jeast

JustThinking, Thanks for starting this thread. TWI was more of a head/ego trip and I had my face so close to the picture all I could see was the dots. Now I understand it is not so much about where the comma is, but about serving the Creator "God". This process to this point has taken approximately 30 years. Although GSC as we have been so informed is not a Christian thread I have been inspired and much of what I have learned has only been confirmed either by those of you who manifest....love, joy, peace (you get the picture) or strife, bitterness, contention etc. I am more convinced than ever that we need a Savior.

Excathedra, From my perspective... Because you are a caring person you have the ability to listen to others and feel what they are feeling which enables you to help them in ways that no one else can. But the other side of that is, it also makes you vulnerable to be hurt especially by those you have confided in. I have had and to some extent still deal with some of the same issues. There have been times when it almost crushed me. If you were hard hearted and cold as a stone no one could hurt you but then again you would not be the friend that people could confide in either. I am also in my 50's and still get hurt by some people who are inconsiderate etc but I would rather be sensitive to others needs even if it means I have to learn how to deal with such things as betrayel. I am glad you are that way and even though there are people who do not appreciate you and will take advantage of your kindness please don't change. It also sounds to me that your couple of friends at work need someone like you around more than ever.

Thanks to many of you who have inspired me to be more accountable. I offer this information as part of my attempt to share with you the direction my heart is taking. As you all well know I am not the best with the written word so please forgive me for my copy and paste of someone elses work. The link for the website is given at the end of the article. • Is it possible your Christian argument is simply wrong? • Is it possible your Christian experience is simply misleading? • Wouldn't Christian experience be more uniform, if it truly were supernatural? • Did a good Jesus make us good, or did we invent a good Jesus because we already were good? • How do we know it was actually "asking Jesus into our life" that really was the cause of our change? • Do believers simply 'fill in the blanks' to construct a view of Jesus? • Could one accept a Christianity without all the moral repugnancies of the bible? • How should we approach 'moral repugnancies' in the Bible? ________________________________________ Is it possible that you could ever reach the point where you'd step back, look at the big picture, and perhaps think that maybe you were wrong in your belief in the historical accuracy of Christianity, that there's some other explanation even though perhaps you'll never know it, but that even if you don't know the real answers you know enough to know that the answers suggested by Christians simply can't possibly be true? Isn't it possible that by looking at the big picture, you might once again question whether all those answers to prayer and patterns that you see might be the result of your looking for something you expect to find, and creating the connections to fit the facts? It is the big picture that is the most reinforcing structure in the cognitive aspects of this worldview, for me. At a purely cognitive level--apart from lived experience--all that has to be necessary to have adequate warrant to "believe" in the truthfulness of the core Christian position is this: 51% or more of the "areas of discussion" have to have "51% or more" of the data to support the position (assuming all areas have the same weight). That's all--a majority of a majority--not everything perfect, not every question answered, not every problem resolved… Let me explain a little. In the piece I wrote on "Faith is simpler than it looks…" I mention some 40-50 arguments that are used by people to support the intellectual veracity of the faith. And, I give an example of a hypothetical court case, in which 'small pieces' of data 'intersected' to make an adequate case for conviction. If more than half of the 40-50 arguments, are more-than-halfway convincing (not 'compelling' at 100%), then the position is epistemically warranted. My study of the various arguments have led me to believe that this indeed is the case, and therefore I 'feel' warranted (cognitively and epistemically) in accepting its truthfulness. This means, of course, that there can be TONS of difficulties in the system (as there are in ALL systems), but that these will only affect my 'confidence level' at any given moment. To throw out the entire system, when I find ONE area that cannot be explained satisfactorily, requires me then to construct alternate explanations for the 'majority data', and these are the ones that have proven most resistance to reinterpretation for me. 1. I simply cannot make myself believe the resurrection story is simply false. I KNOW all the arguments against it, but they carry less believability and demonstrability (IMO) in this case, from what I know about historical science. They predict LESS of the 'historical residue' in the text and in history than does the evangelical understanding of that data. 2. I simply cannot make myself believe that the post-resurrection appearances were simply nonexistent or ambiguous. I KNOW all the alternative positions, but they explain LESS of the data of history and the nature of the historical texts than does the evangelical understanding of that data. 3. I simply cannot explain away several of the predictive prophecy texts in the OT. I KNOW all of the arguments against them, but I consider the arguments much more speculative that even the straightforward understanding of the prophecy/fulfillment data. 4. I am unable to 'demote Jesus' to some pre-Gospel, non-troublemaker, non-claimant to VERY high authority. His words shook the world, and biblical and historical studies are authenticating more and more of those (against the backdrop of the more skeptical climate of 50 years ago). The alternate explanations of 'why he said' those bizarre things are just too incongruent with the events and impact of His life. 5. I cannot find an alternate understanding of the 'shock value' and persuasive power of this message, to the Roman empire. The adoption rates and social impacts of the early church suggest something para-historical about those events. Comparisons with other 'miracle workers' of the day may this even MORE obvious to me: the difference in impact and the different in the 'density' of the data radically separates the two categories. 6. I cannot find a 'comfortable' way to de-spiritualize or naturalize the almost ridiculous gratuity of color, beauty, tastes, sensory joys, family hyper-affection--most of which would be considered 'gross waste' or 'overkill' in naturalistic explanations of the robust pleasurable experiences of humans. 7. I cannot find a better explanation for the hardwiring of humans for transcendental beliefs (e.g. spirits, gods, ethics)--they just don't seem to add enough (or any) 'survival value' to us, for them to be seen as purely 'naturalistic' mutations. 8. I cannot find a better explanation for observed phenomena of spirits and consciousness than radical non-naturalism, and the data from various scientific disciplines is beginning to 'de-naturalize' our older 'closed' Newtonian machine… 9. I could go on, but you get the drift…Each of these areas are STILL areas of research for me. There are still questions and doubts and unknowns, but as a group, they are still much more 'naturally' explained or understood by a simple belief in the core message as contained in the bible. Also, I haven’t found a SINGLE argument for the Christian faith that "could not possibly be true"…Even the softer claim of "could possibly not be true" only surfaces a couple of possibilities for me--none of which I have actually SEEN shown to be 'not true' (e.g., possible candidates for 'possibly not true' would include--at different times (smile)--Anselm's ontological argument, some 'hardwired' arguments). And the 'wait--we might find something else' position I have already dealt with at length above…If I lived as a contemporary with Plutarch perhaps I would be more open to this, but as a Miller, I would probably be too busy trying to eke out a living instead of thinking about these sorts of things…(smile) And of course, this is the only the cognitive arena…and it is the personal experience that is generally dominant and determinative for most long-term followers of the Lord… I have been a follower of Jesus now for over 30 years, having asked Him into my life at the age of 19. There has never been a time when my mind was not full of questions, nor do I ever expect there to be one…but the questions are largely ones of how to live and love, how to understand my experience versus others, how to become more open and teachable and gracious and gentle…and the such like… The reality of the living Lord in my life makes all the cognitive apologetics-type questions 'interesting', and perhaps needful for those being eaten alive by them (like I have been frequently in my spiritual life), but they are strangely personally irrelevant now… There is a famous phrase about Christian learning: "faith seeking understanding". To this I might add