convenience store. They're missing the variety and specials at Costco's or Wal-Mart. This is merely my opinion, of course, but when I compare the PFAL book with other Bible study books I see a WORLD of difference . And to be fair to VPW we ought to just reference the PFAL book and not the class – because he really gets sloppy in the class. The biggest differences I see between VPW and other books of the same type are: VPW's inconsistency with his use of the keys to biblical interpretation; not citing a bibliography or references – I'd like to read his reference for myself [the issue of VPW's plagiarism is a whole other well-documented exposé as well - - but we'll get back to beating that dead stolen horse some other time]; PFAL discourages critical thinking, ignoring other viewpoints, very rigid mind-set. All this is just my opinion, of course. You'll have to read these other books and compare them yourself like I did – get your own opinion. The PFAL book is a blend of Bible study aid, Commentary, and Systematic Theology [though very simplistic in all three areas - sort of at the convenience store/bootleg level]. So, I have listed below a few books that I think do a better job [in other words a more effective tool] in those categories: Bible Study Aid How to Enjoy the Bible by E.W. Bullinger [hey, it was good enough for VPW] Understanding the Bible by John R.W. Stott What to do on Thursday: A Layman's Guide to the Practical Use of the Scriptures by Jay E. Adams How to get the Most out of God's Word by John MacArthur, Jr. How to Study Your Bible by Kay Arthur 30 Days to Understanding the Bible by Max Anders Bible Explorer's Guide: How to Understand and Interpret the Bible by John Phillips Living by the Book by Howard G. Hendricks & William D. Hendricks Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture by Bruce Corley, Steve W. Lemke, Grant I. Lovejoy Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible by Dan McCartney and Charles Clayton Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, Robert Hubbard Commentary The Believer's Bible Commentary by William MacDonald The New Bible Commentary: Revised edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer, A.M. Stibbs, D.J. Wiseman Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary Kenneth L. Barker & John R. Kohlenberger III Consulting Editors The Bible Knowledge Commentary Editors John F. Walvoord & Roy B. Zuck Systematic Theology Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine by Wayne Gruden Systematic Theology by Louis Berkhof Understanding Christian Theology Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck, General Editors The above books are tools. No tool is perfect. I like reading other viewpoints. Sometimes I agree – sometimes disagree with the authors. But either way it's great for encouraging thinking.

That would make a good cartoon: a dog saying "I SIT more than ye all." [my wife said "as long as the dog doesn't S_IT on the carpet."

Take whatever u want - just remember - if they're a hit u got it from me - if they bomb u thought them up...and we never had this conversation...

Excerpts from T-Bone's Journal: Today I'm trying to come up with a new signature line... Now unto him that is able to confuse others far better than he confuses himself From the man who figured it all out – but threw away the notes I too have the gift ministry of an idiot I was so disappointed with the lousy job the Cults are doing – that I started my own If you're having a hard time rightly dividing the Word – try changing the Batteries in your Calculator Milking the Word until the Cows come home [i'm mooving the Word] I literally believed myself into a state of unbelief just to prove the Law of Believing works [but now I don't believe it works] I have so renewed my mind that I cannot tell where my thoughts end and the LSD begins

If that's a 2 part question my answer is the same for both - the Bible.

Garth, I hope I didn't come off as being super-critical of doctrine, or of systematic theology - I was trying to make the point that sometimes we're not aware of how our beliefs shape our viewpoint...CM, I like your phrase "just exploring different ways of thinking."...

I actually like watching the first few episodes with all the try-outs. I'm amazed at how the people who can't carry a tune are not shy - singing on National TV! I haven't kept up with it lately - although that one guy's voice I like - didn't get his name - has gray hair, bluesy voice, and moves like Joe Cocker.

CoolChef, there's a couple of parallel Bibles that are handy. One is The Essential Evangelical Parallel Bible which has New King James Version, English Standard Version, New Living Translation and The Message [from Oxford University Press]. The other is Comparative Study Bible which has NIV, KJV, NASB, and Amplified [from Zondervan].

