31 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:I don't think I have much more to add than what others have already told you.
You're initial post is, maybe dualistic. Maybe another term would be better.
The initial post talks of love but is controlling. The manipulative nature of the post negates any good in it. IMO.
Maybe you see that, maybe you don't.
What, exactly, did I write that leads you to believe I'm controlling and manipulative. For starters, if I were trying to control and manipulate people, do you really think I'd try to do it here? After all, GSC folks seem to a pretty discerning and independent lot from what I can tell.
As far as I can tell from the verses I quoted, God exhorts us to love and forgive one another. Does he control or manipulate people to do that? I think he just says what is best for us and let's us make up our mind. If I hold out a tootsie roll out to you and you take it, does that make me controlling or manipulative?
Maybe you could give me your take on all of the verses from the original post. Maybe we are not supposed to love and forgive one another. Tell me why we shouldn't. If it makes sense, I'll change my believing accordingly.
1
9 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:That was more commentary than discourse.
But yes, I forgive you.
That's all you have to say about it? I think there were more words on that protest sign.
Nonetheless, I'll try to get a real discussion started with you. How would you have put it so as to be a discussion and not a commentary?
2 hours ago, Twinky said:rrobs, you're welcome to go and speak to my sister. Exemplary Christian that she is, she lets me know that I am a vile and unforgivable person because, it seems, I called her a name when we were both little kids, thereby totally ruining her entire life. I'm talking 50 years or more ago.
Sounds like it might have ruined your life also. Sorry to hear that but don't worry, God forgives you.
54 minutes ago, Rocky said:The problem with these passages, is that you presented them as something you believe others should do. Have you ever considered that being more concerned with whether others are conducting themselves out of love, or being loving, or doing things lovingly (etc.) than what you yourself measure up to that standard ... may not be what the scriptures are getting at?
Matthew 7:1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
Just a thought.
I don't give a rat's a.s what others do.
BTW, you wouldn't be judging me now, would you?
On 7/22/2017 at 5:19 PM, Bolshevik said:
OK. Let's discourse. What is your opinion on the subject?
1
23 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:Hi Waysider!
i did not mean to be so "verbally" condescending as I perhaps was, in my statements regarding the "chemical imbalances" you referred to. It just happens to be a Nusing Certification I used daily for years.....Nursing Pharmacology.....and, there are not only many misconceptions about medication selection and administration in times past, but, the incredible advances made in the last 20 years in medical and technological research have produced amazing and reproduceable results at a rate almost as fast as the high-tech industry itself! This makes the number of treatment modalities expand geometrically, and new medications as well as new categories of medications are popping up like crazy. This is why I am so disheartened by "Big Pharma". They are sitting on a lot of great new treatments just to squeeze out every last possible dollar they can IMO.
The implications and prognosis for future beneficial use of new medications discovered with the latest technological aids and the brightest research minds, are enormous. The understanding of biology, physiology, and electrochemistry at the quantum level literally has made "all things possible"! Imagine 3D printing of human organs developed from the patient's very own individual genome allowing for transplants with absolutely no risk of rejection! This has already taken place at the animal level.....mice, pigs, sheep. The understanding of biochemical interaction at the quantum level has made the understanding of "chemical imbalances" far more detailed and holistic. Medications are now being designed from the patient's own genome and antigens genetically specific by it. Cancer chemotherapeutic agents are now being produced on an individual basis for each patient. Results are showing wonderful results and promising new treatment modalities. The knowledge is expanding exponentially every year. So, it is an extremely hopeful and exciting time not only for development of medications and treatments for the physiological killers like cancers and retroviruses, but also for the tormentors of the soul like psychiatric and social anxiety disorders. Sorry for the pedantic lecture, but I did not want to offend you in any way, so I tried to explain myself fully. Love ya bruddah!
I googled, "shooters on psychotropics." Beaucoup hits. Here's just one: headline from https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/
Not to say you are wrong, but that's a lot of dead people because drugs apparently don't always work. The shooters in this article are ones whose drug information was available. I'd be surprised if many other shooters weren't also on psychiatric drugs. But I don't have any actual facts on that (too lazy and not that important to me), so don't quote me.
40 minutes ago, spectrum49 said:rrobs:
You said: "Still, I understand that you are just saying that reading about it [science, as in ants or the moth eye] increases appreciation for the things of God..."
And that's precisely my point. If (in some little way) I can relate Scripture with (true) science, then my awe of God increases. And as a result, there's a "little more reverence" behind my daily devotions to him.
I see you have an 8" Celestron. Impressive! (I bet it's worth $2k or so.) And no doubt, having read Bullinger's book Witness of the Stars has enhanced your appreciation for God's magnificence and splendor.
Now, answering to your reply (but not "in order"):
You said: "Adam of course started a whole chain of actions that were non-functional and didn't work the way God intended."
Not to pick, but there's a slight flaw in that logic, because everything truly does function according to God's design! Granted though, it's a fact that events don't exactly flow according to his best wishes. However:
Despite that (within God's original, perfect design) he had already made provision for "these deviations at times" in what I consider as his contingency plan --- so that his "primary will" basically continues onward (precisely as planned), despite the "slight interruptions along the way". Case in point:
Certainly, God didn't intend Lucifer to "mess up the earth" by starting the war in heaven. However, God had already planned for such an event, and dealt with it accordingly. (Basically, he "restored the earth", etc...and "the whole story" continues with the record of Adam in Eden.)
Another "interruption" (as it were) was the Great Flood of Noah's time, which was not God's original intent. Yet again, God had that all thought out ahead of time; and the story continues developing as we read further.
SO: Ultimately, God's original intent prevails, despite the slight delays at times. Consider this one verse: Is 45:7 "I [God] form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Interesting, huh? Yet God himself is not evil, but "good always"; and he certainly understands how to "fight fire with fire". Enough on that for now.
You asked me, Have you ever looked at the words "good" and "evil"?