another one" "experience seeking understanding"… I remember the first time I REALLY saw the import of the question in John 14: Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?" Somehow, God was going to manifest His life in my history in a way that would be almost 'indistinguishable' from 'natural' phenomena in MY life (i.e., I would recognize it, but the 'world' couldn't see it--even though I pointed and pointed to it). That God was going to not 'supernaturalize me' per se, but 'authenticize' me, to reach the highest 'naturalization' of me possible. I have seen this over the years, that as I grow in my experience of God, I become more 'human' in a good sense (Paul calls this the 'new man' re-created in the image of God). I become less other-worldy and less 'detached from suffering' and less 'withdrawn from the world'. I seem more alive to those around me, I laugh louder, I weep more deeply…but my face doesn’t glow like Moses and I am not surrounded by miracles and my life is filled with the same tragedies and treacheries faced by all (and by Jesus, during the days of His flesh)…I work my hands in wood, and I carry a cross everywhere I go… As I see God more, people see the 'new me' more…but it doesn't look 'supernatural' as such…it might show how a person can reach higher and better, and leave behind destructive and hopeless habits and perspectives of the past (I think of people I know who have experienced 'dramatic' liberation from alcoholism, drug dependence, addictive behaviors--and who only then achieve 'natural joys and life')… The evidence of the supernatural IN my life (to me) might be answered prayers, patterns of providence, numinous experiences, unexpected feelings of comfort or encouragement, victory over stubborn habits or character traits, ability to let people into my life more, and transforming insights from God's Word. But the evidence of the supernatural THROUGH my life (to others) might be that I seem to have 'matured' to higher levels of 'human' love, graciousness, humility, and sensitivity…Or perhaps when I tell them that Jesus can bring life into THEIR life, they won't have a reason to mistrust me or think me deranged…If they would ask me 'how' my life has "climbed higher", I personally would have to say 'from living with my Lord'…He 'rubs off' on those who "hang out" with Him… There was a time when I thought these good changes in my character were simple maturation or mellowing processes, but when I began analyzing it, I realized that this would mean that most people NEVER mature or mellow…I see plenty of cases of hardening and stubbornness and withdrawal, but not as many cases of 'growing in graciousness' and/or increased involvement in personal learning/transformation and/or becoming less judgmental, as I would expect under a 'naturalistic' explanation… So, the experience of God over the decades has just 'soaked in' and so now, at least some of the intellectual questions border on the irrelevant… It would be sorta like trying to take objections to the historical existence of my mother seriously today…I can think of a half a dozen ways people could try to prove my mother never existed (Mother-mythers, I guess I would call them…chuckle) or get me to doubt my memory of her (or even my present experience of her over the phone)…but my experiences with her over the years--even though possibly modified by time--creates a personal certainty that would be unaffected by arguments of possibly misplaced birth records, faulty memories, psychological projections, hallucinations, impostors, fraud(!)…each memory could be challenged for 'independent evidence' or objections raised about 'disagreements' with other memories…stories gathered from my siblings could be used to 'discredit' my testimony, since there would invariably be "discrepancies" in our memories of the past… There is a 'data density' about the experiences that somehow creates a depth of confidence that reaches to 100% certainty. Could I be accused of being 'close minded' for not being "open to the possibility that I might be WRONG about my decades of experience with my mother"? Only by an fool… But I digress… The fact that you seem certain of things and seem to have a "victorious" Christian experience, and that other Christians write to you with all their problems to solve, suggests to me that it's YOU who are doing something right (whatever it may be, and it may not be what you THINK you are doing), while they are doing said thing wrong, and that no supernatural influence whatever is involved. A supernatural influence would be suggested by a more uniform Christian experience. I would think that if there truly were something supernatural about Christian experience, it wouldn't matter if people "did it right" they'd ALL be "victorious" Christians, because GOD would be acting through them. Several points here: First, on the Tank, people don’t generally write to me with their 'problems' per se, but with their questions. And the questions they send are typically 'intellectual' ones, dealing with issues of history, philosophy, theology and such. This is not so much a measure of my 'success' (!), but of the focus and interest of the Tank. People send their marriage problems elsewhere, their car problems somewhere else, and their challenges with getting Perl scripts to run correctly yet elsewhere. So, the readership I draw is more about the subject matter and about the way I analyze things, rather than any 'victorious' Christian life. Secondly, the biblical view of believers is that we are all supposed to be different. To use the Pauline image, one is to be an eye, one a foot, and one an earlobe. Some are to be teachers, some are to be counselors, some are to be admins, and some are to be 'encouragers'. These are very diverse roles, demanding very diverse skills and temperaments, so I don't see any real reason to postulate a uniform (visible) experience in developing and using those abilities, in service to others. [God likes diversity and robustness.] Thirdly, at a biblical level, these believers actually DO have a "uniform experience", but only at a high level of generality--Their character is growing into analogical conformity to the character of Jesus. They all experience growth, failure, frustration, pedagogy, insight, discipline, renewal, embarrassment, and persecution. Theologically, its called 'progressive sanctification'--becoming 'different in a beautiful sense' from 'normal' humans--and every "aware" believer can tell you stories of what lessons God has taught them over their life (some very painfully, some easily, some slowly). But since the ways this is done vary from person-to-person and lesson-to-lesson and mood-to-mood, I would NOT expect the process to look uniform to ANYONE. The fact that the believer experiences this--over time--as being from God is the single unifying aspect of it. Fourthly, the Christian life is a realistic one. The bible tells us that it can be full of frustration (e.g. over our personal lack of growth), anxiety (e.g. over our friends or our own circumstances), and suffering (e.g., grief, persecution). At any given moment, no two lives look alike, I would guess, and nor would a period of difficulty or challenge be representative of the entirety of one's life with the Lord. Pockets of non-victorious experience are "allowed" in for various reasons, but these don't make the Christian a 'loser' or different from other Christians currently experiencing 'victory' in visible aspects of their lives. [Another way to put this might be that it is not always obvious which experiences are 'victorious' or not: is the deep humility after failure, leading to a closer experience of God's forgiveness, acceptance, and restoration a 'non-victorious' experience? This notion of 'uniform' might not be clear enough for us to use here, actually.] Fifth, and more importantly, God's stated goal for our lives (experienced progressively and in 'waves') is summarized in Galatians 5.22-23: But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control Notice the last one: self-control. The scriptures describe one of our MAJOR problems as being addicted to or 'enslaved' to various elements of human experience: arrogance, deception, selfishness, destructive habits, dead religion, cold-heartedness etc. We were created to be 'autonomous' (so to speak), but cannot manage to be such! A life walking with God brings increasing freedom to our lives, and increasing ability to 'master ourselves' and make TRULY free choices. God interacts with us as truly personal agents, and the texture of our life will be as varied as our own choices and selves are at any given moment. Growth and development occurs in many different areas and different ways, but our personal exercise of progressive freedom radically impacts this. This would imply that Christian experience would NOT be uniform at all. So, while there are DEFINITELY some predictable and ubiquitous elements in the lives of believers, I cannot see any real reason to expect any 'surface' uniformity at all--especially not in the kinds of questions they have, or send in to the Thinktank, friend. It strikes me again and again that most Christians are better than their religion. The Christ that you and many other admirable people portray is created by filling in the blanks in the New Testament. The Inquisitors created a different Christ, based on the same records, filling in different things in the blanks. I am not sure what you