t-bone, i'm not sure if there's a question in there. if there is, could you restate it for me?
but critical thinking is definitely what i'm talking about. that, and being true to yourself, i guess. i came to the place where i had to believe that if it couldn't stand up to my puny scrutiny, it couldn't be true. eventually, it brought me to the conclusions i stated at the beginning of this thing. but i try to leave the door open for possibilities i haven't considered, which is why i started this thread. and while what's been said has given me stuff to think about, and reason to re-evaluate what i think, it's ultimately served to reinforce what i believe. so far, anyway.
I respect you for your honesty - and that's why I don't want to brow beat anyone on this stuff. That's what critical thinking is all about - evaluating things. I love threads like this - it gets me thinking about things - going down avenues I normally wouldn't go. Here's a great website for critical thinking:
whoa, t-bone--somehow i missed the last two paragraphs of your last post. but i'm still not 100% sure what you're driving at.
is it that our intellect is corrupted? if that's it, i understand what you're saying. but with that premise, how can we know anything? or trust anything we think we know? how corrupted is it? is it all corrupted, or just here and there? i don't expect answers to these questions. but i think that if you believe your intellect is corrupted, doesn't that make everything you learn suspect? i don't know how you deal with that.
if your point was "do we first need to determine a reference point?" i guess my answer would be "i don't." i spent so much time in the way trying to bury my own instincts, feelings, reactions, inescapable conclusions, etc. that i just can't play that way anymore. the field is wide open, as far as i'm concerned. in this case, i'm looking at the first few chapters of genesis and deciding, FOR MYSELF, whether i want to--or am able to--believe them. my reference point is "what do i think?" i realize that may be a horrible thing to some people, but after all those years of denying what i think, it's really the only honest way for me to proceed.
i honestly don't need anyone to validate my opinion. but i was honestly looking for responses/reactions. and though i don't consider myself to be at the beginning of my search, i haven't "dismissed" the things that were said here. it seems to me that it's all-too-typical of christians--or any brand of "believer," for that matter--to write people off rather quickly. i wonder if it's that old "sheep-and-goats" mentality. i mean, you've "dismissed" everything I'VE said, yet i'm still willing to discuss it with you. what's up with that?
whoa, t-bone--somehow i missed the last two paragraphs of your last post. but i'm still not 100% sure what you're driving at.
is it that our intellect is corrupted? if that's it, i understand what you're saying. but with that premise, how can we know anything?or trust anything we think we know?how corrupted is it? is it all corrupted, or just here and there? i don't expect answers to these questions. but i think that if you believe your intellect is corrupted, doesn't that make everything you learn suspect? i don't know how you deal with that.
if your point was "do we first need to determine a reference point?" i guess my answer would be"i don't." i spent so much time in the way trying to bury my own instincts, feelings, reactions, inescapable conclusions, etc. that i just can't play that way anymore. the field is wide open, as far as i'm concerned. in this case, i'm looking at the first few chapters of genesis and deciding, FOR MYSELF, whether i want to--or am able to--believe them. my reference point is "what do i think?"i realize that may be a horrible thing to some people, but after all those years of denying what i think, it's really the only honest way for me to proceed.
Corrupted intellect - that's why I said that was a personal belief of mine - one arrived out by following the inferences from the study of the fall of man. Though corrupted they are the means of receiving God's message. I mentioned needing a reference point/determining a criteria for evaluating as a course of trying to set intellectual standards.[see the thread on Critical thinking http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=10050#]. I understand you saying your reference point is "what do I you think?" - the tools of critical thinking are to help you establish some sort of criteria upon which to make your decision. I think we all operate from some basis of biases, prejudices, assumptions, etc. That's why I mentioned mine [my personal beliefs, viewpoints]. The idea of critical thinking is to become aware of the underpinnings of your thinking process.
As far as anything I learn being suspect - there is that distinct possibility [that I'm wrong] - however I believe God has a way of validating truth internally for the Christian - that's why I mentioned those two verses.