Despite how the ancient Hebrews may have viewed good and evil (according to "tov" and "ra", as you elaborated on) I prefer to view both of these terms in the ultimate sense --- just as though they're equivalent to light and darkness. And this is simply because of Gen 1:4a "And God saw the light, that it was good...".
In closing, I reiterate your having said: "I hope that clears a few things up." And finally (for what it's worth) --- Thanks for calling my stuff great. Humbly, it's simply the best I think to know thus far.
The light was good, it functioned in that it made the rest possible. It was useful. It worked correctly. That's why God called it good. We think in terms of morality when we hear good and evil. Morality has nothing to do with the material universe. Remember, whoever wrote the words as they were moved by God could only use those that he understood. It is important to understand what they meant by good and evil. The Bible is written on there terms, not ours. Otherwise I'd try to hide from God because I am supposed to "fear" him.
This world is not completely non-functional. True enough. We are the lights of the world and so there is always some good (tov) to stop the whole thing from melting into oblivion because of the evil (ra). There is the verse in Genesis that says every thought of man was continually evil (ra). "Every thought" and "continually" are pretty strong words in that context. Noah was the only thing going for God. I would say the world at present is non-functional, at least as compared to the world to come which will be totally functional, the opposite of the world right before the flood of Noah.
God does talk about the heavens and earth which are now as opposed as those to come. The former has some non-functionality in it, enough to some day blow it to smithereens. The latter will be pure good. I don't think our minds can grasp anything that is pure, but we will when the time comes. In that sense I guess, like you said, God is in control and has a plan which is perfect and right on target. Actually I don't "guess" that. I know it!
I got the Celestron used for about $600 about 20 years ago. It was used in name only as it hadn't been out of the box, so a killer deal to be sure.
2 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:If one is going to plagiarize the plagiarizer, then that one ought to at least have the "alacrity of mind" to do so accurately, or, at the very least, correctly. Along with the inordinate number of baseless wierwillean platitudes, and the complete lack of any evidence, scriptural or otherwise, some post their regurgitated Wierwille-ized unbiblical disinformation as if it as true as Einstein's General Theory of Relativity! Then, when completely incredulous and demonstrably ignorant statements regarding "chemical imbalances" and treating them with man-made chemicals are proffered as if they carry even a featherweight of educated relevance, the complete imbecility of these unprovable, platitudinal, OPINIONS becomes horrifically blatant.
The dictor paul term "mental ASSENT" has been erroneously quoted or referenced as "mental consent". Sorry.....but it's just as much mental masturbatory BS as the original term dictor paul invented. What is demonstrated to me by such mindless, reflexive "intellectual" crutches, used habitually without critical thought to "prove" non-existent "biblical principles", exhibits a complete intellectual laziness accompanied by a total lack of critical review and objective counterpoint. You can take the vegetable out of the cult, but you can't take the cult out of the vegetable. LOL!
My recommendation to the intellectually challenged wierwille apologists, is to first, get an identity other than the one dic manufactured for you in TWIt. And, secondly, stop choosing to stay stuck on stupid for the rest of your life. It is insulting to any ex-Wayfer to be lectured by any other ex-wayfers on how much we need to continue to delude ourselves and others with the ridiculously outdated and disproven "teachings and research" of dictor paul. He was a deranged, perverted, malignant, paranoid narcissist. Get over those FACTS, accept them, and then you may begin to uncork your cranium from dic's rectum. TTFN.
Unless you are satisfied being a raving maniac, you might consider this
2 hours ago, T-Bone said:Do the math
Beyond Mystifying indeed
OK. Here we go:
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1........=1
Mystifying is a good word for it.
2 hours ago, Bolshevik said:Something like hunger. The drive to seek food. One of the multitude of processes that drive our thinking, it's there from the beginning. Not "put" there. Any number of systems can compete for "dominance" at any moment. It's why the mind can be thought of as a committee. Intuition being "decision" of the committee. (no just contrast machines)
In twi the renewed mind was a way of replacing thoughts with someone else's. To come to conclusions based on those thoughts. I would not agree the Bible's reference to the renewed mind and what was done in twi was the same.
Every system is still composed of dualities. The committee can only think of "this" or "that" when making decisions. The universe was (became, whatever) without form and void. Effectively there was nothing for a mind like ours to grasp onto. Then God made light and darkness. From there the rest came. In Taoism (as cosmology, not philosophy or religion) the state before the material universe was called tao. It also formless, therefore effectively there was nothing to see, hear, smell, etc. It was without form and void. Then the tao "moved" and yin and yang separated. The one became two. It then says that the two became three and the three became 10,000 things which was an idiom meaning infinity. So man registers the yin and the yang and makes some conclusion about the myriad things that compose our "reality."
White is yang, black is yin. My mind registers the amount of yang/white and yin/black and then it can see the sky (light, yang) as a separate thing as the ground (black, yin). But if there was no white then there would be no black. Your mind could not make a determination in that case as to where the sky started and where the earth started. In other words, there would be no horizon to see.
That is what taoism says about our reality. I'm not asking you to believe this. I'm not even saying I believe it, but there are some interesting parallels there with the Bible. Both Eastern thought, so maybe no surprise.
3 minutes ago, T-Bone said:A quadruplex ? That’s a one-up on the Trinity.... and even more mystifying
Where did quadruplex come up? Beyond mystifying to me.
Interesting article about news and our discussion. I just picked one from Google ("bad news and stress"). There are many more.
22 hours ago, Bolshevik said:Is "mental consent" wayspeak? I can only find it in context from a Google search at the moment.
that said
I don't think you can wash your mind clean. You can add new ideas sure, and learn to regulate thoughts. But thoughts are, generally speaking, hard-wired from birth.
I don't think you're making much of a distinction between what is darkness, light, and just conflict of interest. Much of our instinctive thinking is simply opposed to other parts of our thinking. Each one has a justifiable purpose when the need arises. But they must constantly conflict.
I would agree to eliminate all source of darkness is to annihilate oneself. (do you still use the old man terminology for sake of discussion?)
