TLC
-
Posts
1,311 -
Joined
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by TLC
-
-
26 minutes ago, T-Bone said:
Oh yeah - I think there was quite a significant change - in ways that I can’t even imagine! ...please review first part of my post that got into superstring theory and our new bodies...of course - there might also be other things that changed differently for Christ just because of who he is.
So how is going through walls any different than walking on water? I don't really see that you're making any distinction by pointing at this superstring theory you mentioned.
-
13 hours ago, T-Bone said:
On the spiritual vs physical you might be right; me on the other hand - a few years ago, I did some reading on superstring theories and other dimensions – so I kind of went in a different direction; if there’s anything to that stuff – it’s possible the spiritual realm is wrapped up within our physical realm…multiple dimensions folded up on each other – some theories speculate there might be at least 10 dimensions ( the basic theory suggests there’s 3D regular space + 6D hyperspace + 1 of time) that make up the fabric of reality …so maybe the spiritual realm is right here and now
Okay, seems I need to clarify something. When I spoke of a (spiritual) reality "beyond" the reality that is common to all men, I don't think (and didn't mean) that it is on some far off ethereal place in heaven or anything apart from or removed from what is common to all. The context of the statement concerns itself with how reality (whatever it is) is perceived. So, it's not necessarily "a different direction" that you went in... maybe just a significantly less complicated one. For instance, I don't see or think or speak of the world around us in 3 (or 4) dimensional terms. Generally speaking, thoughts of it in my mind are molded into "a view"... which seems to be best stated as "a picture" of what is real. Likewise, regardless of whether "the spiritual perspective" encompasses 6, 8 or ten (pick any number you want) dimensions, it still makes sense that they would all be molded together into "a picture" of what is real. What I don't see, is some number of other ways to bring it all together, or to see or think of it (i.e., reality.)
13 hours ago, T-Bone said:I’m not sure how inspiration or revelation worked in the authors – but I don’t picture them as being perfect or impartial conduits – in some trance-like state as God took over and flipped the override switch on their cognitive abilities –
Nor am I sure. Nor do I believe it was through some "trance-like" state. And while I don't picture the men themselves as being perfect, I can picture their initial revealing of it being exactly how God intended for it to be revealed (regardless of any other conditions or circumstances surrounding the man at the time.)
13 hours ago, T-Bone said:What if Jesus Christ was a hybrid – being both human and divine…
Then what (if any) change do you think happened in (or with) his resurrection?
-
5 hours ago, chockfull said:
Plato's cave is the problem with fundamentalism and the Bible.
It ends in a bunch of people skilled in making hand puppet forms to project shadows on the wall judging one another according to the detail and coherency of those shadows.
If so, then perhaps relativity is also a problem inherent in everything else. Because all reality is perceptual.
Upon detection, we define energy (in whatever form it exists) and then respond to our own definitions of it. If it's not detectable, it isn't definable, so it's concluded that it doesn't exist. However, at sub atomic levels, nothing is solid. So, one can speculate that the common (or literal) reality that we experience is an illusion. (Albeit, a very persistent one, according to Einstein.)
-
1 hour ago, Infoabsorption said:
Mark, you completely missed the point I was trying to make.
Apparently you missed the point of my post.
But, no worries. (Tends to happen more when there's an agenda involved.)
I don't care to get any deeper into it. -
3 hours ago, T-Bone said:
Sorry I guess it wasn’t clear enough for me; as far as inerrancy goes - whether one looks at the Bible (any translation / version) as a whole or whatever existing documents that have been found - there are still obvious scientific / historical errors and contradictions . So to rephrase “my position” - I don’t believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures - even the original-God-breathed-hot-off-the-press documents...scrolls...parchments...post-it notes or whatever the heck you want to call them.
So from your perspective, there's no difference... yet, perhaps you might consider that from my perspective, there is (and has been, for over 40 years.) Long ago (before twi) I came to the realization that whatever is spiritual: (1) is spiritual, (2) is not physical, and (3) is a reality beyond the reality that is common to all men. Of course, not only did that stir a certain hunger to learn more, it also established an "irreducible" premise within me. But, if that is wrong... then I suppose I might nearly well be in that category of men "most miserable" in this life.
