Raf

I taught a college writing course, and one of the major lessons of the course was striking the right balance between abstract and concrete language. That is, just because you are using words, it does not mean you are communicating most effectively. JavaJane's opening post is asking for anecdotes, stories, "characters and a plot," as it were. What makes a story? People. Things happening. Characters interact. Something happens. Someone changes. "God got me in" is an abstraction (in the context of what the opening post is requestion: STORIES). God got you in? How? (Which Allan graciously answered). My own story, with the few details I gave, fell perfectly in line with what JavaJane was seeking. It was an example of an "unexplainable coincidence" that I, at one time, thought was "divine intervention" because I was taught there were no such things as coincidences. Yeah, I could have said "Word Wolf witnessed to me." And it would have been true. And yet it would have communicated so little. The fact that it was cold that night was relevant. There's more to the story. I don't know how much he would care to corroborate. But it was, as a whole, persuasive to me. He addressed things that were important to me, and pointed me to the Bible for solutions, advice, etc). I could very easily turn some of these abstract sentences into concrete observations that would put you in the time and place of the setting. I'm not sure how much is needed, or how deep the interest would be, beyond what's already been said. Here's an image: it was at night, in winter. I was under a tree. I had a mop of thick, dark hair at the time. I was wearing a black leather coat and, if memory serves, black pants or jeans. It was Dec. 26, 1986, if I recall correctly. We were on City Island, a small island that is technically part of Bronx county. It was already cold, but because we were on an island, all breezes were sea breezes. The wind chill was not funny. Word Wolf wasn't wearing his coat. And it was a long talk. It's a cool story (no pun intended). The idea that there was something supernatural to kick it off...? To me, it fed the notion that our encounter was no coincidence. It was what God wanted. And I desperately wanted to know what God wanted. JavaJane asked for stories. "God got me in" "God got me out" is not a story. That's why I asked Allan to expand on the comment. My comments were not only on topic, but they improved the on-topic quality of someone else's post. Not needed? I beg to differ. Unlike another poster, I did not challenge the truth or premise of Allan's statement. Now, why isn't that other poster being rebuked? I'm just curious.

If you're going to rebuke me, please properly accuse me. I offered no comment about what Allan perceived, felt or understood at the time. I asked him a question, which he graciously answered. Your rebuke is out of line and uncalled for. All posters' comments are welcome if on topic. Problem with me? Report it.

😂

And that is why I had to make sure my avatar was showing what I thought it was showing. Your move, Lycanthrope.

I never said it would or should take a burning bush to get someone to check out God. I asked "by what means did God get you in..." and followed that up in the next post with "was it [something] remarkable, and that's how you knew it was God? (Like a burning bush or a talking donkey)." If a burning bush told me to check out a Bible fellowship, I would feel pretty strongly that "God got me in." I wasn't asking you to justify why you checked out God, see? I was asking you for the basis of your statement "God got me in," which you graciously provided. Your wife told you about it. My wife's word has that same "thus saith the Lord" authority, so I get it. I do. ;)

Really? Because I'm giving away the answer every time I post. I made sure of it.

Look at my post. All of it. I'm sure you recognize it.

I'm just saying how I got into it. You can judge for yourself whether it was God or man, but at least you know what happened. I can't tell you that God directed Word Wolf to me. I can tell you that was what I was told and I found the presentation of God's will and the approach to the Bible persuasive. But did God really tell Word Wolf where to find me? Not my story to tell. P.S. Allan, thank you. Snarkiness aside, you answered my question.

Close enough

Yes

No and no. Take everything about my post into consideration.