I don't recall hearing the term "mental consent" outside of TWI. That is why I thought it might be considered Wayspeak, which I try to avoid here in order to keep the peace. Maybe it is a term used outside of the way, I just don't remember having heard it anywhere else.
I think you are right. Once something is in our minds, it's pretty much there. Still, God does talk about renewed mind, so there is something there to consider.
In this dualistic world of ours getting rid of darkness would also get rid of light. In a sense, our human brains are nothing more than contrast registering machines. If everything in this world was white, we wouldn't see anything. If there were only one audio tone we wouldn't hear anything. If there was only one constant temperature, we wouldn't feel anything. Our minds need contrast to register anything from the outside world. That is why we really can't grasp God. He is one, but our minds need two. I wonder what it will be like to shed that duality and truly see all members of Christ's body as one and not me, you, T-Bone, Wordwolfe etc. Even DWBH and I will be as one. Hope that doesn't bum him out too much! I doubt it. He'll be fine with it when the time comes.
18 hours ago, spectrum49 said:
Quoterrobs:
At this point, it seems you're still fighting the notion that the laws of science (which govern nature) might be in harmony with Scripture. You seem to be implying that the two are "separate and opposing forces". But that's quite all right...God is patient, and so am I.
I guess I wasn't clear, but I was trying to say that science and the Bible do agree. I used DNA as an example of how detailed the scriptures are with regard to science. Obviously, the ancient Middle Eastern man didn't know about the double helix, but they did understand the whole idea of plants/animals who had seed within itself.
[In another place, you asked: "So is science the missing ingredient to our knowledge of "life and godliness" or is it the nemesis, man's logic/wisdom holding us back from believing the word?" I seem to think you presently side with the latter.]
I was trying to say that science can to easily take precedence over the word. Evolution comes to mind. The scientists often disregard what the scriptures have to say about it. They could easily harmonize if given a chance (evolution with genus), but science ignores the Bible and goes into la la land. Would have been more accurate to say that the scientists, not science, can become a nemesis. On the other hand, there are Christian scientists who do just the opposite. They use their science to glorify God.
However, you DO seem to be on the right track by mentioning "after it's kind" in connection with DNA, because the word for "kind" is "genos", from which we derive "genetics". And (from other wording on the third day in Gen 1) one might even appreciate the notion of "botany" in relation to how vegetation actually grows.
We must step back and really ask ourselves if science and nature are truly "a nemesis" (archenemy, foe, opposing force) to God. If we believe that God created the physical things of the universe (nature) and the laws of science which govern it, we might give serious consideration before we dare suppose he designed all of that merely "to hoodwink us poor humans" and distract us from the Scriptures...toward something so beautiful, and yet "evil". God forbid!
There seem a thousand ways to elaborate on this. Let me pick a verse: (Prov 6:6) "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise." I speak as a fool: "How dare God make ants (which are part of this evil world we live in) and then tempt me by saying I can gain wisdom by learning all about them...instead of reading my Bible! I believe I can be wise enough without studying silly things, such as ants."
Excellent example. I have often thought about ants while working. I believe it has made me a better worker.
To properly "consider the ways of ants" (as God had requested) one can learn quite a bit by perusing books on entomology, if he likes --- because the Bible itself provides very little about ants compared to what a person might find in a library. Okay...here's another:
I never went to a library or read about ants. I just watched them and I often remarked to my wife how the little guys are ineradicable workers. Single minded also. Tough little guys. I live in the middle of nowhere, so I have lots of time for things like watching ants.
Job 12:7-9 "But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the Lord hath wrought this?"
Pretty simple English there.
What do you suppose God means by encouraging us to "speak to the animals, birds and fish"? Is that not the same as what I said about "studying ants"? Might it be a good idea to look into zoology, ornithology and ichthyology at times --- in ADDITION to studying the Bible?
As a matter of fact, I have a biology book sitting in the bathroom that passes time while I pass waste material! Obviously not hard core studying, but I enjoy it and time after time I'll say something to my wife like, "How in the world can someone believe that the eye of a moth came about by chance?" In other words, it makes me appreciate God and his creation more. I'm not sure reading about it is necessary. As you pointed out, God just told the believers to watch them. They didn't have any books on the subject. Still, I understand that you are just saying that reading about it increases appreciation for the things of God, as I related with the moth eye.
Personally, I enjoy astronomy. And the more I learn about it, the greater I appreciate God's magnificence, because God made the stars for GOOD reasons. There are many wonderful books which expand upon this from a Biblical perspective. One is "The Witness of the Stars" by EW Bullinger. And I also learn of many amazing details about things in the universe by watching The Science Channel.
I have an 8" Celestron. And yes, how in the world did God figure out where to put the trillions of stars and in which direction/velocity to make them move so as to keep it all together? And he even knew which ones would explode, change orbit, etc. But they still worked perfectly. Fascinating. I also have a microscope and enjoy looking at the near and small along with the far and large. I have and I've read Bullinger's Witness of the Stars. I do believe there used to be a class on it at the Way, but I could be mistaken about that. I was blessed enough to take pretty much every class they had at least once, and I seem to remember that as being one of them.
But if one likes, he can have "a little morsel" on the subject by reading Job 38:31-33 which merely mentions Pleiades (the "7 Sisters" in Taurus), the belt of Orion, Mazzaroth (the 12 constellations of the zodiac), and the Great Bear with it's cubs (the Big and Little Dippers). Sorry, but my appetite is larger than just for "a little snack".
All in all, I believe the things in nature "harmonize" with scriptural truth. To me, they aren't "parts of an evil nemesis". Instead, God designed them so we humans might relate to (invisible) spiritual truths via "things we can see" --- which we can study and gain wisdom from, right along with Scripture itself.
Above all else, let's remember what God declared right after he made that which comprises nature (like the stars, fish, birds, and animals, etc.): Gen 1:31b "...behold, it was very good!"
