T-Bone

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.

CoolWaters, I'm trying to remember the specifics of an interesting article I read in Time, Newsweek [can't remember what magazine]- anyway basic idea of this study was they looked at what kind of home life growing up people with violent tendencies had. I'm probably botching up the details - but I think the article suggested it wasn't always the case that if you were abused at home then you yourself grew up to do the same. It was if you had a particular gene and you were in a particular environment that would act as a TRIGGER to that gene.

You have our prayers.

You both are in our thoughts and prayers.

The TB Enterprises Universal User Manual Kit

Thank you for purchasing the TB Enterprises' Universal User Manual Kit. We at TB Enterprises are absolutely sure you will be able to tailor this TB Enterprises' Universal User Manual Kit [hereafter referred to as TBUUMK] to fit every one of your technical needs. No matter what type of equipment or device [hereafter referred to as WHATEVER] TBUUMK will get you out of the soup and you will be using WHATEVER like a pro! How often does this happen to you? You've lost the user manual to a very complicated piece of equipment. Or, as you're reading through a manual provided by the manufacturer you think, "This book is useless – I could write a better one myself?" On the other hand, maybe you've even built WHATEVER yourself and so the responsibility to draft a user manual falls squarely on your shoulders. Now is your chance to do it right with our easy format!

We at TB Enterprises believe in the patience, resourcefulness, and creativity of the average person – in fact, we designed this manual to challenge people to grow in these areas. However, we all know everyone needs a little help once in awhile – so there will be a phone number below for Tech Support available 24 hours a day, putting you in touch with someone very familiar with WHATEVER. Are you ready to begin?

Step 1: Familiarize yourself with WHATEVER. How do you think it's supposed to work? Try that. This is a good time to fill out the registration portion of this manual contained in Step 2, below. To register your TBUUMK all you need do is write in your ten digit phone number next to Step 2. After entering your phone number in Step 2, proceed to Step 3.

Step 2:

Step 3: If you are at Step 3 – then you have already gotten familiar with WHATEVER and tried a few things to get it to work and you have registered your copy of TBUUMK by entering your phone number in Step 2. If WHATEVER is now working properly then you are finished with Step 3 – go immediately to Step 6.

Step 4: If WHATEVER is still in the "Non-Functioning Mode" [industry terminology], try again but do one/some/all thing(s) a little differently. If WHATEVER remains in the "Non-Functioning Mode," proceed to Step 5. If WHATEVER is now working properly you may skip Step 5 and go directly to Step 6.

Step 5: Take WHATEVER back to where you got it. If you built WHATEVER yourself, try disassembling it and putting it back together a little/a lot differently; then, return to Step 1. If still have no luck in getting it to work – feel free to call our 24 hour Tech Support Help Line [listed in Step 2]. Don't be embarrassed to call – lot's of people do – you may even get a busy signal depending on the volume of calls we're experiencing at the time. Remember – be patient, resourceful, and creative.

Step 6: Now that you have successfully operated WHATEVER, you need to document everything you did to get it to work. We recommend that you avoid any technical jargon, but this is your own personal TBUUMK – do whatever [not to be confused with WHATEVER] you want.

TB Enterprises return policy: TB Enterprises will not refund, replace or in any way accept a user manual kit that has the appearance of being used, has been viewed or referred to in casual conversation, appeared in a vision, daydream or nightmare, is defaced, grease smudged, shows evidence of any type of cleaning agents, Liquid Paper, torn, crumpled, contains deletions or additions of pages or content, lost any of its atomic weight, has even a single mark on it, photo-copied, faxed, or virtually reproduced; defacing can include doodling, notes, part numbers, telephone numbers, expletives, stick figures, mathematical formulas, conversion tables, equations from any of the internationally recognized sciences, references to other user manuals [which would include earlier versions of TBUUMK], as well as [please write your entry here of what that might be]:

Thanks Mark & Raf for the pros info - after thinking about the definitions another issue occurred to me. In the beginning if the Word was with God in foreknowledge only - or as VPW put it "in the mind of God" - then why use pros - together with yet distinctly independent of? Doesn't that suggest TWO SEPARATE entities? Am I just being a little too picky here? If it was just in God's thoughts - wouldn't it make more sense to say something like "In the beginning the Word was in God."?