That said, perhaps I'm inclined to see certain things a bit differently. For instance, although I'm not likely to ever speak out about it, within my mind I would probably not agree with someone that said, "The bible is the word of God." Because in my mind, the word of God is something spiritual, whereas the bible is something physical. Therefore, I would think and say, "The bible is the revealed word of God." However, I said "probably not," as there are times when I think I understand what they are intending to say, rather than focusing on what they actually said... and there are enough times in conversations with others where I myself more simply and casually refer to the bible as being "the Word of God." Yet, in the back of my mind, it's a distinction that is never very far away or hard to make, should the need for it ever arise. Furthermore, the relationship between "the Word of God" (which is spiritual) and God (who is spirit) is such that if we think or see God as being perfect (i.e., inerrant), then so is His word. What remains, then, is how any of us think that which is both (1) invisible and (2) inherently perfect, is revealed to man. Can scripture be perceived as something spiritual? Or do you say that it can only be that which is physical?
If you think that scripture is only that which is physical, then how or what do you perceive "the Word of God" as being? Something only breathed or "spoken"? Either way, our perception of it traverses our minds in physical terms, as that is the only language that our minds recognize. Somewhere, or somehow, there's a jump or transition point between the two. And just because you or I (or anyone else) might not see or understand how that happens or is possible, doesn't mean (much less prove) that it's not possible. Personally, I chose to believe that it is possible. And if it's possible to happen once, then it's possible to happen as often as God determines necessary. However, whether or not what He once determined to reveal to man was preserved perfectly is another matter altogether... and I do not believe that it was preserved perfectly. Pretty good... ? Sure. Maybe even, very good. But not, "perfectly." Nevertheless, when or where possible (i.e., more sensible), I prefer to see it (that is, what we do have or know of it - "it" being "the word of God") as a language that is painting the picture of a much greater "spiritual reality" that is, in any other way, invisible and unknown (and, for whatever it's worth, is that reality that actually does exist totally outside of the cave of man's senses, to which he is inextricably bound.)
Does that mark me as a fundamentalist? In the eyes of some, perhaps. But I doubt that much of what I believe conforms much to that mold.
-
1 hour ago, Infoabsorption said:
It was the tribes of the Land of Judea that were mourning in Matthew 24:30 not the world at large. Matthew 23:36: Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
Seems you've conveniently blended "this generation" of Matthew 23 and 24 to make it seem like they are one and the same generation. However, they aren't.
-
11 hours ago, T-Bone said:
I can only speak for myself, and I mainly take issue with the claim of biblical inerrancy; and I do NOT have a disdain for the scriptures nor for the basis of its authority (God);
I'd hoped my post wouldn't be that hard to understand, but evidently it was. It's the "fundamentalist approach" that so many (here, and elsewhere) view with blatant disdain. Furthermore, it is scripture and not "the Bible" per se that I associated with inerrancy. (I could elaborate, but it would detract from all else that was said.)
11 hours ago, T-Bone said:Maybe you’ve got it wrong – I do acknowledge the incompleteness and inconsistency of my own beliefs.
I never thought (said, or otherwise implied) that you don't. You seem to be inserting yourself into what I said about how "fundamentalism" can be (or likely is) viewed by others.
11 hours ago, T-Bone said:I believe there is a tendency in that approach to put God - and perhaps even the journey of faith – into a manageable format…a theology in a box…a tidy little package you could mass-market...fundamentalism being so literal, tends to ignore the cultural context and the adaptive nature of these ancient authors.
Matter of fact, some of what I said (of how fundamentalism might be thought of), appears to align quite well with your view of it. And if you read "the problem, as I see it" part of my previous post, perhaps it didn't make any sense to you, so it went clean clear through.