Abigail, I LOVE that website!! There's an article on there about passionate disagreements and encouragement of debate and discussions that's awesome!
I also see the Adam & Eve explanation as the most viable and makes the most sense so far. :) Not sure if I buy it, but it is by far the most logical.
I have been chewing on the posts here and appreciate all the input as I have had the same questions as Sprawled Out for a long time. I would like to say that, he asked the questions to get input, but seems to be getting flak for not agreeing with the answers or for having more questions as a result of the answers. IMO, that's wrong.
My ex used to have lots of people ask him for advice when he was at work, but he'd get peeved beyond belief if they didn't take his advice.
This behavior is akin to a narrow-minded TWIt brain reaction to me. Someone who has questions or doubts may ask for input and spend time considering the input, have more questions or come up with their own conclusions, a mixture of the information, maybe change their mind or none of the above, but shouldn't it be their choice? Shouldn't we feel better for merely having had the opportunity to speak, be heard and those things seriously considered? Otherwise, why do we share on here?
Belle, I'm glad you are enjoying the website, it is one of my favorites. I may not always agree with everything I read there, but it almost always offers me a different perspective for consideration. Plus, I find most of the articles have moral values that I agree with and there is a lot of stuff geared towards the kids.
I could spend months and months there and never find all the cool stuff.
Well, my feeling is, I put a lot of time and thought into my first post.
Sprawled's response was, its a nice story, but basically no dice.
Ok. Fine. There was no discussion. It was dismissed. It was just a nice story. No discussion, just dismissal.
So what more is there for me to say? We don't agree and nothing I say will change that.
I've seen over time, the only thing that has ever changed my mind, is Holy Spirit working in and teaching me. If you've seen my posts over the years, you've seen me go from Universalist, a deep crisis of faith about if Jesus even existed, and the one thing I believe God let me find, an article on the net, that sealed it for me that he truly did exist, from non-trinitarian to trinitarian, from dismissing Gen. 6 to realizing it was true and how the Bible fit because of it and the ramifications, for Israel, the earth and the end times and the delusion to come and the apostasy, to believing God was cruel and unloving to realizing the opposite, to believing Revelation was a fairy tale to a somewhat understanding of it - the list goes on. But its been a continuous journey of seeking and searching and God has honored my desire to know him and led me to the people and/or information that's out there written by other Christians to slowly put the pieces together and answer my questions.
I also think people overlook the fact, that many people in TWI were not born again Christians. There were other great things, like the people, the love, the fellowship we had, etc. that attracted people to TWI.
There are posters here who will tell you they've rejected God and never really, in the depths of their hearts, did believe in Christ or God. That's not unusual, you'll find the same thing in churches.
So maybe that's what Sprawled or others are coming to terms with - maybe you don't believe. If so, shake off the chains of Christianity that bind you and make your own meaning in life.
Or, if my views seem silly, or just a nice story, do a google search on a topic you'd like to learn more about - there's plenty of great stuff on the net (and crackpot stuff to), but search it all and hold fast the good.
I'm no great or learned person, but all I'm saying is that I took the time to think out and try to give a coherent answer to the question and it was dismissed out of hand.
I have been chewing on the posts here and appreciate all the input as I have had the same questions as Sprawled Out for a long time. I would like to say that, he asked the questions to get input, but seems to be getting flak for not agreeing with the answers or for having more questions as a result of the answers. IMO, that's wrong.
My ex used to have lots of people ask him for advice when he was at work, but he'd get peeved beyond belief if they didn't take his advice.
This behavior is akin to a narrow-minded TWIt brain reaction to me. Someone who has questions or doubts may ask for input and spend time considering the input, have more questions or come up with their own conclusions, a mixture of the information, maybe change their mind or none of the above, but shouldn't it be their choice? Shouldn't we feel better for merely having had the opportunity to speak, be heard and those things seriously considered? Otherwise, why do we share on here?[/color]
In my opinion dearest Belle, and you know I love ya, I think your assessment is wrong.
It is because of I don't have TWIT brain anymore that I posted as I did. I can't speak for anyone else.