Bliss

"T-Bone, are you going anywhere yet for spiritual learning?"

Yeah, Grease Spot.

Bliss

"I feel the same way Amazing Grace, I flip flop . I am floored at the reminder of that picture Tbone! I was reading the gospel of John today. NEVER really read it in TWI. What parts I did, was always with the TWI filter ON so I didn't have to "see" any trinity…Why do we want to define God in Human terms anyway?"

Ditto for me too, Bliss, on the flip flop thing. But I'm not embarrassed or get uptight about it – I'm not writing any books about whether he's God or not - or drawing any intellectual lines in the sand…and I really like your last words: "Why do we want to define God in Human terms anyway?" And I know what you mean about reading the Bible with the TWI filter on…And when AmazingGrace talked about still leaning towards Jesus not being God in personal prayer and worship – I go "yeah, me too." I'll tell you what – doctrinally speaking I'm a mess – but I'm comfortable with that, I'm not leading any ministry or theological seminary. I'm not hell-bent on proving beyond a shadow of a doubt Jesus is God – I just don't know. But I'm working on removing the TWI glasses because they get some things out of focus. So, I have this sense of curiosity and excitement – believing that there's more to Jesus Christ than the narrow picture I got of him through my TWI goggles.

Not long after leaving TWI I was reading the gospel of John and noticed how sometimes as I read TWI explanations would automatically pop up in my head – even after getting a different Bible without my TWI notes. One day when I read John 1: 1 and 2 it was like seeing the alternate image in My Wife and Mother –in-Law. I was thinking about that experience as I read everyone's posts – got so excited I went up to the Attic and dug out my PFAL books…First I'll put the verses then quote VPW on them [VPW's words are in quotes and boldface].

John 1: 1, 2

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." [King James Version]

VPW states the crux of his interpretation on pages 102 and 103, Chapter 8 "In the Beginning was the Word" of Power for Abundant Living: The Accuracy of the Bible "The key to understanding John 1:1 and 2 is the word "with." If any other Greek word were used for the word "with" except pros, the whole Bible would crumble. The word pros means "together with, yet distinctly independent of…This is its remarkable usage because it refutes the erroneous teaching that in the beginning Jesus Christ was with God to start everything. This is not what the Word says. It says that He was with Him, but the written Word was also with Him. How? In what you and I would express as "in the mind of God." God in His foreknowledge knew of the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ…This was all with God because of His foreknowledge."

On page 28 in Chapter 2 "Who is the Word?" of The Word's Way: Volume III, Studies in Abundant Living, copyright 1971, third printing 1976, VPW states, "How was this revealed Word with God? The Word was with God in His foreknowledge…This is what John 1: 1 literally says. The revealed Word was with God in His foreknowledge; the revealed Word was later to be manifested in writing as the Bible and in the flesh as Jesus Christ. How was Jesus with God in the beginning? In the same way that the written Word was with Him – in God's foreknowledge." And page 31, "Verse 2 could literally read, "The same [the written Word which is the Bible and the Word in the flesh which is Jesus Christ] was in the beginning with God [in His foreknowledge].""

Maybe it's me – maybe I'm being biased in my tendency to believe Jesus Christ is God – but I don't think VPW was justified in suggesting Jesus was in the beginning only in God's foreknowledge. I read the verse – and it sounds a lot like Genesis 1: 1. And is that sort of the interpretive key previous usage?

Being a city boy two memories always stick out in my mind - both from Rome City Campus. One was while on Bless Patrol going over to the Barn and checking out all the pigs sleeping [and making really loud snoring noises] - and then we'd wake them up!...The other was killing chickens - alas - I remember poor Lucky. Jeff was in charge of sticking each chicken head down in a funnel-like thing with their heads poking out [one svelte swoop of the knife]. The first chicken Jeff grabbed he put next to the funnel, stuck a cigarette in it's beak and called it Lucky. Lucky stood there the whole time - watching, emotionless as each chicken was beheaded. He was the last to go - and is now awaiting the Return.