-
On 8/5/2018 at 10:10 AM, T-Bone said:
often what wierwille taught a passage meant ultimately became suffused with that particular text; in the minds of his many dedicated followers, wierwille’s interpretation often eclipsed other ways of understanding the text - and I might add even obscuring other ways that were honest and technically transparent that perhaps don’t follow such a strict...wooden...fundamentalist approach..
I wonder at times just what is actually meant or intended with this "fundamentalist approach," or why so many find it so reproachable. Surely the mere acceptance of the inerrancy and divine authority of scripture does not, in and of itself, merit such blatant disdain. And if that doesn't make one a fundamentalist, then neither should a confidence in one's own theological positions. However, perhaps the phrase embodies some kind of religious mentality that confidently asserts its own objectivity and unprejudiced reasoning, while at the same time condemns the biased and interest laden nature in the reasoning of others. Or maybe it simply denotes some brand of "Christian" ideology incapable of acknowledging any sort of incompleteness or inconsistency in their own beliefs, or of tolerating it in anyone else. In any event, the phrase itself carries with it such contempt, it's difficult to imagine anyone purposefully desiring to be the target of such opprobrium. Yet, by its simple and perhaps most basic definition - an unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs - I find myself aligned with it. (Albeit, my "irreducible beliefs" are probably far fewer than what you might think.)
The problem, as I see it, is not in a disagreement that vpw's interpretation might (or often) eclipse some other way to understand the text. Rather, it is in the possibility that the "some other way" to understand it might also be thought of and deemed as a "fundamentalist approach" which, at times, can differ radically from his (so-called) "fundamentalist approach. Consequently, the damage that results is not only an eclipsing of what might be found apart fundamentalism, but of what might be unknown and undiscovered within it. By this same line of reasoning, I suspect that far too many that were formerly associated with the way have turned aside from much of the truth contained in the Pauline epistles. It probably should also be said here that vpw may have been (and in certain respects, surely was) much more of a legalist than some (or many) of you know or ever thought possible...
-
On 7/29/2018 at 1:54 PM, Taxidev said:
You little analogy with the bird color is out in left field.
Given that's where I thought you were coming from, it's somewhat surprising it didn't ring-a ling a bell or two for you. (Hey... I tried.)
On 7/29/2018 at 1:54 PM, Taxidev said:I am NOT the one supposing one can't change their belief, by that question you ask it is YOU who is supposing that.
If and when you decide to actually read (and honestly think about) exactly what I said, maybe you'll "get it."
-
2 hours ago, Raf said:
I think my comments, if I were to really let loose, would run the risk of being repetitive. Not to mention redundant. In other words, I've said it already.
Well, for whatever it's worth, it seems that one of the difficulties encountered on these message boards is anticipating (or in some other way, knowing) how some else reading it is going to (or NOT going to) perceive what you meant when you said it. And surely at times, the lack of response simply indicates they just didn't "get it" (or hear it)... possibly because of when or how it was said. So... is there some other way to say (more or less) the same thing? Of course, no guarantee it will do any better or have any different result. However, it has been my experience that anyone (even with limited communication skills) who genuinely understands what they are talking about, can usually find one or two other ways to present their thoughts. (And a highly skilled teacher, some number more than that.) Furthermore, does anyone deny that the proven value of repetition when it comes to our being able to remember what it is that somebody else thinks?
-
23 hours ago, Taxidev said:
Seriously? You won't even acknowledge that your statement is incorrect? Wow.
Apparently you're so convinced that you're right, you don't want to see or hear anything else.
_______________________________________________________________________
TLC: There is a black crow. Why is that bird always black?
Taxidev: You're supposing all birds are black. I disagree.
TLC: I restricted that color to one specific bird. You redirected the question with a supposition and are disagreeing with your own supposition.
(The real difficulty here is keeping this focused on one bird in particular, and not the how's or why' or wherefore's for anything and everything else. )
Taxidev: I don't see how you see that, but, okay. So, which supposition is that?
TLC: [Quotes Taxidev: supposing all birds are black.]
Taxidev: That supposition was yours, not mine.
TLC: No, you're wrong. It's yours, as I never said that.