But, I answered his question.
Hey, I could've just answered "I DO!" to answer the thread title. But I gave him an honest answer from my heart.
He seemed to be the one that was peeved.
Maybe Sprawled Out if you would've answered the earlier posts with what you said in the later ......that" you considered what was said, and came to other conclusions."............. But instead, you came out swinging and stomping on my beliefs. So that did not give me the impression you cared what we said, you just wanted to argue.
I am sure you would've been greeted with better responses had we known you really wanted to know. IMO :)
My apologies, y'all. I re-read the thread and I can see where Sprawled Out comes across as contentious and unappreciative of your input. I suppose, since they are the same questions I've wrestled with, that I didn't read that into his responses and was really more interested in YOUR responses anyway. I also try to read folks in the best possible light whenever possible, and I kinda read his posts as a NY'er might speak. Not meaning to be offensive, just not as "polite" as, say, a southerner might try to be.
I also know he's new to the site, maybe new to internet message boards and still learning how to get your point across without flaming others....there IS a difference between "face to face" communication and message boards where inflection, tone of voice, body language, etc. aren't available. New folks don't always get that right away.
I know it takes a long time to think through, compose and type out responses like the ones you have, and, please know, that I honestly appreciate it. I do read and have been looking on the web as well as contemplating what you've shared. That's why I have shared when I have on here and am glad that you continue to post on this subject. I hope I haven't come across as contentious and close-minded, because I'm really not, but when you have the questions I have, it seems there's no easy way to ask them without seeming insincere or angry.
i'm sorry this has become a personal, rather than a doctrinal, thing here. i really never meant it to be. but here we are.
you don't know me, so you couldn't possibly know that i've been wrestling with whether or not i've given due consideration to what you (specifically sunesis and bliss) have said. that's my nature, to think that maybe i jumped the gun and didn't give another's viewpoint a fair shake. but the truth is that i DID. and i did it even though what you said wasn't new to me, for the most part. i had, in fact, considered most of those things before. but since it's been nearly 20 years since i drew my conclusions, i didn't think it was a bad idea to take another look. which was really at the heart of why i began this thread.
sunesis, i acknowledged that you put a lot into your initial response. you didn't like the way i put it, perhaps. but to me that's all it is, a good story. it wasn't meant to be an insult. what followed was my honest response, the problems i have with what you said. you say there was "no discussion," but to me, we were just at the beginning of one. i addressed very specific points, and thought you'd respond in kind. but you didn't. not one word, except to complain that i didn't appreciate what a lovely job you did. yet you accuse ME of dismissing your point of view. heck, i thought i crafted a very thoughtful response. and you didn't say one nice thing about it. ;)
it's the same for you, bliss. i told you i didn't see a case for the "legal" argument. it was hardly what i'd call "swinging and stomping." and i still haven't heard one word of explanation from you on it.
i'm afraid it really is typical of christians and the like. they love to tell other people what they think, but have no real interest in hearing what others think. i've been there; i remember. and the proof is right in this thread. maybe you don't see yourselves that way. sunesis, maybe you haven't always been that way. you say you've learned and changed over the years. but it appears you are that way now, if what you've said in this thread is characteristic of you.
i really don't think i was contentious--unless you define contentious as "not agreeable." i was straightforward. i voiced my problems with your responses. maybe i didn't couch it in the softest possible terms. you may have taken it as contentious, but believe me, i could've been much more dismissive. it seems to me that you took my disagreement personally and have been more contentious than i've been. until now.
as much as it's been a pain in my a**, this back-and-forth really has helped me. it's reinforced for me that i could never be true to myself and be "bible-believing." that i'd rather have unanswered questions than answers that only seem to hold together if i don't engage my mind. but that's just me.
Ok Sprawled out, enough. You just reiterated it was a story - again, a 2nd time - right before this. Then, for some reason, you think I should discuss it more. Ok, whatever.
So what is there to discuss????? Its just a "story" you don't like. Not much to discuss there.
Then you give the line: It is typical of Christians....