mean by 'their religion', but if you are comparing evangelical believers ("Christians") with the Inquisitors ("their religion"?), I suspect you are correct…but I get the impression from your brief statement that you believe we "construct" a "good Jesus" because WE are good, instead of the way we normally talk about it--"we become good, because the good Jesus re-constructs US"… Like Paul in the NT, we KNOW what we were like before we met Jesus, and we KNOW what has changed since then. We have a 'before' photo, and an 'after' photo, and a "process" we tried to follow…The "process" involved similar steps we would use in asking others for outside help: we recognized our need for change, we recognized that our own attempts had produced inadequate results, we went to a credible source (with a long, long list of successful clients and references--some we knew ourselves!), we described the 'bad symptoms', we asked for help from the expert/authority, He explained the underlying problem to give us insight and truth, we humbled ourselves to 'listen to instruction' and 'follow His treatment instructions', and then we continued feedback/evaluation/change loops… For many, this was done in a simple reading an internal response to the single verse of John 3.16: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only and unique Son, what whoever placed their trust in Him would not perish, but have eternal life." or (my water-downed version…) "For God so loved all of us, that He gave His one and only Son Jesus, that whoever placed their trust in Him for their 'rescue', welfare, and help, would not continue on in a life dominated by defeat, destructive patterns, and addictive deceptions--leading to complete and irreversible character decay, but rather would begin to experience renewal, transformation, thawing of heart, expanding horizons of beauty and grace--leading to complete and irreversible character fulfillment. " [My unpacked/paraphrase version…] This is not rocket science, but rather simple honest 'asking for help' and accepting help--on the treatment terms of the Helper, and trusting His experience and superior wisdom/knowledge…With earthly helpers, we don't have to ask him for transcripts of his educational background (and then go verify these, and interview his professors, and ask about how many cases of records tampering have occurred in the history of the Registrar), we don’t have to analyze why some people didn't follow through on the Treatment program, nor do we have to have every successful patient psychoanalyzed and polygraphed to make sure they aren’t Kooks/Quacks or deliberate Frauds--in league with the Practitioner. Some of the people we know (or at least 'strongly believe') to be trustworthy, and if they say that the only thing that changed between the 'before photo' and the 'after photo' was the invitation to Jesus to come into their life--and this story is repeated by countless others--what possible grounds do we have for rationally rejecting their claims (other than 'placebo' effects, which we will discuss below) that this event/process led to the 'improved results'. I don't have to understand the ins-and-outs of how medical techniques work on my body, to be able to testify that they did work. I have "photos" before and after, and a step I took in between. There is no rational reason to deny my testimony that the medical procedure "made the difference". When the only variable that changed was the treatment variable, there is no reason to theorize (much less, warrant to believe!) that some 'unrecognized' variable changed too and created the medical cure… It's simply unreasonable to ask me to explain/demonstrate/prove 'how' Christ worked inside my heart/mind to change it, or 'how' He grew peace within my heart, or 'how' He let the feeling of strengthening comfort grow inside my heart during bereavement. I can't explain adequately how I can will to move my fingers, either…I can't explain how 'discovery' occurs in my brain as I work…I can't explain how countless other things work…And in many case, dealing with human mind, neither can the professionals. And to say that it’s a powerful case of 'wishful thinking', invoking perhaps concepts of placebo effects, is to explain the obscure by the more obscure. We have NO IDEA how placebo effects (and other psychosomatic effects) work, and the same is true for many, many psychiatric treatments and most of anesthesiology (and related psychoactive pharmacology). Practitioners use the techniques because 'they produce results'…To argue with a psychiatrist that since we cannot prove unconscious mentation, therefore treatments based on that concept cannot be said to be the 'cause' of a patient's improvement, would be absurd, and might be looked on as evidence of a mental disorder itself! The assumption that I do not have adequate warrant to believe that the intervening event (i.e., opening my life up to Jesus and asking for His involvement and remediation) was the central and catalytic force/influence in changing the 'before' into the 'after' is just that--an assumption. Think about that assumption for a moment. How would you defend such an assumption? It couldn’t be defended on the basis that I could not specify the 'mechanism' of successful change--for that occurs in all/most of my medical treatments (I typically don’t know the 'mechanism' except in the most general of terms (e.g. 'it helps the white blood cells eat more of the bad germs'…?). The only possible evidence you could advance for this would be cases in which I had made such a mistake prior to this situation, and then you would have to show why such a mistake would not only be possible AND likely to have been made again, BUT ALSO would have to give some kind of 'argument' that it ACTUALLY DID occur. [Plus you have to come up with some alternative naturalistic explanation of the whole process, and a 'retreat' to "I cannot explain it, but there MUST be a better explanation using the known laws of nature" won't work here either, for reasons we have already discussed…] And, even though there might be other humans who did this 'process' and then decided later that their experience was bogus (e.g., ex-tians?), there is no warrant for generalizing from a minority experience onto the rest of the population! One would be more justified (statistically speaking) to study and identify why that smaller group had 'failures' rather that performing the invalid induction to an assumption that the much larger group had concealed and ignored their failures (in spite of recognition by others that their lives had dramatically and 'surprisingly' improved) over the course of entire lifetimes…(smile). Now, about us 'creating Christ' by the 'filling in the blanks'… How one 'constructs' a Christology is NOT as arbitrary and 'un-tethered' a process as your brief statement might suggest! (And, just to clear up a possible misunderstanding, the Inquisition theology was based on soteriology, not on Christology…it was NOT a 'view of Christ' that led to that at all…) This is a complex subject, and something a believer works through all his/her life…getting to know Jesus better and better, more clearly and more forcefully, over time…but I will at least mention a couple of the items that make it much more 'objective' of a process that might be inferred from your statement… I remember as a young seminary student, reading a book on the subject of 'competing Christologies'. The book devoted each chapter to a variant Christology (e.g., traditional, Marxist, Hindu). Since that time, I have read other such books contrasting Jesus the Wandering Cynic Philosopher, the Mystic, the Political Revolutionary, the Rabbi, the Shaman, the Apocalyptic Visionary, the Charismatic Miracle-Worker, the Sage… The competing views tend to have two characteristics: 1. Some throw out passages that don't fit their model (as being 'later interpolations' or whatever) [this is bad historical procedure] 2. Each weights more heavily some passage(s) than ALL the other passages in constructing their model of 'who Jesus was' [this is okay historical procedure, as a starting point, as long as it doesn’t lead to #1] For example, the "Jesus as Rabbi" model would emphasize Jesus' rabbinical argument forms (and discipleship methods), whereas "Jesus the Shaman" would emphasize his exorcisms and selected healings. The "Apocalyptic Jesus" would be "discovered" in his prophetic passages, and the "Jesus as Sage" in his more 'proverbs like' statements and wisdom-type observations about the lilies and the birds… But, practically speaking, these are not as divergent at a practical level as one might suppose. Many of the strongest advocates of each position are probably 'right in what they affirm, but wrong in what they deny'. The narrative documents that come down to us about Jesus, plus the interpretative ones by His intimate followers, portray Jesus in all of these ways, but varying by situation and needs. He had all of these roles, just as traditional theology has recognized Him as 'prophet, priest, and king'…As long as a particular model of Jesus is able to include the other views somehow in its model (similar to how scientific or historical theories MUST be able to 'explain' and accommodate peripheral or even dissonant data), these can be useful as heuristic tools and interpretative grids for casting light on specific words/actions of our Lord. These categories should also be recognized as being those of scholars, not