Have you ever looked at the words "good" and "evil?" I think many times it is too easy to give those words a moral meaning. Hitler is evil, Mother Theresa is good, and such. I understand that the ancient Hebrews did not think in abstract terms. To them "good" (tov) meant something that was functional or worked. "Evil" (ra) meant something that was non-functional or did not work. A car that runs is good in the sense that it functions and one that doesn't run is evil in the sense that it does not function. My (and everybody else's) actions either serve to enhance life or to diminish it. When people act against the word it doesn't make them evil in some monstrous sense. It just means they are not adding to the overall quality of life on this planet. There actions are non-functional and produce fruit accordingly.
When God made the earth everything was good in the sense that it functioned, it worked. Adam of course started a whole chain of actions that were non-functional and didn't work the way God intended.
I hope that clears a few things up. I've not seen anything you've said that I would say is against the word at all. I've pursued this line of reasoning in the past. Thanks for bringing it to my attention again. It's great stuff!
30 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:Mental consent?
Uh, oh. Did I use more wayspeak? Scratch that from my post. You should be able to get the idea without it. I was just saying that the Bible is really too big for my brain. My brain is like a dark glass and the true light has a hard time getting through it. Something about renewed mind there. That takes time, but it will get through a little more each day. At the return the distinction will vanish.
On 10/17/2017 at 4:25 PM, spectrum49 said:Someone I know here recently asked: "Does true science align with the Bible?" The simplest answer I can give is derived from 1Tim 6:20b "...avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called".
Obviously, there's science that isn't worthy to even be called that, which should be avoided. (In the Greek, it's literally "pseudo-science".) This alludes that "true science" is something NOT to be avoided, provided there "really is such a thing" to begin with. So, is there?
This has been debated by notable theologians and scientists alike for a very long time! Now, I won't promise what I say will "absolutely prove" a correlation actually exists between the natural and supernatural realms. But (by providing examples) I'll show how God uses the things he made as "stepping stones" toward understanding the Scriptures. Then the reader can decide whether or not God has linked science and Scripture together.
Here's a key verse to keep in mind: Ro 1:20 "For the invisible things [spiritual realities] of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
God said there's no excuse for not believing in "his eternal power", because he placed indicators throughout nature so anyone can clearly see things concerning the supernatural. Without considering the things God made, those "invisible things" remain hidden.
Case in point: In Genesis 1 we read that God "made the stars". So, just what can be understood about the invisible realm by considering those? Among them all, only two are called "great lights": Gen 1:16 "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also." Let's consider the sun, which is the greater of the two:
As we know, the sun provides light to the earth; and without it, there's no natural life here. Interestingly, the same is also true concerning Jesus Christ: 1Jn 5:12 "He that hath the son hath life; and he that hath not the son of God hath not life." Because of Jesus Christ, we can have spiritual life. By itself, that verse doesn't seem to carry much weight; but at least it's a start. So, here's another:
Jn 8:12a "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world..." Now, one might suppose I'm reading into the Word, but I assure you it's the other way around!
Throughout the Bible, only one man is ever described by the term "great light". And that just happens to be Jesus Christ! So from that, one might suppose a connection exists between him and the only star in the entire universe which God called "great light". (Although the moon is also called "great light", we know from science it has no light of its own; it merely reflects sunlight.)
And this is why Jesus Christ could say "I am the light of the world." Now, I'm not indicating that Jesus is actually "a mass of burning hydrogen in space" --- how ridiculous!
But (in a figure) we can appreciate that there "just might be come connection" between the two.
Let me say that what the sun provides for the earth in the physical sense parallels what Jesus Christ provides in the spiritual sense. Without Scripture references, consider the sun as a source of energy and power. Surely, we've read how Jesus is also a source of energy (Gk: enérgeia) and power (Gk: dunamis, exousia and kratos, among others).
The "scriptural evidence" along this line is vast! Now, anyone can use a concordance to look deeper and appreciate even further what the Bible's Author is helping us to clearly see, which otherwise (as I said earlier) remains hidden.
Here are some other "indicators":
Is 9:2 "The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined…(6) For unto us a child is born..."
Rev 21:23 "The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for...the lamb [Jesus Christ] is its lamp."
Acts 22:6 "And it came to pass, that, as I [Paul] made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. (7) And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (8) And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest."
Lk 2:32a [Simeon, describing Jesus] "A light to lighten the Gentiles..."
So ask yourself: "Might there be some mysterious connection with the science of astronomy and the written Word of God?" If it would be of help, consider this quote from someone who also noticed a connection existing between the natural and supernatural realms: "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein!
There's certainly a lot more to this! Considering I've given an ample amount of information to ponder already, I'll pause here. Depending upon how this Topic goes, we might investigate it even further.
One thing I'm wondering is what popped in the mind of the average person who lived 2, 4, or 6 thousand years ago in the Middle East upon hearing the word "science." Probably not what we think of it today. It probably would have been easy enough to see the stars and make some connection between them and the nature of God (Rom 1:20), but they had no clue as to the existence of DNA for example. Is there any allusion to DNA in the scriptures? I think so. Genesis 1 says several times, "after it's/his kind." So while they may not have known about DNA per say, they could in fact understand the basic concept. When we treat genetic disorders, we use high tech methods. That is what we have come to believe is the only way to cure such diseases. With God, it is only a matter of believing (Matt 17:20) to cure them. Both work, but God's method is simpler (at least once the difficult part of actually believing is accomplished), not to mention cheaper. Unfortunately, hard to really believe and bring into concretion. Hard is putting it mildly. But that doesn't affect God one bit, just us.
On 10/16/2017 at 8:06 PM, spectrum49 said:rrobs:
Let me say that I consider you as one amazing individual! Your sense of "fair play" is quite evident. You also exhibit a trait which I deem most admirable, which lies behind your obvious respect of the following: Prov 18:13 "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."