Well, I'm glad you know what's typical of all Christians everywhere, especially if you don't agree.
I've been on message boards long enough not to like veiled insults.
Yeah, ok, we're all stuck in waybrain land, according to you - believe what you want about all of us "typical" Christians. I guess we're all just typical Christians, and you're not. Must be nice being a special Christian, so untypical like us unwashed, ignorant, ex-twi masses.
I think you need to read the posts that have been shared and try to understand people have been trying to communicate with you, sharing their hearts, and you just could care less.
This "typical" Christian is going to bow out of this thread.
it's the same for you, bliss. i told you i didn't see a case for the "legal" argument. it was hardly what i'd call "swinging and stomping." and i still haven't heard one word of explanation from you on it.
uhhh, is that what you wanted? An explanation from me on God's justice? I don't think I have that much time, but, that is not what you asked from me and others in your first posts.
Maybe it should of been "So, bliss, where in THE WORD can you show me where some of this legal stuff is, so I can process it................or Genesis___ says ____, Prov_____ says _____, .
Then, it leaves the posters something to respond to, gives good doctrinal discussion. Raf, Mark, Wordwolf, the Evan, might join in, they are some of the doctrinal wordsmiths around here.
I also "HEARD WHAT YOU THOUGHT". Who said they didn't?
I just don't agree, and you don't with me. I didn't see you give explanations "doctrinally".
If I was a "typical" Christian, then I would've called you a heretic for your beliefs/comments, but I didn't. I do know where you are coming from, hence, my Romans 1:16 verse, "FAITH". Some things cannot logically be explained, and I am ok with that.
you could have explained to me how you make the connection between lucifer's fall and the earth's becoming without form and void. or why you left out the "great whales" in your "God only created..." rap. or addressed my problem with the "two opposing wills" thing.
that's just three things i can think of off the top of my head. i can't for the life of me understand why you didn't do that when i first responded. not that i really care to deal with you on it at this point, anyway. but you could've. you just chose not to. and somehow I'M the problem?
there were no veiled insults, sunesis. no veiled anythings. i think i was pretty straightforward. but you're right about one thing. well, half right. i'm not a typical christian. in fact, i'm not a christian at all. that was the obvious conclusion of my initial post, don't you think? i don't see there being any need for jesus christ. though i think he likely did exist, and may have actually said some of the most wonderful things ever said. but i don't--i WON'T--believe that God did what genesis says he did, or that he would require a man to suffer and die for my redemption. but i've already shared my heart with you on the subject, and it's clear that you couldn't care less.
bliss, you said maybe i should've said, "So bliss, where in the word does it say..." well, i DID say:
"legal" means there's a law somewhere. perhaps a whole set of them. show me. where are these laws that God made himself subject to? where did it say--BEFORE ALL THIS HAPPENED--that IF man fell, God would have to send a redeemer?"
"show me" "where are these laws?" "where did it say?"
Excerpts of posts by Sprawled Out on this thread in bold red:
“So...if God forgave adam, and adam's sins weren't passed down to me, there was no need for a redeemer, no need for jesus to die. and christianity dries up and blows away…i will say you told a good story, sunesis. well done. and it does seem to make sense, until you really think about it. first of all, from what i know of the bible (and i used to know a bit, back in the day), most of what you said is pieced together from here and there, really a cobbled-together theology that's been handed down, with the blanks filled in as needed. the bible doesn't really SAY half of that stuff. all that business about lucifer and the earth becoming without form--it's all just speculation. there's no way to really link one with the other. even the stuff about adam's fall is largely conjecture. NONE of what went on in his head and heart is written in genesis. none of that "how come God's holding back from me" stuff is really there. i get that it's nice and it seems to fit. but that doesn't make it true. or honest….me personally, i believe in a bigger God than you seem to. a God who loves bigger, more perfectly than i do. a God who understands we're only human. one who wouldn't require something as barbaric as a blood sacrifice for me to "get right" with him. i'm sorry, kids, i just can't get behind a God like that. if you can, good for you. but no thanks, no church for me….you think i'm bitter. but i'm not bitter at all. because i don't believe that God did any of those things. i believe that God is loving and forgiving, and would never set us up for failure. that doesn't mean i want to wipe my butt with scripture, just that i don't want to wash my brain with it…”
Sprawled Out, I hope you don’t mind that I pulled together some of your posts – I wanted to get a better idea of your viewpoint. That is why I mentioned some things earlier about critical thinking – how it helps reveal the “underpinnings” of our thinking process. That sort of goes in line with my saying it would be logical to establish a reference point – where are you coming from – what is your viewpoint? Reviewing the above statements I gather that: A. you do believe in God but B. do not accept the Bible as true? It would be helpful if you would confirm/clarify those two points.