I don't understand "God got me in, God got me out." Did God tell you, "Hey, knock on that door. The person who answers it is going to help you in ways you never thought possible"? Or was it a more [seemingly] mundane set of developments you attribute to God because they impressed you so much? Or was it remarkable, and that's how you knew it was God? (Like a burning bush or a talking donkey). "God got me in" tells us what you concluded, but it doesn't tell us anything tangible. For me, Word Wolf endured a bitterly cold night witnessing to me after (he firmly believes) he heard God tell him he was needed and directed him to where I was. It wasn't the fact that he found me that impressed me so much. It was what he said. It was a LONG conversation. An impressive one. I was impressed. I wanted to learn more. Etc. Not, "God got me in." Maybe He did. Maybe He didn't. But saying He did doesn't convey the slightest bit of information. Which is FINE, if you don't want to answer to question. But if you do [want to answer the question], it doesn't [answer anything].

By what means did God get you in? By what means did God get you out?

"Ma chère mademoiselle. It is with deepest pride and greatest pleasure that we welcome you tonight. And now, we invite to relax, let us pull up a chair, as the dining room proudly presents... your dinner."

If you look at my WHOLE post, all of it, I give away the answer.

Starring Steve Martin, Bernadette Peters, Greg Kinnear and Thomas Haden CHURCH.

Oh, I'm up. Time out. Be right there.

Ready, George....

Ruben Blades Once Upon a Time in Mexico Salma Hayek

You got it! Time to watch that one again. Admittedly, that was better for the Name that Flick thread, but clearly I gave you enough to get it in "one" line.

"So, when do I get out of here?" As soon as Mr. Stone pays the ransom. "What's the problem? What is the ransom?" Well, we asked for $500,000. "That should be no problem." He wouldn't pay. "He wouldn't pay?" Then we asked him for $50,000. "Yeah?" He still wouldn't pay. So now we're lowering our price to $10,000. "Do I understand this correctly? I'm being marked down? [starts crying] I've been kidnapped by K-Mart!"

There's Something About Mary

But Scientology got the cult label when he was still alive. John's point has merit. One quibble I have, John, is that you criticize the "cult" labelers inaccurately, IF my memory serves. They do not consider a religion a cult for rejecting the trinity. They would have no reason to label Jews and Muslims as cultists. Rather, they consider you a cult if you reject the trinity BUT STILL CALL YOURSELF CHRISTIAN. Thus, TWI, LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses and the Worldwide Church of God (back in the old days) were all labeled cults. It wasn't just because they rejected the trinity. It was because they rejected the trinity while still "pretending" to be Christian. The term they used, if I recall correctly, was "pseudoChristian" cults. Atheists put it another way: in a cult, there's someone at the top who knows it's all a scam. In a religion, that person died centuries ago.

From Steve L's thread on Speaking in Tongues (and not appropriate for the Questioning SIT thread), Steve wrote: This is not true. I want to be abundantly clear. THE ABOVE STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE. "You reject evidence of the supernatural, Raf, not because there isn't any..." Actually, yes, I reject evidence of the supernatural because there isn't any. Claims are not evidence. There are many claims. There is no evidence. If you'd like to produce evidence, or point me to where someone else has done so, I'd be more than happy to check it out. In fact, the JREF will pay $1 million for it. Not a joke. There isn't any. "...but because one of your presuppositions is that the supernatural does not exist." Actually, this is not a presupposition. It is a post-supposition, otherwise known as a conclusion (tentative, in this case, open to receiving more evidence). Dismissing someone's conclusion as a presupposition is a clever way of accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty without actually calling him a liar. I prefer the direct approach. If you think I'm being intellectually dishonest, just say so. I won't hit the report button. I pinky swear. MY presupposition, for 40 years, was that the supernatural DOES exist. You don't get to erase that because I changed my mind AFTER considering where the evidence leads. See, when you change your mind AFTER considering the evidence, that's not a "presupposition," by definition. "You automatically invalidate any evidence that goes against your presupposition." Let's test that theory. Show me evidence that is not merely a claim, and we'll see whether I invalidate it "automatically," as opposed to giving it due consideration, weighing the validity, checking out what can be checked out, and reaching a (tentative) conclusion.

Ok, fixed. Apparently your avatar and your photo are not the same thing. At least, I think it's fixed. I still see the old pic. Drat. Ah!