Surely, we all put forth our best effort when beginning a Topic, and make our points as best we can "up front", just as though we're "totally correct". (After all, we DO need to sound convincing, don't we?) But the difference between you (I include myself as well) and "some others" is that they ABSOLUTELY refuse to budge from their positions --- no matter what!
Yet, underlying our "adamancy" is a sense of meekness toward changing our minds when a point is made which "trumps" our already fairly sound and logical mindset. And we (delightfully) concede. And in doing so, we're assured of going from good to "even better". So in the long run, we just cannot lose!
And there's no disappointment within that, because it matters NOT who actually "won the debate"; for we're quite content, being better off than before. (And if something "even finer" comes along, we'll gladly change yet again!) Such are you and I.
I'll answer your reply in two parts: (And please forgive my long-windedness, as I do admit having a "short suit" in being concise.)
(1) The Word:
You made a good point about Jesus, Peter and Paul. It does seem rather mysterious as to "their amazing percentage of success", doesn't it? And this seems especially so concerning Jesus himself who healed whole crowds at times, which seems akin to "our spiritual ability" to simply enter a hospital and (basically) "put all of the doctors completely out of business". (Personally, I would GRIEVE for "their instant inability" to continue providing for their wives and children. Ha!)
And knowing that Jesus (on occasion) even "healed people from a distance", one might wonder why ANYONE (except "infidels" of course, lol!) would be sick of anything (even of a simple cold) while he was here upon earth!
As I said before, I'm rather convinced that "specific revelation" is required to heal without resorting to secular means --- which obviously work, do they not? Even TWI used that as a justifiable means, calling it "3rd aid". (I do hope you understand what they meant by that, for even VP endorsed that concerning "why he wore glasses".)
As for Jesus' doing that "for everyone present" at times, I suspect that such things are BEYOND our present doing, except to say that (for God's purposes) he allowed that as an indicator of our AWESOME future potential, and not that we would actually "do the same" today. Remember this: What Jesus accomplished was a direct result of his "ALWAYS doing the father's will".
Could you ever THINK to approach such perfection in this life? If so, I'd consider aspiring to such a thing as most foolish --- and amounting to little more than "a silly pipe dream"! Yet, The Way (by their convoluted and ridiculous notion of "operating all 9 all the time") would have their followers suppose they could!
And yet, there remain some who actually claim to be doing such things! I speak of "faith healers", who (for the most part) I consider charlatans, which (for brevity's sake) I dare not elaborate on why I consider it so. Be that as it may.
To an extent, Paul also seemed to be on that level: Acts 19:11-12 reports, "God was performing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out."
But later on, Paul (instead of having Timothy claim healing by faith) advised him to "drink a little wine for his frequent stomach problems" (1Tim 5:23). And later, he also wrote: "Trophimus I left sick at Miletus." (2Tim 4:20). So then, why didn’t Paul heal him if he was still doing the miraculous works of Jesus? And in his latter years (although it would have freed him for a much wider ministry) it's most curious why Paul never bothered to "claim deliverance" from prison!
We are then left only to wonder just what these "greater works than Jesus" may truly have been. Jesus continues (in Jn 14:12) stating that THE REASON for this ability of ours is simply: "because I go unto my Father".
According to Heb 8:1b, we see that Jesus is NOW at God's throne. And in Heb 8:6 we read: "But now hath he (JC) obtained a MORE EXCELLENT ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a BETTER covenant, which was established upon BETTER promises." (ie: via you and I, because of our ability to operate the manifestations of the gift of holy spirit)
Consider Peter: Through his preaching on Pentecost alone (Acts 2ff) 3,000 were born again, which is likely more than Jesus converted during his entire ministry. (And even the awesome miracle of "the new birth" in itself seems "a greater work" than Jesus ever performed, does it not?
Generalizing, our collective works these days are certainly greater in number and in geographic extent than Jesus did (during only "a year or so") in merely one small part of the world. And consider modern day "revivals": I suppose some of these alone would cause even Peter to marvel at the sheer NUMBERS of people who become "born again" during these meetings!
Well, friend: What more can I say to conclude my "endless ranting"? Despite having the "same spiritual ability" as Jesus Christ, let it suffice that (in this life) we shall NEVER even approach his "100% record" of success. (And even what little we do is through him anyway!)
However, I often wonder: "To just what extent shall we actually ACHIEVE such a level later on (at the bema and beyond) once we don THE REST of our inheritance?" (ie: the "fullness" of holy spirit, as opposed to the "mere token" we have already --- see Eph 1:14)
(2) Science:
You're obviously seeking "proof" as to how science might possibly align with Scripture. I affirm that (if one is open-minded) many "subtle hints" may be gleaned from the Word of God concerning that.
Although I would like to include that here, I just realized how far "off topic" my remarks have become during this reply. So instead, I plan to begin a New Topic along that line. I'll post it in the Doctrinal Forum and entitle it: "What does Jesus Christ have in common with the sun?"
I'm not quite sure just when I'll have that finished; but once I do, I invite you to be among the first to "join in".
(And of course, I'm looking forward to your reply concerning THIS post. Peace...)