Thanks for clarifying that. I can understand your opinion from your reference point. Allow me to share my thoughts on the ideas talked about on this thread. My position: I am a Christian and believe God, the Creator, had the Bible written. Furthermore, in my humble opinion I think God had the message in the Bible written primarily for the salvation of our souls rather than to satisfy our intellectual curiosity. In other words – I believe the Bible is a means to an end [connecting with God to experience a transforming relationship with Him] and not an end in itself [becoming a Bible-know-it-all].And although there are lots of “meaty” things in the Bible to think about – I think a person comes to Christ not because it’s intellectually satisfying but because they realize their soul is in such a miserable state [worse than New York – LOL – sorry I’m from there and couldn’t resist a good set up].
I’m not posting to argue about your initial post and main idea [“So...if God forgave adam, and adam's sins weren't passed down to me, there was no need for a redeemer, no need for jesus to die. and christianity dries up and blows away…”] – but to point out what a difference a point of view makes. I can understand how someone who believes in God but doesn’t accept the Bible as true – would interpret the God revealed in the Bible as being barbaric, unforgiving and unloving, especially so from your example of parents dealing with their children.
For me on the other hand [from my Christian viewpoint] Sunesis and Bliss’ admirable explanation of the need for a savior make perfect sense! And from within the framework of my belief system [i’m not saying this to prove a point but to reveal how our minds will work to justify our viewpoint] I make some inferences [they may be right or wrong – it’s just MY reasoning or “philosophizing”]: God created a morally responsible universe [giving His creatures freewill, establishing a standard of right and wrong, and a code of justice for infractions]. God is loving and forgiving [in providing a means of redemption]. And then thinking from the standpoint of a parent and civilized person [my kids would say “you’re either one or the other” LOL :) ] – I personally would consider a country barbaric that had no justice system nor moral or ethical standards.
thank you, t-bone. that's essentially what i meant when i said it's very difficult to really communicate across the gulf between our two positions. as you said, we each have a framework in which we operate, based on certain assumptions or givens. for either to truly see the others point of view, we'd have to set those aside. but for a bible-believer to do that would amount to subjecting yourself to "vain imaginations," at best--or at worst, the devil's own whisperings. while for me to do so would be a repeat of what i consider to be one of the biggest mistakes i ever made. (rather than repeat it, it's post #35 in this thread.)
yes, belle, i was going to mention that--but got too caught up in the backandforth. and then i forgot.
but i thought it was funny when i read what you said. twi tried to drive the new york out of me ("come out!"), sending me to kansas, ohio, texas, washington state (lcm's personal retribution!) and massachusetts, but it didn't work. and my first move as a free agent was to head back home! :P
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
15
6
15
Popular Days
May 8
30
May 6
9
May 7
8
May 5
8
Top Posters In This Topic
Belle 8 posts
CM 15 posts
T-Bone 6 posts
sprawled out 15 posts
Popular Days
May 8 2006
30 posts
May 6 2006
9 posts
May 7 2006
8 posts
May 5 2006
8 posts
bliss
And there we agree. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
t-bone, i'm not sure if there's a question in there. if there is, could you restate it for me?