Once again, Coolwaters, thanks for an interesting poll – it certainly gets heads a thinkin'. In the poll, I chose that you don't need a devil spirit to do any of those things. VPW's teaching on this does a great job of relieving personal responsibility. I'm not saying "there ain't no devils out there possessin' folk" - although I think I still have The Exorcist type of possession stuck in my head – which I believe can happen but in my ol' TWI-brain I think I lumped all "the-way-devilish-stuff-works" in that cartoon-like category.

I have my own dumb theory for splainin' why we do stuff: Everyone is born with a different genetic make-up, strengths and weaknesses [God's original handiwork plus inherited sinful nature]. A person doesn't need holy or unholy spirit to desire good or bad things [consider the Bible often appeals to our wills, our ability to choose]… So I wonder how a spirit influences someone's mind. I've never heard an audible voice from God [not even after wiping the snow off the gas pump at a convenience store in Gunnison], and not really sure how God works in my life. When I see someone in need – is it my mind or the Spirit that begins to think of reasons why I should help them or ways to help them…Alright – so my theory doesn't explain anything – but I don't think I need to watch out for devil spirits behind every tree. The idea I get from the Bible is that the best way to prep for battling our spiritual enemy is by living an upright, morally sound life – obeying God…And I'm definitely getting rid of my Ouija Board after this poll – when's the next Uncle Harry Day?

Thanks coolwaters - interesting poll. I chose that I found [some] value in the things I participated in and had mixed feelings about it too.

I remember the confidence I had during Bible study after taking PFAL. I figured I couldn't go wrong with the keys to the Word's interpretation. PFAL refers to II Peter 1: 20 "…no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." VPW presents us with a dilemma from that verse – either there is no interpretation possible or the Word must interpret itself. He suggests that the Word does indeed interpret itself in one of three ways: 1. in the verse; 2. in the context; 3. in its previous usage [page 146,147 of Power for Abundant Living: The Accuracy of the Bible, copyright 1971, second impression 1972]. I agree that they are keys to understanding the Bible but disagree on what VPW said II Peter 1: 20 is about. Reading the next verse that "…the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." It seems to me that II Peter 1: 20, 21 is really talking about the origin of Scripture – not the interpretation of Scripture.

I think some people have the idea that understanding the Bible is simply plugging in these keys and mindlessly unlocking the meaning of any Scripture. I think the most important tool in understanding the Bible is our mind – how we process information.

Everyone interprets the Bible [okay – a wise guy in the back yells out "some more than others"] – it's part of the process in communication of information. In a dialogue between two people, it happens all the time [interpretation of what's being communicated: "Oh, he's serious", "he's lying," she's kidding", "Are you saying you don't want to join my club?"]. People don't always communicate effectively or people don't always listen attentively – so misunderstandings can happen. However, when it comes to the Bible II Timothy 2: 15 indicates precision is REQUIRED in biblical interpretation. That's why I think it couldn't hurt to hone our critical thinking skills. Don't get me wrong I think it's great to know about principles of interpretation – I still enjoy E.W. Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible. But you're deceiving yourself if you think that when you use these keys truth automatically jumps into your lap. There is always the danger of making a mistake - as in my above example of VPW suggesting II Peter 1: 20 says the Bible interprets itself. Of course, I may be wrong instead – [but I don't think so]. It appears to me that VPW ignored the context of II Peter 1: 20, 21.

For a Bible student to ignore the role of the mind is asking for trouble. I'm NOT saying, "Throw out keys to the interpretation of the Bible and just trust your mind." I'm saying – we're human – our minds are not perfect – we need to double and triple check our thinking. What about the Holy Spirit? I don't know – is it like the Eternity commercials "I don't know where my thinking ends and the Holy Spirit's influence begins." I don't think we're like robots sitting idle until God tells us what to think and do. But I do believe there's some kind of inexplicable partnership going on with God and our heads. He designed the hardware and operating system – yeah it got kinda screwed up – but that's all we [God and us] have to work with until the major upgrade happens. J.I. Packer in Keep in Step with the Spirit talks about there being a correlation between the Holy Spirit and the written Word of God – each teaches by means of the other. When I read Psalm 119 I'm impressed with how thoughtful, reflective and prayerful the psalmist is and how life is riddled with ups and downs. There's times the person is confused, confident, miserable, joyful, insightful, profound, ignorant, obedient, rebellious – okay wait – this can't be a day in the life of a believer [nobody is that flippy – unless you're my old W.O.W. brother – Joe is that you?]. I think it's really describing our journey in life – Psalm 119: 1 "Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who WALK in the law of the Lord." This psalmist had a very active mind and a very active partnership with God.