Answering your post in a vastly oversimplified manner, I would say that you are absolutely right about never getting to the level of Jesus. Maybe Peter or Paul, but that is the best to hope for and in my life. They may as well be Jesus, because unless something big happens, I'll probably never even rise to their believing. We are all going to depart this world sooner or later. That alone is proof that we all stop believing, that our believing has holes in it. But the flip side of the coin is that to some degree or another we all believe in things of the light. So our minds are filled with some light and some darkness. The ratio of light to dark is largely determined by what enters our minds from the outside. CBS, NBC, ABC, etc. vs KJV, for example. Some verses that may be of relevance here: Job 12:25, Luk 11:33-36, 2 Pet 1:19
Then there is still the whole idea that the word is true whether anybody believes it or not. There are innumerable volumes that make it plain as day that mental problems are purely chemical and can therefore be cured only by other chemicals. As far as they go, they are absolutely correct. Time has proven that they work to increase the quality of life for people with brain chemical imbalances. But are more chemicals the best solution? There are after all lot's of side effects on most (all?) psychotropics. Alongside the vast depot of human knowledge on mental problems is placed the Bible, the one lonely source that seems to say mental problems (indeed, any life problem whatsoever) can be rectified by believing in God and acting on his word. It might be said that giving chemicals is what God meant. Personally I think that is just an excuse. Not meant to condemn anybody. I think it is fair to say that we all make excuses for things we don't really believe in the scriptures (albeit less so as I grow daily in the word). There were no exceptions enumerated when the scriptures say all things are possible with God. Of course believing that is totally optional. Some do, some don't, all to various degrees of belief or unbelief. It's seldom if ever 100% either way. I may believe in more things of the Bible than some folks, but I also believe (to the point of acting) less of it than other folks. In fact much of what I've written I don't really believe myself. Just mental consent, without any appropriate action. The Bible is ideal in it's content, but my brain is certainly not ideal. But if I gave up on the word and just let the world fill my mind with negativity then the whole journey becomes to no profit. So I stay with the scriptures and little by little the light dispels darkness. I understand that there'll be some darkness floating round my frontal lobe as long as I walk this earth. But I also have the hope that one day it'll get cleaned out and degreased (no reference to GSC intended) until it is nothing but pure light. It's ironic that that will occur when I stop believing to live here. So do I have to stop believing to find our what true believing really is? I guess the answer is a qualified yes. I need to stop believing the things of the world to really believe the things of God. To do that I need to eliminate all sources of darkness, something that won't happen in this lifetime. Thanks Adam, you $%^&*^%@!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oops, sorry, I know you did your best and I probably would have thought that the knowledge of good and evil was the bee's knees also.
See you in the basement (doctrine section).
9 hours ago, spectrum49 said:BUT! (And this may be hard to fathom.) I would have you know that "the Word alone" (that is, teaching and sharing Scripture) is not a "cure all" by itself.
Consider Waysider's remark concerning people with "chemical imbalances". Have you ever tried to have an intelligent conversation with (or even heal!) a crazy person in a mental institution? It's just not likely you'll get the results you hope for --- unless you first have "specific guidance" from God himself.
Forgive me for being sarcastic, but I suppose the TWI would suggest casting out that "chemical imbalance devil spirit"; and if it didn't work...then either "the man just wasn't believing for deliverance", or the believer "just wasn't trying hard enough himself". How silly!
We live in a real world --- with real-life physical problems. And many times the solutions are NOT merely spiritual, but physical. And "the fix" is a practical one, based upon things which are learned from science, physics and chemistry, etc --- ALL of which God had designed himself, long ago!
The Bible itself doesn't contain detailed lectures on these professions like you would find in college textbooks. But I would have you to know that God himself endorses these things and stands behind them --- because (in the wide view) what lies behind these things are SPIRITUAL LAWS that align with the physical ones...which make them work!
SO: It not only behooves us to study the Scriptures, but to also learn what we can from NATURE as well. And that includes science (etc) because those things are actually in alignment and harmony with the spiritual things which lie "behind them", from which they are derived! Here's a simple related verse:
Ro 1:20 "For the invisible things [spiritual realities] of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being UNDERSTOOD by the things that are MADE, even his eternal power and Godhead..."
You'd be surprised what you could learn about the Bible by simply "looking behind" the things God made. Time fails me to explain...but let me simply say that what the sun does in the physical sense for the earth is what Jesus does in the spiritual sense for the Church! (Please forgive my lack of documentation here, for it's quite vast. Maybe I'll start a Topic of my own on that, as an example of this wonderful reality.)
What I'm saying rrobs is that "da Woid, da Woid, and nothing but da Woid" will just not fix things by itself. You need MORE than written words to accomplish things in this world. You also need the science, etc, which lies behind it!
I'm only responding to part of your post because, for the most part, I totally agree with what you said. But, there are some things I'm wondering about concerning the above part which I did quote. On one hand I think you are absolutely correct. There are chemical imbalances that we can't seem to cure with the word and nothing but the word. And yes, we (excuse the "we". if it doesn't apply to you, then change it to "I") have made pretty lame excuses when we can't cast out what we think are devil spirits. But what about Jesus, Peter, or Paul? They did not seem to resort to drugs/therapy to cure someone with mental problems? Jesus said we'd do the works he did (and then some). So is science the missing ingredient to our knowledge of "life and godliness" or is it the nemesis, man's logic/wisdom holding us back from believing the word? 2 Peter 1:3 doesn't mention science, just the scriptures. But then again, does true science align with the Bible? TWI said so, but I've not seen it for myself in the Bible. I'm open on that if anybody knows. What then is "true" science? Does not science dictates we give drugs to cure a mental imbalance? Is that what the Bible says though? Is that what Jesus thought? I tend to think not, but that is just from my life experiences and how they affect my believing the Bible. I think these are good questions. Hopefully they will start an discussion.
Take care...
18 hours ago, Rocky said:In case you may have been unsure, my post you quoted was not intended to suggest you should answer it or answer to me.
I never answered because of something I perceived you suggested I do. I just answered.
Yet, it seems you felt compelled to dismiss the points I made.
You said you don't like the Bible shoved down your throat. I was just answering to that.
I simply was affirming the post Spectrum49 made and contrasting it with how you started this thread (and how you have attempted to make most of your points on GSC).
I got that.
Spectrum49 cited scripture but importantly reflected on his understanding of those passages. His argument was scripture-based but his thought process was demonstrably different than yours... at least from how you present your arguments.
Got that also.
It will not be useful for you to dismiss this comment or my previous one. You seem to convince few, if any, people here with your approach.
I somehow don't think it will be any less useful if I did address all your points. The ones I have addressed have been met with total disagreement. Would you somehow change if I addressed each and every point? Have you addressed every point I've made? Don't think so. I don't hop all over you for not addressing some. At this point, I don't think there is an approach possible that would convince anybody. I'm not sitting here thinking, "ah, now the things I am writing are going to completely turn Rocky to my side." The only reason I'm writing is because I'm not smart enough to just let it drop and never come back to GSC. But there is some insidious pull social media has on my psyche (just heard a big thing on PBS to that effect). How about you? Why do you continue on an obviously pointless endeavour?