CoolWaters, here's an article about environment/genetic link to antisocial behavior: Study finds genetic link to violence Environment of abused children may trigger gene that influences antisocial behavior - Carl T. Hall, Chronicle Science Writer Friday, August 2, 2002 The likelihood that an abused child will become antisocial or violent as an adult hinges partly on a gene that influences brain chemistry, scientists report today, suggesting that some children carry a built-in shield against trauma and stress. In a provocative study that tracked 442 New Zealand boys from birth into their mid-20s, an international team of researchers found evidence of a potent interaction between child abuse and a gene known as MAO-A. The study appears today in the journal Science. The results highlight the importance of tying gene function to factors in the environment, particularly during early childhood, that can powerfully shape just how and when a gene kicks in. It's often the interaction, more than the gene itself, that really counts, even though that can be an elusive area to conduct research. "This is one of the first demonstrations of an interaction between a gene and an environmental pathogen," said Terrie Moffitt, a psychologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and a co-author of the study. "Looking for a direct one-to-one interaction between a gene and a disorder is usually the wrong way to go." The MAO-A gene produces a brain enzyme called monoamine oxidase A, long known to soak up excess quantities of the neurotransmitters dopamine, serotonin and norepinephrine, all key chemical messengers in the brain. The same gene can come in a high-activity or low-activity form. Previous studies in humans as well as animals have documented a clear link between violent tendencies and the low-activity form of the gene. In the new study, 85 percent of the severely maltreated boys who also had the low-activity form exhibited some kind of antisocial behavior later in life. The combination of maltreatment and a low-activity MAO-A gene was found in only 12 percent of all the boys in the study, but was a factor in 44 percent of their violent crimes. All told, the odds of an abused child with the low-activity MAO-A gene developing antisocial problems worked out to be roughly equivalent to the risk of someone with high cholesterol developing cardiovascular disease. However, the researchers emphasized that the MAO-A factor was not strong enough to predict which abused children might develop antisocial problems. Instead, the presence of one gene form or another merely shifts the odds -- leaving plenty of room for variation among individuals. The data was drawn from a large and continuing health study begun in 1972 by the New Zealand government, designed initially to examine the long-term effects of birth complications. Nearly 1,100 children -- all those born in a certain hospital during a one- year period -- were evaluated repeatedly for health and behavior patterns through age 26. Another study is planned based on the participants at age 32.

Thank you, Cynic, for sharing how some other denominations explain John 1: 1. I like checking out different perspectives – and even more so the thinking process that is behind a viewpoint. Our own beliefs are involved in the interpretation process. The following is from Understanding Doctrine: What it is – and Why It Matters by Alister McGrath [McGrath's text is in boldface]: Doctrine interprets Scripture…It is a framework for the interpretation of Scripture which claims to be based upon Scripture itself [page 26]…A helpful way of thinking of the relation of doctrine to Scripture, probably suggested by a growing Victorian public interest in botanical gardens, was put forward by the nineteenth-century Scottish write Thomas Guthrie. Guthrie argued that Scripture is like nature, in which flowers and plants grow freely in their natural habitat, unordered by human hands. The human desire for orderliness leads to these same plants being collected and arranged in botanical gardens according to their species, in order that they can be individually studied in more detail. The same plants are found in different contexts – one of which is natural, the other of which is the result of human ordering. Doctrine represents the human attempt to order the ideas of Scripture, arranging them in a logical manner in order that their mutual relation can be better understood…[pages 28, 29] Speaking about the doctrine of the Trinity McGrath says it is an attempt to bring together into a single formula the richness of the Christian understanding of God. For example, it holds together the following central elements of the biblical witness to the nature and purposes of God: - God created the world. – God redeemed us through Jesus Christ. – God is present in his church through the Spirit…The doctrine integrates these three elements into a greater whole…It is not meant to explain how God can be like this; it simply affirms that, according to the biblical witness, he is like this...[page 30] To reiterate McGrath's ideas: Doctrine is man-made in that it is a framework – a tool for interpreting Scripture, a way that WE THINK select information should be organized. Doctrine is man's attempt to get the big picture…Maybe some arguments are really from people trying to explain how God can be like this in John 1: 1…It's hard to back down from our own theological positions and try to see what God is truly like.