I found a good definition of critical thinking on Wikipedia: Critical thinking consists of a mental process of analyzing or evaluating information, particularly statements or propositions that people have offered as true. It forms a process of reflecting upon the meaning of statements, examining the offered evidence and reasoning, and forming judgments about the facts. Critical thinkers gather such information from observation, experience, reasoning, and/or communication. Critical thinking has its basis in intellectual values that go beyond subject-matter divisions and which include clarity, accuracy, precision, evidence, thoroughness, and fairness. Critical thinking does not assure that one will reach the truth or correct conclusions. Firstly, one may not have all the relevant information; indeed, important information may remain undiscovered, or the information may not even be knowable. Second, one's bias(es) may prevent effective gathering and evaluation of the available information. One should become aware of one's own fallibility. Given the nature of the process, critical thinking is never final. One arrives at a tentative conclusion, given the evidence and based on an evaluation. However, the conclusion must always remain subject to further evaluation if new information comes to hand.

Wow - thanks dmiller for posting the picture! I'm having a royal High School flashback! You mentioned you had a hard time seeing the old woman. That reminds me of those posters that are a pattern but if you look close there's a shark or something in the picture. I can NEVER see the shark.

Most felines are loners and don't like anyone telling them what to do - they prefer to learn religious type stuff by reading a CAT-echism.

Thanks Belle for sharing those letters - tell you what - they're kind of weird - sort of like an alternate version of C.S. Lewis' "Screwtape Letters."

- please put this icon near your box of letters - if that doesn't work to hold the heebie geebies at bay try squirting some Raid around it.

This may be totally screwball and not applicable with the Jesus is/is not God debate but I'll throw it out there anyway and see what you guys think. Back in high school a teacher was trying to illustrate to us how pre-conceived ideas can influence how we see something. He split the class up – showed my group a drawing of a young woman and showed the other group a picture of an old hag. Then he got us all back together and showed another drawing to all of us. My group said they saw another young woman. The other group said they saw another old hag. It was the same drawing. Some of you may have seen this drawing – a co-worker of mine recently showed me it in a book she has on optical illusions [the drawing is called "My Wife and Mother-in-Law"].

Maybe this is a dumb idea but I wonder if sometimes that's what happens when we read key Scriptures on this issue. Our conception of who he is plays a role in how we understand the verse. I may be waaaaaaaay out on this. Even trying to figure out my own shift on the issue I get a little confused. Raised Roman Catholic, I get into TWI and don't recall a big internal struggle to accept Jesus Christ is not God. I don't think I had any clear cut religious beliefs before TWI anyway. Then, I leave TWI and after a long process of Bible study, reading theological books, prayer, and reflection [and if you notice I left "debate" out – this was during my "lonesome years" – which is why an open forum like this is great for critical thinking] – my beliefs on this issue have subtly shifted. But that doesn't mean I'm correct and TWI was wrong on this! I'm just trying to figure out why I lean one way more than the other.

Sorry if my sloppy theology is showing. Like I said before I do not want to lead a group of people. I'm just fascinated with the thought process behind our beliefs - - and so thankful I've found a bunch of people who've had the TWI experience [sounds like it could be a Jimi Hendrix tune] and like to think out loud.