But if you don't want or need the insight. That's okay too.
If you go back I think you will find I have in fact conceded some of your points. I think I said I will keep them in mind next time I post. I think I said thanks.
18 hours ago, Rocky said:Really? How could that have changed the outcome for any mass shooting perpetrator?
I'd suggest that there's a lot going on in the life of such a shooter that you seem to be massively unaware of. Also, that there's a lot going on in society that doesn't seem to factor into how you assess such situations.
I can not answer your question because my only source would be from the word. From what I can ascertain I don't think that would be acceptable to you. We'll just leave it to a difference of beliefs.
Of course there is a lot going on in the mind of any mass shooter. What made you think I didn't think that? I guess I just think God is more capable than you. Doesn't make me better, smarter, more godly, or anything else. Just seems to be the case. I don't think I've attached any negativity to you because of what you believe. At least not intentionally.
15 hours ago, Rocky said:THAT is an argument. One that's worth the time to consider. (Contrast that with Spectrum49's use of the word argumentative above)
I do not necessarily endorse it as my view of life or the Bible... but that's okay. But It is a legitimate presentation of a reasonable thinking process that incorporates one person's understanding of the Bible without trying to shove something down anyone's throat. It's not a regurgitation of something in an anachronistic class presented by a cult.
I often tell people that I am witnessing to that I'm just telling them what the book says (to the best of my ability, not always right. who is?). Their believing the things I say is totally optional. I sleep well because of what I believe, not because of what somebody else believes. I don't think that those who believe otherwise than myself are a lesser person. What if I had thought that about Saul? I would have been surprised down the road!
Simply quoting a Bible verse to someone is often taken as "shoving it down their throat." It's an interesting book in that regard.
17 hours ago, spectrum49 said:rrobs:
I'm assuming you meant well by starting this topic. Having read it entirely, I did appreciate your having admitted the following concerning your own treatment of Acts 17:11:
Right, I did not mean to start a fire-storm.
Oct 12th: "Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I learned something from it." (and) "Sometimes I go too fast. Gotta slow down, especially in handling God's word."
Oct 13th: "Point taken. You have valid claims. Thanks for the input. It has helped. I'll take it to heart for my next post. I always like to improve."
So, (at least) this demonstrates your willingness to concede a point when convinced otherwise, which causes me to consider you "might do the same" if I dare responding to an appeal you frequently made throughout, namely:
Nope. I don't know everything. Maybe it seems I think I do, but I don't. I learn every day (a lot of days anyway) and often something that goes against long held beliefs. I'm always willing to change. More that willing, I'm happy to change when I find more information.
Oct 6: "...please tell me from the word where anything I said is not aligned with that word."
Oct 7: "I didn't ask you, the reader, to support my claims. I asked to to show me where I'm off. So far nothing and I don't think there will be anything because what I said is in perfect alignment with the word. If you don't think so, then tell me where."
Oct 11: "But after all this why hasn't anybody told me where my post if off the mark?" [and] "I would think that anybody that disagrees with my post should explain why they disagree..." [and] "So again, where is my post off? If anybody can tell me chapter and verse where I'm off, then I will change my thinking on the matter."
That said, OKAY rrobs: "I'll bite": But first of all, know that my intent is NOT to be argumentative. And please be mindful that (although I WILL include scripture references) I'm hoping the ones I choose will suffice as "authoritative enough in your eyes" to support my position, without "going on and on" --- which would tend toward overkill. I'll also appeal with what's considered by most as "good old common horse sense". (Yet, if you STILL require further clarification, I'll certainly try to be patient.)
No argument, just discussion. Good. There is a fine line between the two. Sometimes I find myself in what I consider to be a discussion with someone that they considers an argument. Maybe it's my demeanour. It's certainly not my heart. Not to say everybody else should know that. I understand people generally go by what they see. Obviously I do something that makes people see what is not really my intent.
In your first paragraph, you began: "The quality of life of a society is ultimately determined by the thoughts that each individual in that society holds in their mind. Those thoughts in turn are dependant on the things each individual is told by sources outside of ourselves. That is basic to life."
You're proposing that what society becomes as a whole is entirely dependent upon what individuals think, which is derived from what they are told. And the KEY word which stands out to me is "TOLD", which (in your second paragraph) speaks of what some refer to these days as the "lame-stream media". (LOL)
But! Let's back up and continue your remarks in that first paragraph, where you provide THE REASON why your proposal must be true: "Someone telling you they love you fills your mind with positive thoughts. Should that same person tell you they hate you, your mind tends towards more negative thoughts."
Personally, I must disagree with your reasoning here, because (unlike the Word of God) what you've declared is NOT always true. Simply: Just because "someone says they love me" my mind is NOT "full of positive thoughts". What if I hear that from someone who has proven in times past that he hates me? Am I full of joy? NO WAY! (I'm just not gullible enough to take him seriously.)
And let's also evaluate what you said next: If that SAME person (the one who hates me) admits that he hates me (which is actually being honest!) does my mind "tend toward negative thoughts"? HELL NO! Why not? Because I evaluate what I hear BEFORE I dare let it influence my heart. In other words, I think for myself.
People (at least me) react on some level to what they perceive. I may not react strongly to someone telling me they hate me, nor if they tell me they love me. Still, there is some level of reaction and someone telling me they love me is more pleasing to my ears than hating me. Maybe I'm unique in that. Maybe I just don't have enough self esteem to totally ignore such comments. I think God tells us the tongue is an unruly member, and that we should speak kindly to one another
Kind words do have an effect;
2Chr 10:7, Prov 15:1, Prov 16:24, I Cor 5:11, et. al. (many more)
Prov 15:1,
A soft (love) answer turneth away wrath: but grievous (hate) words stir up anger.