Taxidev: [Qoutes TLC: Why is that bird always black?]] Yes, this is your own supposition. Not mine.
Taxidev: Seriously? You won't even acknowledge that your statement is incorrect? Wow. -
3 minutes ago, Taxidev said:
That was your supposition, not mine.
No, you're wrong. It's yours, as I never said that (and have in a previous post specifically said that I've never said or thought that.)
However, I can see this discussion is repeatedly going nowhere, so I'm done with it. -
9 hours ago, WordWolf said:
If I were to place a bet on it (which I won't), I'd probably put my ducats on vpw ending up in "The Outer Darkness." I'm not sure of a lot of details, but it sounds like that's where people like him might end up. And if he doesn't end up there, I suspect he'd wish he DID.
Perhaps a few things written in the first chapter of Philippians should be remembered here:
[15] Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
[16] The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
[17] But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
[18] What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. -
17 hours ago, Taxidev said:
Your question: Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?
I believe it's possible.
Why do you believe that he was raised from the dead when it contradicts everything else that is known and experienced in the world around us?
Do you know, or is this not anything that you have ever asked yourself?On 7/23/2018 at 12:08 AM, TLC said:I restricted a change to one specific issue. You redirected it with a supposition and are now refuting your own supposition.
17 hours ago, Taxidev said:I don't see how you see that, but, okay. So, which supposition is that?
On 7/22/2018 at 11:07 AM, Taxidev said:supposing someone can't have a change of belief.
-
3 hours ago, T-Bone said:
Freedom of the mind requires not only, or not even specially, the absence of legal constraints but the presence of alternative thoughts. The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities..... Allan Bloom... from The Closing of the American Mind
If that describes the closing of the American Mind, then I suspect that the instantaneous presence of too many alternative thoughts (i.e., our anytime, instant connection to answers on the Internet) might describe the death of God in the American Mind. Death, in the sense that no one allows God to speak to them in any way other than "through the Net."
-
3 hours ago, T-Bone said:
From what you’ve said to me it appears you believe the freedom to think and choose takes some enormous effort…
I didn't say that, and may not believe that... but maybe I should. (Because I'm not convinced it comes so "naturally" to people nowadays, especially with the advent of the internet and cellphones that so many run to anytime they need to "think" about something...)
-
13 hours ago, T-Bone said:
If you’re talking in just a basic owner/operator sort of way – I guess so...I know what goes on in my heart...
If you truly know what you believe and why you believe it (which is certainly possible, I'm not saying it isn't), then I think that's far more than many (most, in my opinion) other people. Back in the day, PFAL was promoted as a "how to" class. And, it certainly did teach "how to" do some number of things, supposedly "how to believe" being among them. Needless to say, efforts to isolate or elevate "how to believe" from what can (or should) be believed can result in... other issues. However, that said, I also think there is some rationale behind why we believe what we believe that actually does help reveal how to believe.
The real difficulty here is keeping this focused on one belief in particular, and the reason for it, and not the how's or why' or wherefore's for anything and everything else.
-
2 hours ago, T-Bone said:
What is so hard about honestly “undoing” a belief that is in the heart?
Do you actually understand how it got there? Given how easy you seem to think it is to "undue," surely believing whatever you want to believe never poses much of a challenge for you.
Very impressive.
(If true.)Although, I'm curious where you learned it or how you mastered such a feat.
(I suspect it wasn't from twi's blue book. 'cause that hold a picture in your mind until you believe it thingy ain't that good.)Personally, I think there are reasons things do (and don't) enter the heart of a man... which, if someone's never thought much about, would probably go a long ways towards explaining why they might not see any difference between merely thinking (and/or saying) that they believe something, and actually believing it. But who knows? Maybe you're right and there's no difference whatsoever between what's in the heart or the brain of a man, and his "believing" anything is probably just a figment of his imagination. Then all these "assumptions" are just a bunch of fairy tales that don't even matter.
-
-
you asked 5 questions, without so much as trying to answer my one question.
why accuse me of something you yourself appear to be guilty of?but, as an effort appease your (rather irrational, from my perspective) indignation:
On 7/22/2018 at 10:10 AM, T-Bone said:does this usage of “promise” mean the assurance that a particular thing WILL happen?