us normal folk. Normal believers, who already know Jesus through the bible and interactions in history, call Him by scriptural names--"Lord", "Christ", "Savior", etc…for it is from those documents that much of the structuring of our "profile" of Him occurs. Believers all over the world and all over time share a basic understanding and experience of Jesus--as Lord/leader, as teacher, as friend, as companion, as comforter. This is a common experience of believers who relocate from one church to another, who discuss Jesus in chat rooms with other believers, and believers who "resonate" with writings about the Lord by other believers. There is a core 'shared' experience of Jesus which gives rise to a core shared 'description' of Him. Our problem is not that there are large numbers of significant 'blanks' in the New Testament (requiring filling in before we can have an understanding of who Jesus was, what He said and did--compare the Criteria for Authenticity developed by NT scholars), but that the range and amount of data about our Lord is so wide and large. We have portraits of Him rebuking strongly--in 1st century Jewish 'in your face' forms--the religious elite. And we have portraits of his 'meekness and gentleness' before that elite as well. The events are seen in 'synoptic' perspective, and the impact of those events (and words) are given generally by Jesus himself--it is NOT left up to us to 'figure out' that His dying on the Cross was foreknown to him, and accepted by Him because of His love for people. It is NOT left up to us to 'figure out' that He 'came down' from heaven for this task, unlike every other human in the world. It is NOT left up to us to 'figure out' that the purpose of His coming was to make rescue and freedom and truth and immortality a practical possibility for everyone with a heart honest about their need… Christians can draw literary portraits or literary metaphors of Jesus, like the Singer (Calvin Miller), Six Hours One Friday (Lucado), Aslan in C.S. Lewis' The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and The Beggar King (Dan Hamilton) and readers delight to recognize the same precious Heart of their experience in those portraits…This IS one "uniform experience" in a believer's life--"My sheep know My voice…" But I've digressed into the question of whether the Bible is "the inspired Word of God", and I didn't really intend to go there. As I said before, I could probably accept some form of Christianity while regarding the Old and New Testaments simply as historical documents, with no obligation upon me to try to force myself to approve of things I find morally repugnant. Two quick points: 1. Most people don’t approach the Lord with highly developed theological views of scripture, and most don’t even think about issues of 'inspiration' for quite some time (if ever). The initial issue is always trying to 'see Jesus', having enough confidence in the portrayal of Jesus by the New Testament documents to assess His kindness (can we approach Him without fear of rejection?), trustworthiness (can we depend on His commitment to us?) and sufficiency-to-rescue (can He truly deliver on His promises?). Once one 'sees' this Jesus as loving, human and Savior, dead and risen, the issue becomes simply 'What will I do with Him?"…the first step is ALWAYS about the claims, trustworthiness, and genuineness of Jesus--not about the bible, Christian living, etc. I would caution you to deal with this central issue, instead of 'getting off track' and trying to tackle and "solve" major theological, historical, and ethical issues…they will/may occupy much of your time LATER, but they will be useless to you in trying to initially establish a deeply experiential relationship with the Lord. 2. The 'moral repugnance' issue is a big more problematic, since you are having to navigate between two poles: a foolish position that you are morally blameless and indeed, superior to God, and an equally foolish position that NONE of your moral intuitions are even remotely correct about things. As we have discussed above, God did invest the creature with moral notions and intuitions (although there is a great deal of plasticity in these…hence the difficulty of finding many absolutes between cultures), and God expects the creature to use these moral notions to (a) avoid doing evil; and (b) reacting to evil when found in community-destructive forms. At the same time, we have seen above that your condemnations of certain principles which you THOUGHT were biblical positions but which were NOT would have been false accusations against the Lord. Likewise, I have pointed out that our limited epistemic position (especially in areas of moral governance) can easily give rise to false inductions and lead us to false 'condemnations'. The appropriate response, for example, to a 'moral repugnancy' for a believer would be something more 'humble' along these lines: "Lord, look at this passage here! My moral sense--which YOU put in me and which YOU are developing, correcting, and refining every day of our shared life--tells me something is very "wrong" here. I know you want me to use 'sound judgment' and not just 'appearances', so I need to study this situation more before I make "final" judgments about it. So I would like to ask you to guide my research, and give me insight into what is actually going on in this text/situation/saying, so that I don't make a superficial judgment. Also, thanks for my moral sensitivity, Lord, and help me 'use it on myself' today, to spot areas of my own life that need attention as well." So, the appropriate attitude to situations like this involves: • Using and developing and 'paying careful attention to' our moral intuitions, sensitivities and pushbacks; • Recognizing that the Creator/Designer of any hardwired moral intuitions has at least as great a moral sense as we, creating a presumption for practical humility: 'He is more likely to be correct, if it comes down to a real, non-superficial disagreement between us'. "He that created the eye, shall He not see?"--type of deal. This is not rocket science, of course, since this is the common experience of students. We disagree with our professors and proceed down the argument trail, and they 'enlighten us' to the other considerations and other data that has to be considered before one could legitimately reach the conclusion we were defending. • Recognizing situations in which our initial data may be too limited to warrant making an ethical judgment (and that deeper and non-superficial study will be required as a prerequisite to any confidence in our eventual judgment about that situation). It’s a little like judging a driver that abruptly pulls in front of us in traffic and then speeds away--for all we know it could be a medical emergency, and it would be 'culpable' for us to judge them as 'jerks' without all the relevant data. • Recognizing that some situations may simply have too many variables (a la chaos theory and weather) for us to make strong statements (we can elucidate principles--just like a meteorologist would--for these situations). A good example of this might be the Problem of Suffering. We could make a list of 50 possible reasons something unpleasant might happen to someone, but almost never would we be able to identify which ones applied to a given case. Much less would we be able to 'make predictions' at any level of specificity--other that 'meteorologist level' ones: "high probability of health and financial difficulties for Joe, due to his increase in recent cocaine acquisition and usage"). Now, it has been my experience that there are TWO major errors here--one more often made by skeptics and one more often made by believers--which should be avoided: 1. Seeing problems were there are none. That is, making superficial judgments about some situation being morally wrong. This is a frequent mistake made by skeptics. The use of the moral sensibility is laudable, but the fact that they don’t do adequate study--before making a judgment--is culpable ("He who answers before listening— that is his folly and his shame." Prov 18.13). 2. Ignoring even surface-level problems. That is, ignoring the moral sensibility when it 'complains' about a passage or situation. This is NOT the same as saying "this bothers me Lord, but I have reasons to trust that you will show me how everything works out okay" (a legitimate response of experienced faith), but is rather a case of Ostrich-faith ('bring some more sand--my head is not buried deep enough for this one"). This is a frequent mistake made by believers--sweeping the problem under the rug. I personally have been guilty of both of these--repeatedly--in the past. I have often "seen problems" where there were none--and lived with doubt and guilt without even giving the data a chance to 'speak for itself'; and I have often 'ignored my moral sensibility' when passages 'cried out to me' for investigation. God has used the Tank in my life to teach me to do neither--to pay attention to my heart (or the hearts of others), delay judgment until I have surfaced all the background, options, issues, principles, etc, and then make a 'sound judgment' that allows both intellectual integrity and peace of conscience to be maintained. So, whereas I do not want you to 'numb' your moral sense, I would encourage you to use it carefully, wisely, humbly, reflexively, and consistently. http://www.Christian-thinktank.com ________________________________________