I know I took some liberty with soft = love and grievous = hate, but it can't be too far off, if at all.
And after that, you then propose "your solution" to this problem (which I've just demonstrated is NOT a problem to me personally) saying: "To reverse this each individual must change the diet upon which their mind feeds."
And just what is it you're trying to "reverse"? In context, it can only refer to (using your own words) "a society with a low quality of life." In other words, you're implying that it's possible to change society for the better...which actually sounds like an admirable endeavor. But (alas) this hope of yours is quite futile. Let me explain why I believe this to be true:
Underlying all of this is the crazy notion that "if enough individuals would stop feeding their minds on the negative media from the world and put on the positive message from the Word of God, then society will improve."
Improving just means better that it was, not necessarily solving the problem altogether. I suppose "reverse" makes it sound like I'm promulgating the latter, but that was not my intent. Should have chosen a better word I suppose.
But sadly, there just aren't enough individuals to accomplish such a thing. Even if a MAJORITY of the world's population promoted things of a positive nature, that STILL wouldn't "reverse the trend". Why?
Jesus couldn't even do it.
First of all, the only ones who COULD accomplish this (if it were even possible) would be those who trust in the TRUE God. Assuming this would be "the real Christians", what does Scripture answer to that? One example is: "Many are called, but few are chosen." Assuming you understand what's behind that statement, you KNOW we'll never have a majority in that regard, so you can forget that as "a possible solution to the ills of society".
But even that's a moot point when you merely consider this one verse: 2Tim 3:13 "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." (And please don't forget to also consider "the overall context" of that verse!)
Spiritually speaking, this describes the very nature of they who make up the VAST MAJORITY of the people on this planet. No matter what we do, society in general IS going to become worse and worse, both in numbers and in quality. And there's NOTHING you or I can possibly do to "reverse that trend".
And if you ever get to where you suppose you're succeeding in such a "worthy endeavor", then your mind is in direct opposition to what God has already declared to be the future of society as we know it. Surely, we understand that (eventually) ALL OF THIS will be replaced with "a new heaven and earth".
My success lies in speaking the word, not in changing the world to Disney Land. In truth, hardly anybody I speak the word to believes me. So besides the scriptures that say few believe, I have my own experience. No pollyanna attitude in my mind.
Concerning the rest of your original post (Matt 4:4 and 2Pet 1:3, with explanations as to how they relate to the matter at hand) --- all of that is little more than an attempt to support your premise that individuals can (as you said near the end) "do something positive to change the course of our world".
So, can we individuals have ANY impact on society whatsoever? YES! We can share the light of the Word with people and do our best to teach them how they might "think for themselves" and enjoy their lives here upon earth until Christ returns.
BUT! Can we reverse the trend in society from just getting worse and worse to somehow becoming better and better? Or are we ever going to "change the course of our world" and negate what God prophesied concerning its eventual destruction? Sadly, no!
I understand you to say that there is no complete solution, that the world will get worse as time goes on and you gave appropriate scriptures. I agree. I never thought that we could create heaven on earth. Like you said, that will never happen. I was more saying, like you said,
So, can we individuals have ANY impact on society whatsoever? YES! We can share the light of the Word with people and do our best to teach them how they might "think for themselves" and enjoy their lives here upon earth until Christ returns.
If someone had shared the word with any of these shooters, maybe at least one of these shooting would have been prevented, hence a better world, sleight as the improvement might be. But you are right, it'll never be a bed of roses. There has never been a time in history when TRUE (dare I say it) Christians have been anything more than a very small proportion of society. Three quarters of the time since Christ they have seen them burned at the stake. Wouldn't surprise me is it starts up again like that. Not saying it will, just wouldn't be surprised.
And truthfully, I'm not sad about that one iota. Rather (knowing I've been "saved from the wrath to come") I'm quite ELATED!
I'm with you there!
54 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:The Bible is an expression of our collective evolutionary wiring over generations. God is the sum of many abstracted ideal concepts haggled over millennia.
That you think in such an absolute view about God is a misguided but practical survival skill for a group.
The media you have cited is propaganda. To be used over the short-term. Not the long-term no-guarantee-but-best-bet that a god embodies.
So you are somewhat comparing apples to oranges. Which is why I don't think there's a great point in your statement. You can't contrast the two like that, media and religion.
Not to negate your point, but I personally would hate to find out that the Bible is nothing more than a collective evolutionary writing over generations. Why?
1Cor 15:19,
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
I'm counting on the Bible being the word of God and that everything he says in it is true and will come to pass.
I cracked up on your bacon wrapped armadillo eggs. One of the funniest posts I've seen. Thanks for the laugh!
10 hours ago, Rocky said:I'm telling you that I believe your vague claim that all you've really been trying to get at is "the general message of the Bible" is dubious. You've made specific claims about specific things in the Bible while at no time offering either an actual argument about those specific claims. What difference does it make how long it took me to complete any course?
Here's an example, "The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11)." That's a specific claim about a specific message in the Bible. There's a lot of background we're not getting about that situation... either from you or from a plain reading of the verse you cited. Before I take any claims from the Bible at face value, I want to critically evaluate them.
PFLAP was intended to do just the opposite -- get people to believe VPee's claims without critically evaluating them. In fact, criticism was stifled by way of peer pressure and leadership direction.
Point taken. You have valid claims. Thanks for the input. It has helped. I'll take it to heart for my next post. I always like to improve.
1
Who do you love?
in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
Posted
First of all, I really have no idea who at GSC believes the word and who doesn't. I don't care other than if you don't believe the scriptures then there is no point in discussing them, is there? On the other hand, if you do believe them then I repeat my statement:
"Maybe you could give me your take on all of the verses from the original post. Maybe we are not supposed to love and forgive one another. Tell me why we shouldn't. If it makes sense, I'll change my believing accordingly."
If you can't or don't want to do that, then you and I are done with this one. Maybe we'll do another one down the road.