It's interesting how we're all stymied when it comes to articulating exactly how we understand God, see God and worship Him...I read something by Alister McGrath using an analogy to explain the fact that being finite severly limits our understanding of God: we're like a ship on the ocean - the ocean being God of course. You never experience the whole ocean at once - only a very small portion of it...My imagination elaborates on McGrath's analogy - I think of how different the Pacific Ocean is from the Atlantic. I think of how every person feels different about the ocean. Personally - I'm a little terrified - you don't know what's down there! And I'm not a good swimmer. We go to the beach - my family are like fish and could play in the water all day. I'd rather sit on the beach and read a book - while hearing the surf and the sound of seagulls, smelling the salt water, feeling the sea breeze... Ah...where's my Long Island Iced Tea?

I'm in full agreement with you, Ex10 - and best wishes back atcha!

Ex10, you've described practically the same way I see Jesus Christ. I usually pray and talk to God, our heavenly Father. Sometimes I talk to Jesus, never to the Holy Spirit. I don't consider myself a Trinitarian. I think sometimes we get so concerned about reducing God down to something we can intellectually handle - we put Him in a box and it's all got to be neat, explained, understandable. That's why I don't into arguing about if he's God or not - I mean I love a good debate and hearing other viewpoints - but I think there's some stuff in the Bible that's WAY OVER our heads! It's like we're on a glass slide under the microscope looking back up through it - the most we'll be able to see at the other end is a big eyeball.

1. What time is it: 11:53:52 AM

2.Name: T-Bone

3: Nickname: Jesus Christ [what my dad called me when he asked me where I'd been]

4. Piercings: 2 holes in my nose, 1 below nose...oh, you mean man-made? none

5: Recent movie: Serenity

6. Eye Color: sort of glazed over

7. Place of birth: New York

8. Favorite food: peanut butter on anything - or right out of the jar [man, that W.O.W. training sticks with yah!]

9. Ever been toilet papering? NEVER touch the stuff!

10. Love someone so much it made you cry? Every time I look in the mirror.

11. Been in a car accident? A few

12. Favorite day of the week: Saturday

13. Favorite restuarants: Uncle Julio's, P.F. Chang's

14. Favorite flowers: none

15. Favorite sports to watch: Time-traveling Ordained Female Minister Mud-Wrestling [it's tough to catch though, because you never know when it comes on].

16. Favorite drink: Appletini

17: Favorite ice cream: anything with peanut butter on it.

18. Disney or Warner: PFAL [the animation is a lot better - wha...he's for real?]

19. Favorite fast food restaurant: I don't think this question was in the original text.

20. What color is your bedroom carpet? Dog Hair Black.

21. How many times you failed your driver's test: 3

22. Winter, summer, spring or fall: Fall

23. Which store would you choose to max out your credit card? Best Buy [with TWI's approval first, of course]

24. What do you do when you get most bored? Go on Grease Spot and pose as a former cult member.

25. Bedtime: 10 PM

26. Favorite TV shows: The Apprentice, Amercian Idol, Trading Spaces, Extreme Homes

27. Last person you went to dinner with: wife and kids

28. Ford or Chevy: Ford

29. What are you listening to right now? My daughter chewing her food.

30. How many tatoos do you have? One for each Corps retemory.

31. How many pets do you own? 2 dogs

32. Which came first the chicken or the egg? I wrestle with this one all the time - so many things to think about - ok - which one has a navel?

My two favorite Robert Mitchum movies: "The Enemy Below" and "Thunder Road."

I don't remember being the recipient of many in-your-face/one-on-one confrontations. Probably because I was so submissive, going along with the crowd – I do recall being yelled at a lot en masse. However, I do remember one incident that exemplifies the dilemma I often faced being such a subservient soul.

My wife and I were responsible for the Corps Tents during the Rock of Ages. LCM is teaching in the Main Tent and it's raining so hard – the tent crew has to slit some parts of the tent roof to keep it from collapsing from the weight of the water pooling up. I was thinking we had better go check on the Corps Tent – but the man of god for the universe yells over the microphone, "Don't anybody leave the tent!" So, my wife and I didn't.

Afterwards, I don't remember who the guy was that spoke to my wife and I about not checking on the Corps Tents. He was nice – didn't yell or say much – he didn't have to. I was bawling like a big old baby – beating myself up over the fact that I made a wrong decision. I thought the directive from what's-his-mouth on stage superseded my standing orders for the Corps Tents.