I would like to read the rest of your song when you get it completed. It looks like it is going to be a cool song.

He sounds like a very funny, daring, bright and honest young man.

Thanks, In order to do justice to some of your replies I will take some time to absorb them. Better understanding is the goal. On some of the others, what I think the focus was....since it was noted that Luke was not documented to be an eyewitness then I used the quote from Acts to see if these individuals would qualify. Acts: NIV When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. I understand that many people have died for their beliefs, including Christians and witches etc. The point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between someone who has been persuaded to believe in something to the point they are willing to die and someone who actually was a witness to the fact. "I don't think it was a hoax, if by hoax you mean a deliberately contrived lie. I believe it is plausible that the story just grew in the telling, little bit by little bit. Since we don't have any contemporaneous writings by any of the eyewitnesses, we really don't know if any of those original followers of Jesus were willing to die." Is it not also plausible that they were actually eyewitness? Even though it may have been documented at a later date is it not plausible that Peter for example, did witness the fact as recorded in Acts, was filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and did die for teaching and preaching that Jesus was the Christ? "Here is a maybe a little less clear to some but there is a definite distinction between "eyewitness" and "perfect understanding." Of course, to many Christians including us in our former way daze thought this to mean he knew by revelation and the backing of this as being apart of that 2 Peter 1: 20 "scripture." :2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; :3 It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, I removed the comma between also and having just to see if there were truly a definite distinction between eyewitness and perfect understanding. Peace

