TLC

New, yes. But not a neophyte by any means... (nor am I easy to offend, not that I prefer any try.) Thanks for the advice, but I'm really not into some big or splashy intro or starting a thread. (I really didn't expect to post as much as is out there already.) Perhaps it will suffice to say that we (being married) were around in the heyday of TWI, and rather hoped that anonymity would allow for more credence being given to what is actually said, rather than associating with some hierarchy of what was. (Needless to say, I think the nametags, the "Rev's", and the Corps program itself did sufficient damage on their own. They all did a swell job of inflating ego's and puffing heads... and I'm unaware of any exceptions, if there were any.) A rather hasty assessment, don't ya think?

Quite okay, I'd surmised that some time ago... But to be fair, I personally believe there are two (inextricably woven) realities that are spoken of in scripture. At times, it may be necessary to clarify "which" of these realities we're talking about, and unless someone has a better way to do it, I'm accustomed to thinking of them in terms of "physical" (or tangible) and "spiritual." Given that our language and ability to communicate is typically framed by a similar mental conditioning to the physical, it's not always easy to make the distinction (especially on the first try.) Undoubtedly, not everyone here will agree with any of this. Nevertheless, it's how I see it.

Then please note that if I don't understand your question or see how it relates to something I've said, then I'm probably not going to post a reply. Well, I'm certainly not a mind reader, if it's something rolling around in your head. That's not how I wrote it, but if that's the way you care to see it, so be it. What one thinks is real may or may not be real. But if it's not real, does it make a hoot of a difference whether or not it's "new"? However, if it truly is "real", it'd be rather egotistical to think that it's "new," don't ya think? I replied to that once already. Lordy Pete. Is that your only view of God?

Given that I'm not sure how you parsed that from what I said, why ask me? Is there something specific that you had in mind, or are you just fooling around with words in general? In other words, are you trying to understand something that I said, something in your own mind, or something to twist around? Understanding a matter does seem to cement one's believing of it. But understanding is not necessarily a prerequisite nor a mandatory ingredient to believing. And as I see it, there's a far closer relationship between trust and believing than there is between trust and understanding. (Why else do you suppose it is written to trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding?)

Considering that "spiritual understanding" comes only from the Lord, need there be any doubt where it comes from (2Tim.2:7) or who to trust on such matters?

Would it make any more sense to you to say that it's knowing things of the spirit, or things which are spiritual? Of course, that still probably makes little or no sense for anyone that lacks either the concern or the ability to discern where certain knowledge originates. If, for example, one thinks (or "knows") that there is no real knowledge that extends beyond what can be scientifically known or analyzed, then any and all "spiritual knowledge" is axiomatically relegated to foolishness, or mysticism, or whatever other fantasy branding happens to be in vogue. Capeesh?

>> Bolshevik >> A modern cult or analogous group could make use of the internet. Probably my fault, but it seems you entirely missed the satire of it. For many (perhaps most) nowadays, the Internet has replaced any need for God. >> I don't know about "way back then", if you wouldn't mind elaborating some. Don't know what you're looking for. That sort of generalized question puzzles me. >> Rocky >> No. There are more young people now than there were then. You sure 'bout that? We were the baby boomers. >> And since it's linked to developmental processes (i.e. growing into adulthood), That's only part of it. It was a different world forty-fifty years ago. >> it follows that there are more young people searching today for the same answers we sought when we were young. The same answers? Really? Seems I find that rather hard to believe. (And I don't think I'm that out of touch with reality...) >> But there's FAR more tangible knowledge of every subject available today, and it's more readily at people's fingertips with the WWW, Precisely. Unfortunately, tangible knowledge just doesn't equate to spiritual knowledge, >> so we would not necessarily be perceiving the trends the same as they occurred in earlier generations. No bull, Sherlock. (do any of you ever laugh at anything 'round here...?)

>> Those responses are not mutually exclusive. Agreed, as evidenced by the many cults that sprang up in those days. The point was that great hunger for truth doesn't necessarily dull one's intelligence, sensibility, or ability to reason (any of which might make one more gullible.) Perhaps the real issue is whether or not one believes that God exists, and that He both can and will answer prayers. Do you think there were there more young people that believed that way back then? If so, is that what some are equating to being "unusually gullible"? >> And one other thing: WELCOME TO THE GSC, TLC. Thank you for the welcome (take nothing for granted...)

>> I remember reading somewhere that the hippies in different areas were >> good targets in their time because they were unusually gullible and >> easy to draw into sects and cults and stuff. No, we were merely a generation in search of the truth, anywhere it could be found. Today's generation has the Internet, and no need to look anywhere else for answers...