but critical thinking is definitely what i'm talking about. that, and being true to yourself, i guess. i came to the place where i had to believe that if it couldn't stand up to my puny scrutiny, it couldn't be true. eventually, it brought me to the conclusions i stated at the beginning of this thing. but i try to leave the door open for possibilities i haven't considered, which is why i started this thread. and while what's been said has given me stuff to think about, and reason to re-evaluate what i think, it's ultimately served to reinforce what i believe. so far, anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I respect you for your honesty - and that's why I don't want to brow beat anyone on this stuff. That's what critical thinking is all about - evaluating things. I love threads like this - it gets me thinking about things - going down avenues I normally wouldn't go. Here's a great website for critical thinking:
http://www.criticalthinking.org/
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
whoa, t-bone--somehow i missed the last two paragraphs of your last post. but i'm still not 100% sure what you're driving at.
is it that our intellect is corrupted? if that's it, i understand what you're saying. but with that premise, how can we know anything? or trust anything we think we know? how corrupted is it? is it all corrupted, or just here and there? i don't expect answers to these questions. but i think that if you believe your intellect is corrupted, doesn't that make everything you learn suspect? i don't know how you deal with that.
if your point was "do we first need to determine a reference point?" i guess my answer would be "i don't." i spent so much time in the way trying to bury my own instincts, feelings, reactions, inescapable conclusions, etc. that i just can't play that way anymore. the field is wide open, as far as i'm concerned. in this case, i'm looking at the first few chapters of genesis and deciding, FOR MYSELF, whether i want to--or am able to--believe them. my reference point is "what do i think?" i realize that may be a horrible thing to some people, but after all those years of denying what i think, it's really the only honest way for me to proceed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
sunesis:
i honestly don't need anyone to validate my opinion. but i was honestly looking for responses/reactions. and though i don't consider myself to be at the beginning of my search, i haven't "dismissed" the things that were said here. it seems to me that it's all-too-typical of christians--or any brand of "believer," for that matter--to write people off rather quickly. i wonder if it's that old "sheep-and-goats" mentality. i mean, you've "dismissed" everything I'VE said, yet i'm still willing to discuss it with you. what's up with that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Corrupted intellect - that's why I said that was a personal belief of mine - one arrived out by following the inferences from the study of the fall of man. Though corrupted they are the means of receiving God's message. I mentioned needing a reference point/determining a criteria for evaluating as a course of trying to set intellectual standards.[see the thread on Critical thinking http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=10050#]. I understand you saying your reference point is "what do I you think?" - the tools of critical thinking are to help you establish some sort of criteria upon which to make your decision. I think we all operate from some basis of biases, prejudices, assumptions, etc. That's why I mentioned mine [my personal beliefs, viewpoints]. The idea of critical thinking is to become aware of the underpinnings of your thinking process.
As far as anything I learn being suspect - there is that distinct possibility [that I'm wrong] - however I believe God has a way of validating truth internally for the Christian - that's why I mentioned those two verses.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
I haven't "wrote you off" sprawled out.
You did that to me.
"i was honestly looking for responses/reactions"
You got them and look at how you treated those that responded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Abigail, I LOVE that website!! There's an article on there about passionate disagreements and encouragement of debate and discussions that's awesome!
I also see the Adam & Eve explanation as the most viable and makes the most sense so far. :) Not sure if I buy it, but it is by far the most logical.
I have been chewing on the posts here and appreciate all the input as I have had the same questions as Sprawled Out for a long time. I would like to say that, he asked the questions to get input, but seems to be getting flak for not agreeing with the answers or for having more questions as a result of the answers. IMO, that's wrong.
My ex used to have lots of people ask him for advice when he was at work, but he'd get peeved beyond belief if they didn't take his advice.
This behavior is akin to a narrow-minded TWIt brain reaction to me. Someone who has questions or doubts may ask for input and spend time considering the input, have more questions or come up with their own conclusions, a mixture of the information, maybe change their mind or none of the above, but shouldn't it be their choice? Shouldn't we feel better for merely having had the opportunity to speak, be heard and those things seriously considered? Otherwise, why do we share on here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Belle, I'm glad you are enjoying the website, it is one of my favorites. I may not always agree with everything I read there, but it almost always offers me a different perspective for consideration. Plus, I find most of the articles have moral values that I agree with and there is a lot of stuff geared towards the kids.