Good stuff, So we don't have any written evidence that Luke was or was not an eyewitness? Help me understand this one please. Would any of these know that this was a hoax but was willing to be put to death for it. Do we know of any other sects etc where this is comparable? Acts: NIV When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. I really appreciate the tone that has been taken.

Source: Foxes’ Christian Martyrs of the World: From this perspective Luke among several of the others died for what some are suggesting as an elaborate hoax. Oakspears point was well taken in that Luke wrote about Jesus's prophesy after the event had happened. So when Luke wrote about what he claimed to be a witness to he really knew it wasn't true but was willing to die to keep the hoax alive. I realize many people have died for what they have been convinced to be the truth but why would many of those that were with Jesus be tortured and go to their death for a cause they would have known if it was not true. Again this is just one consideration among others. It is no more illogical to believe that someone who was with Jesus would later write or have written about the prophesy than to just disregard it because it was documented later. Especially if there were other prophesies that were historically verifiable, would this type of consistency not be worth of noting. Perhaps most provocatively, Professor Johnson parts company with much modern scholarship by arguing that Paul, though he may not have literally written any of his letters, should nonetheless be considered the true author of all. So I suppose this means that Professor Johnson must be wrong? Maybe. Just a little qualifier...I realize this thread is on the "About The Way" forum and I suppose if you sat through the PFAL then that needs to be taken into account. But this is a very personal endeavor and I prefer not to muddy the waters any more than necessary. Those that brought up the issue about reading more books, I suppose that meant being better informed and again the point is well taken. I am not trying to present some neat little package that I have already assembled looking for someone to contend with. This dialogue is part of my search/research along with trying to live, love and see how this applies to life. I appreciate your tolerance. Peace.

This is to all the courageous women who have opened their hearts and lives so all could bear witness to the atrocities that has affected so many others. As I was reading today about Deborah in the book of Judges and how she had such a strong fiery spirit some of your GSC posts came to mind. Found this on Wikipedia, Little is known about Deborah's personal life. She was apparently married to a man named Lappidoth (meaning "torches"), but this name is not extant outside of the Book of Judges and might simply mean that Deborah herself was a "fiery" spirit. She was a poet and she rendered her judgments beneath a palm tree between Ramah and Bethel in the land of Benjamin. Some people refer to her as the mother of Israel. After her victory over Sisera and the Canaanite army, there was peace in the land for forty years. Happy Mothers Day!