Besides the fact of how unscrupulous VPW's plagiarism is, there's another aspect to consider – the affect it can have on the reader – in terms of mental development and point of view. During the crisis management phase [after Geer's "Patriarch" Epistle] I was trying to think outside the box – which for someone entrenched in TWI programming is just about impossible. Like a rebellious kid I would find things he said in PFAL and try to pick them apart or do the opposite. When he talked about commentaries and how it was reading around the Word and people wanting to hear what the Right Reverend So-and-So said about that verse – I thought it would be a good idea to check out a commentary.

There was an estate sale at an old pastor's home around the block from my house. I bought two commentaries for a dollar: "The Pastoral Epistles in the Greek New Testament" by Kenneth Wuest and "Commentary on the New Testament: The Interpretation of Matthew" by R.C.H. Lenski. At this time I was becoming very leery of what anybody wrote on the Bible [even VPW]. Here's a few thoughts about my reading experience. Some interesting points were made by argument disagreeing with another author . I become aware of more than one viewpoint on things. Some authors would list other viewpoints and give the pros and cons of each with Scripture references and logical arguments. I found myself reading the Bible with a little more open-mindedness while starting to develop my own critical thinking skills.

So, besides the fact that VPW's brand of plagiarism is stealing and lying – it can real do a number on your head if you think that PFAL is all you need to understand the Bible. Grease Spot is a great place to come – there's a lot of different points of view. And it's a great place to experience the critical thinking process – WordWolf, thanks for the fantastic work you've done on The Way, Living in Wonderland, VP and Me in Wonderland and so many other threads.

Three things on Grease Spot got me thinking about the Jesus is God/not God debate [and really some other doctrinal stuff]. 1. Goey mentioning on a thread there’s good Christians on both sides of the debate . 2. Taking MarkOMalley’s poll What are your beliefs currently [realizing I’m not 100 % sure of my own beliefs – I think I could have answered almost every question with “I’m not sure”]. 3. A discussion on the Does saying Jesus is NOT God demean him? thread – where it gets into the validity of what Jesus did [how what Jesus did meant so much to them because he’s God/not God].

I’m not looking to win any arguments here about if he’s God or not. I’m starting this thread to see what people think ABOUT the DEBATE. In other words, do you think the issue is/is not important and why. After our discussion I will come out with a new book “Jesus Christ is/is not God is/is not a Big Deal” – and don’t worry I’ll use the same technique used by an author of a similar sounding book title and not list you guys as the source of my material.

Me first. I think the issue IS NOT important because I don’t see it as clearly defined in the Bible like other topics. I have no doubts in my mind that things like adultery, lying, and stealing are wrong. Are there places in the Bible where something clearly defined as morally wrong get confused with a righteous act? I don’t think so [although I know of a particular group that does]. But when it comes to Jesus [as of this writing I believe he’s God – but check back with me in a few months] I get a little confused about his nature in looking at his humanity in the Gospels and the divine aspect I see of him in the Epistles. When I read some of the threads on Grease Spot I see valid points of logic and Scripture references from both sides. And to be honest, in my “heart of hearts” I’m hoping it’s not a big deal to God – as it was to VPW.

Also, I don’t see a big difference in how this affects a Christian’s life. As far as behavior – here you have two Christians that obey the Lord Jesus Christ – one thinks he’s God and the other doesn’t .When you bring up worship – well, yeah that’s gotta matter – right? Who you worship – that’s pretty important – and we can get really inflammatory throwing around the word “idolatry.” Guys, I’m not trying to win an argument here – I’m just throwing out some thoughts. I wish God would have made it a little clearer in the New Testament when the title “Lord” gets used who it’s referring to. It would’ve saved me a lot of guesswork if the apostle Paul would have written something like: “now unto Jesus Christ – who never was God nor ever will be – belong praise and glory forever more amen.” Or for the benefit of the other group “now concerning this mystery of Christ – let it be known to the church and all creation forever more – he is God – and you will never understand this – don’t try to – just accept it. As the Father hath said in another place where it is written [let he that reads understand] ‘this is the proof that you are born again – if you get me and my son mixed up.’”