I could spend months and months there and never find all the cool stuff.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Well, my feeling is, I put a lot of time and thought into my first post.
Sprawled's response was, its a nice story, but basically no dice.
Ok. Fine. There was no discussion. It was dismissed. It was just a nice story. No discussion, just dismissal.
So what more is there for me to say? We don't agree and nothing I say will change that.
I've seen over time, the only thing that has ever changed my mind, is Holy Spirit working in and teaching me. If you've seen my posts over the years, you've seen me go from Universalist, a deep crisis of faith about if Jesus even existed, and the one thing I believe God let me find, an article on the net, that sealed it for me that he truly did exist, from non-trinitarian to trinitarian, from dismissing Gen. 6 to realizing it was true and how the Bible fit because of it and the ramifications, for Israel, the earth and the end times and the delusion to come and the apostasy, to believing God was cruel and unloving to realizing the opposite, to believing Revelation was a fairy tale to a somewhat understanding of it - the list goes on. But its been a continuous journey of seeking and searching and God has honored my desire to know him and led me to the people and/or information that's out there written by other Christians to slowly put the pieces together and answer my questions.
I also think people overlook the fact, that many people in TWI were not born again Christians. There were other great things, like the people, the love, the fellowship we had, etc. that attracted people to TWI.
There are posters here who will tell you they've rejected God and never really, in the depths of their hearts, did believe in Christ or God. That's not unusual, you'll find the same thing in churches.
So maybe that's what Sprawled or others are coming to terms with - maybe you don't believe. If so, shake off the chains of Christianity that bind you and make your own meaning in life.
Or, if my views seem silly, or just a nice story, do a google search on a topic you'd like to learn more about - there's plenty of great stuff on the net (and crackpot stuff to), but search it all and hold fast the good.
I'm no great or learned person, but all I'm saying is that I took the time to think out and try to give a coherent answer to the question and it was dismissed out of hand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
In my opinion dearest Belle, and you know I love ya, I think your assessment is wrong.
It is because of I don't have TWIT brain anymore that I posted as I did. I can't speak for anyone else.
But, I answered his question.
Hey, I could've just answered "I DO!" to answer the thread title. But I gave him an honest answer from my heart.
He seemed to be the one that was peeved.
Maybe Sprawled Out if you would've answered the earlier posts with what you said in the later ......that" you considered what was said, and came to other conclusions."............. But instead, you came out swinging and stomping on my beliefs. So that did not give me the impression you cared what we said, you just wanted to argue.
I am sure you would've been greeted with better responses had we known you really wanted to know. IMO :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I also know he's new to the site, maybe new to internet message boards and still learning how to get your point across without flaming others....there IS a difference between "face to face" communication and message boards where inflection, tone of voice, body language, etc. aren't available. New folks don't always get that right away.
I know it takes a long time to think through, compose and type out responses like the ones you have, and, please know, that I honestly appreciate it.
I do read and have been looking on the web as well as contemplating what you've shared. That's why I have shared when I have on here and am glad that you continue to post on this subject. I hope I haven't come across as contentious and close-minded, because I'm really not, but when you have the questions I have, it seems there's no easy way to ask them without seeming insincere or angry. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
i'm sorry this has become a personal, rather than a doctrinal, thing here. i really never meant it to be. but here we are.
you don't know me, so you couldn't possibly know that i've been wrestling with whether or not i've given due consideration to what you (specifically sunesis and bliss) have said. that's my nature, to think that maybe i jumped the gun and didn't give another's viewpoint a fair shake. but the truth is that i DID. and i did it even though what you said wasn't new to me, for the most part. i had, in fact, considered most of those things before. but since it's been nearly 20 years since i drew my conclusions, i didn't think it was a bad idea to take another look. which was really at the heart of why i began this thread.