I don't know. Perhaps you can ask the person that first stated it (and that I was only quoting from.)
On 7/22/2018 at 10:10 AM, T-Bone said:What is the difference between “mind” and “heart”?
Opinions on this vary. I thought it plain enough in my previous post that I see believing being an issue of the heart, not the mind. What difference might you think or see there is between them?
On 7/22/2018 at 10:10 AM, T-Bone said:is saying “I’ve changed my mind on the matter” any different from saying “I’ve had a change of heart on the matter”?
Maybe not. Might depend on whether you (or the person saying it) meant something different with each. I suppose you would need to ask them. Personally, I don't think I've ever used the phrase "I've had a change of heart on the matter." However, if I were to use it, I would be intending to tell you that I changed what I believe about something. (Although, whether I actually did or not might be another matter.) Do you think there's a difference between them?
On 7/22/2018 at 10:10 AM, T-Bone said:Can you explain exactly how this works: “merely thinking it in your mind doesn't "make is so" in your heart.”
Probably not very well. How do you think it works? (Which ties back into my initial question, which you avoided.) Or, have you never thought about this before?
On 7/22/2018 at 10:10 AM, T-Bone said:Can you please explain why you think a person cannot change one of their own particular beliefs?
I don't think that, nor did I ever say that.
Now... care to try answering the one question from my earlier post?
-
2 hours ago, T-Bone said:
…this may be a very critical point on the topic of salvation
agreed.
2 hours ago, T-Bone said:…but frankly I’m disappointed in the departure from your usual Socratic method
haven't actually veered much (if at all) from it (as evidenced in the effort to keep it focused on what thoughts and presumptions specifically relating to believing in his resurrection might be.)
-
12 hours ago, Taxidev said:
First, you are only paraphrasing half of the verse in Romans: Rom 10:9
Intentionally so, mind you, so as not to complicate the issue.
(as does other scripture, such as 1Cor.15:1-4 or 2Tim.2:8.)12 hours ago, Taxidev said:So, if one no longer accepts Jesus as Lord, why would that person continue to have salvation?
That doesn't directly address and answer the question. You're merely skating around it with a different question.
12 hours ago, Taxidev said:Plus, it seems you are supposing someone can't have a change of belief. I find that to be starkly untrue. When a person takes in an abundance of worldly (sorry for the TWI term, but it fits) information, culminating in a complete adoption of that into their belief system, then the truth of God and Jesus are pushed aside in PREFERENCE of the world.
I restricted a change to one specific issue. You redirected it with a supposition and are now refuting your own supposition.
-
13 hours ago, T-Bone said:
I have some questions for clarification sake:
Most of what you're asking for was intentionally left vague, so as not to inadvertently skew or otherwise taint a genuine and heartfelt answer to my question.
-
On 7/20/2018 at 3:57 AM, Taxidev said:
Pretty much. Initially saved because we believe and confess Jesus as our lord, the Rom 10:9 part, and continually saved as long as we genuinely want to be righteous. That second part implies some serious attitude, but yes, I think you've summarized my view very well.
Perhaps you can answer a question concerning this statement (which, I presume you agree with.)
Since the promise of salvation comes through faith, it can be rejected if one develops a "heart of unbelief," the conscious and deliberate rejection of Christ and God.
Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?
And I trust that you realize merely thinking it in your mind doesn't "make is so" in your heart. (Which is just as true for any change of heart.)
Concerning the Bible...
in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
Posted
Then why suppose any change is "significant" if you (apparently) don't know, can't guess, or can't even imagine what changed?
(sorry to be so blunt, but certain things you said just don't fit together or make any sense, and I'm not sure of any better way to point it out to you...)
I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that you probably accept (or believe in) some sort of pre-existence of Christ. Yes?
(I'm trying to figure out how you might have arrived at this "hybrid" idea of Jesus Christ in your mind, and what that might actually mean to you ...)