Hey Oakspear, You are gonna make me get off my lazy tail and dig a little deeper. Thanks I am not sure what else to do about the number issue that would convince everyone rather than find someone who did a first person head count. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_o...on_of_Jerusalem http://www.letusreason.org/proph16.htm This was the source concerning the numbers issue with the destruction on Jerusalem. If you believe that the bible is inerrant than it did happen 40 years after he spoke it, but all that a disinterested observer knows is that it was written down after the city and temple were destroyed. Excellent point, so are you convinced that there are absolutely no historically verifiable prophecy in the bible? If there are none then the above statement would carry much more authority. Are you totally convinced that nothing prophesied in Revelation has happened or is going to come to pass? Thanks for your input and your patience.

sirguessalot, I appreciate any constructive input. "Not saying I have the answers " that is why I am here to post then listen and learn. but i gotta ask...have you actually ever looked through other religious writings for predictions and prophets and prophecies and such? That would be a yes..but not by no means all of them and probably not nearly as many as some people have. "prophesies are unique among other religious writings"....I believe my point was the focus of many of the biblical prophecies directed us to a Savior Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Salvation, Justification, Reconciliation through no other name. I agree with you that there are many other prophesies but for some reason these are the ones that seems to cause such a big fuss. Kind of unique. I sincerely do appreciate your honesty and I do enjoy the dialogue especially when we don't resort to unfruitful put-downs. It helps also for me to realize that this is a process which takes time, patience and understanding. From my perspective there is much at stake here so it is worth it. We all have different talents and abilities that's why I rely on folks like you as a resource for information that I would otherwise overlook. Thanks, Peace

Tool & Die until July After July Frolicus Maximus

Jesus predicted Jerusalem would fall For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground (Luke 19:43,44) He also predicted the complete destruction of the temple of God, (Matthew 24:1,2). But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near (Luke 21:20). This happened in 70 Ad when Titus conquered it, 40 years after Christ spoke it. 100,000 people believed what He said and fled to safety in Pela, while over a million people who stayed and fought Titus either died or went into captivity. Those who heeded the words of Christ- lived. The same offer is for us today. Noah warned of the flood, he spoke of this while he built the ark for 120 years but they mocked him because they had never seen rain. But God spoke and the flood came just like God said. God says there is a tribulation coming unlike anything we have seen in history. We have it written for us today, but now we have people say there wasn’t even a flood despite the scientific evidence of a cataclysm and fish remains on the top of many of the high mountain peaks. God judged the earth once and He says he will do it again. They don’t believe it. A major portion of both the Old and New Testament is devoted to prophecy- nearly one third of the Scripture. Only four of the 66 books of the Bible are without prophecy-Ruth, the Song of Solomon, Philemon, and 3 John. Even the shortest book of the Bible mentions prophecy (Jude 14, 17-18, which refers to Enoch and the second coming of the Lord). Out of the Old Testament's 23,210 verses, 6,641 contain predictive material, over twenty eight percent. Out of the New Testament's 7,914 verses, 1,711 contain predictive material, over 21 percent. The apostle Peter, after testifying that he had seen Jesus Christ in all His glory, said, “And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts” (2 Peter 1:19). Peter here is appealing to fulfilled prophecy as a witness to the truth of the Scriptures. Proverbs 22:19-22: “So that your trust may be in the LORD; I have instructed you today, even you. Have I not written to you excellent things of counsels and knowledge, That I may make you know the certainty of the words of truth, that you may answer words of truth to those who send to you?” Found this little tidbit and decided to add it to the mix. Not saying I have the answers but it seems these and other prophesies are unique among other religious writings.

Sorry if I came across a little harsh but when I get the slightest impression someone is getting abused it flips my switch. JeffSjo's post caused me to pause and remember. My wife and I got married very young and had a little girl before we were 18. I this case I was the stupid jerk. I would find excuses to stay out late so I did not have to buck up and act like a father and a husband. I cannot explain how humbling it feels to have someone be so faithful and loving knowing you don't deserve it. Her parents never did interfere and if they did it may have worked out differently. I don't think she would have listened to them anyway. A lot of folks like to hack on the Word but IMHO that is what turned my sorry a** around. Somehow the verse "Husbands love your wives and give your life for them like Christ did the church" meant something to me. We have been married 38 years now and have 4 wonderful kids and 11 grandkids. I try my best to never take my marriage for granted anymore and to consciously do the things that strengthens our relationship. Even if sometimes I don't particularly feel like it because it is no longer just about me. She could have easily and justifiably cut and run but in this case it worked out. I believe I have learned my lesson and for the last 35 years I have done my best to never make that same mistake again.

No disrespect intended, but this if funny I don't care who you are.

My sister was married to her husband for I believe 52 years. He was brutal. Constantly humiliated her (called her a scroungy b*tch in a most loving way). I personally witnessed him slapping the crap out of her. I lived with them for six years and I was to small to do anything about it. Here is the point! He died of heart failure about 2 years ago and left her with nothing. But she stayed with him all this time and to this day will defend and make excuses for him. Totally insane! She is now 70 years old and knows no other way but the way he treated her. She has trouble functioning without drinking because she don't have him to tell her what to do. No doubt she loved him, and I will have to admit I loved him to. But I absolutely do not respect him and I believe that in a case like this the vow was null and void because he did not keep his end of the bargain. Not only did he cause her to suffer but the whole family was affected. So from the perspective of someone who witnessed my sister keep her vow under the most cruel circumstances my opinion is acknowledge that you love them but never allow yourself to be treated with disrespect. Get away from the situation if not for your sake for those who love you. This may be an extreme example but the principles are still the same.

"Your good old days of the way and vp are gone. If you honestly look at those days and all the good fruit in your life IT WAS FROM GOD NOT THE WAY. GOD CAN WORK IN THOSE THAT LOVE HIM, DESPITE THE WAY AND VP. VP MAY OF TAUGHT YOU THE WORD BUT IT WAS NOT HIS, IT WAS GODS." Bulls-eye! I may have very well been one of those who could have been perceived as a sympathizer. That is not the case. The Word that I did learn during that time has had a profound affect on my life. In my case it was for the better. Now that I look back at some of my first GSC encounters I believe I felt like something that worked so well for me all these years was being threatened. Some of it was that I did not and to some extent still do not know the whole story and therefore did not understand why some appeared to be so vengeful. And on the other hand I may have been misunderstood at times. (I don't see how since I have such a way with words) Ha! But I am glad I hung around long enough to hear from those of you who were willing to tell your first hand experiences. I am still listening, learning and hopefully a little wiser. As I honestly look at those days and all the good fruit in my life I realize that it is not just confined to the good old days. Reading your post tells me that there is more good fruit to come. You are right God can work in those that love Him, despite the way and vp. I appreciate your honesty.

JeffSjo, All the very best to you brother. I can relate to what you are going through and the only thing I would like for you to keep in mind is to not withdraw and to keep in mind that we will always be here for you. Not to judge but just to be your friend. Sincerely, Joe

That song has some very special meaning to me because a good buddy of mine and dmillers (Mike Moody) taught me a version of that. I had not heard it forever. Mike is gone now but it sure brings back some good memories.

Solid Gold!

Ephesians 3:2 NIV. Surely you have heard about the administration of God's grace that was given to me for you. Would this not be applicable? Was the overall purpose of the law and commandments to bring us to the realization that we indeed needed a Savior? Galatians 5:4 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. "The law was death unto me" "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." "None righteous no not one." "Who shall deliver me from this body of sin and death."

1Cor 12:15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 1Cor 12:16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 1Cor 12:26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. 1Cor 12:27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part Are they not part of the same body? "The only way to protect yourself against FALSE DOCTRINE, is to remain close to the HEAD OF THE CHURCH, "know" the TEN COMMANDMENTS, and I'm not talking just "head knowledge", but to truly "know" them" Well said. But rather than living according to the law and commandments it is my understanding that I am trying to live by this...Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart soul mind and strength and love thy neighbor as thyself. I hope to never lose sight of what we have been delivered from because the more I comprehend God's mercy and grace and love the more thankful I am. I strive never to bring reproach on the Body of Christ. To me this goes way beyond the 10 commandments. Good stuff, thanks

First and foremost I want to make sure that it is understood that the following is in no way meant to be disrespectful or demeaning. I am trying to make sense of all that has happened since the "Secret Agenda Society". if you've read schoenheit's adultery paper, you too must wonder why he was fired for writing it, !...........and yet, the reaction was the firing of the lynn's, and the widespread and meanspirited defamation and disinformation campaign against the others who participated in the letter thing. Schoxnheit writes a research paper on adultery.........and WALTER SHUFFLES IT AWAY???? What is this with the incessant NEED to be DIFFERENT? It seems to me, the more they try to be "different".. the more they stay the same.. It's like.. slowly, one class at a time, one meeting after another, one dedication to the vicster after another.. one program after another, which some are identical in name to one in the old *ministry*.. along with a *loosely* affiliated "survivor" program which will only resurrect the same kind of hierarchy and arrogance in their *loosely affiliated* groups.. aren't they becoming what they abandoned, and detested? It sort of appears to me these guys are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Not saying they have not made mistakes but do we honestly believe these guys are likened to the infamous Secret Agenda Society. How can anyone teach anything that they may have learned while in TWI without being labeled as a heretic. During the last 25+ years I have absorbed information from many bonifide, Bible college educated ministers with degrees and as far as I can tell they are just as inclined to teach according to the party line as any so called offshoot. I suppose if we just went along with Constantine we would follow the dictate of the Council of Nicaea. Some criticize because an organization has a mission statement, others say leaders need to be held accountable so the must be held to biblical standards. So what if the mission statement is derived from biblical standards? If anyone else has what they believe to be the correct teaching please lay it out here so we can dissect it. It may be that I am being naive but I am willing to re-evaluate what I have been taught. I am not willing to chuck it all just because it was once taught by TWI. I consider John S. as I do many of you as a valuable resource. That does not mean I am willing to relegate my understanding of the scriptures to any so called man of God anymore. Is it wrong for someone to get paid for teaching, preaching, researching etc? No doubt there are those who have blatantly abused the charity of believers but does that make anyone whose livelyhood is ministering forbidden. I am not trying to necessarily defend any certain individual but it is more of an effort to try to work together. Respectfully,

mstar1, The Dan Crary medley was sweeeet. I really like the sound of his signature model Taylor it has a sound of it's own. Thanks

Just to be sure credit is given to where credit is due. The bulk of my original post was taken from an article by John S. I am encouraged when I read a thread where the posts are lively but civil. Our understanding of what is meant by "scripture" is an important foundational building block otherwise we will all be refering to our own subjective datums. That's not to rule out the witness of the Holy Spirit but they both need to jive before we can say with confidence, thus sayeth the Lord. It would be great if every individual could independantly research all the texts of every language, know all the customs and figures of speech but then we run the risk of only seeing it from just our point of view. I would prefer to collectively provide input from our individual studies and research and then personally confirm the results with "scripture" and the Holy Spirit. This way we can take full advantage of each others strengths and move progressively forward instead of continually reinventing the wheel. Now that we have all seen how the bible and scripture can be manipulated and what damage that it has done to our lives I think it makes us uniquely more qualified than we were before.