sunesis, i acknowledged that you put a lot into your initial response. you didn't like the way i put it, perhaps. but to me that's all it is, a good story. it wasn't meant to be an insult. what followed was my honest response, the problems i have with what you said. you say there was "no discussion," but to me, we were just at the beginning of one. i addressed very specific points, and thought you'd respond in kind. but you didn't. not one word, except to complain that i didn't appreciate what a lovely job you did. yet you accuse ME of dismissing your point of view. heck, i thought i crafted a very thoughtful response. and you didn't say one nice thing about it. ;)
it's the same for you, bliss. i told you i didn't see a case for the "legal" argument. it was hardly what i'd call "swinging and stomping." and i still haven't heard one word of explanation from you on it.
i'm afraid it really is typical of christians and the like. they love to tell other people what they think, but have no real interest in hearing what others think. i've been there; i remember. and the proof is right in this thread. maybe you don't see yourselves that way. sunesis, maybe you haven't always been that way. you say you've learned and changed over the years. but it appears you are that way now, if what you've said in this thread is characteristic of you.
i really don't think i was contentious--unless you define contentious as "not agreeable." i was straightforward. i voiced my problems with your responses. maybe i didn't couch it in the softest possible terms. you may have taken it as contentious, but believe me, i could've been much more dismissive. it seems to me that you took my disagreement personally and have been more contentious than i've been. until now.
as much as it's been a pain in my a**, this back-and-forth really has helped me. it's reinforced for me that i could never be true to myself and be "bible-believing." that i'd rather have unanswered questions than answers that only seem to hold together if i don't engage my mind. but that's just me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Ok Sprawled out, enough. You just reiterated it was a story - again, a 2nd time - right before this. Then, for some reason, you think I should discuss it more. Ok, whatever.
So what is there to discuss????? Its just a "story" you don't like. Not much to discuss there.
Then you give the line: It is typical of Christians....
Well, I'm glad you know what's typical of all Christians everywhere, especially if you don't agree.
I've been on message boards long enough not to like veiled insults.
Yeah, ok, we're all stuck in waybrain land, according to you - believe what you want about all of us "typical" Christians. I guess we're all just typical Christians, and you're not. Must be nice being a special Christian, so untypical like us unwashed, ignorant, ex-twi masses.
I think you need to read the posts that have been shared and try to understand people have been trying to communicate with you, sharing their hearts, and you just could care less.
This "typical" Christian is going to bow out of this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
uhhh, is that what you wanted? An explanation from me on God's justice? I don't think I have that much time, but, that is not what you asked from me and others in your first posts.
Maybe it should of been "So, bliss, where in THE WORD can you show me where some of this legal stuff is, so I can process it................or Genesis___ says ____, Prov_____ says _____, .
Then, it leaves the posters something to respond to, gives good doctrinal discussion. Raf, Mark, Wordwolf, the Evan, might join in, they are some of the doctrinal wordsmiths around here.
I also "HEARD WHAT YOU THOUGHT". Who said they didn't?
I just don't agree, and you don't with me. I didn't see you give explanations "doctrinally".
If I was a "typical" Christian, then I would've called you a heretic for your beliefs/comments, but I didn't. I do know where you are coming from, hence, my Romans 1:16 verse, "FAITH". Some things cannot logically be explained, and I am ok with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
what's to discuss? jeez.
you could have explained to me how you make the connection between lucifer's fall and the earth's becoming without form and void. or why you left out the "great whales" in your "God only created..." rap. or addressed my problem with the "two opposing wills" thing.
that's just three things i can think of off the top of my head. i can't for the life of me understand why you didn't do that when i first responded. not that i really care to deal with you on it at this point, anyway. but you could've. you just chose not to. and somehow I'M the problem?
there were no veiled insults, sunesis. no veiled anythings. i think i was pretty straightforward. but you're right about one thing. well, half right. i'm not a typical christian. in fact, i'm not a christian at all. that was the obvious conclusion of my initial post, don't you think? i don't see there being any need for jesus christ. though i think he likely did exist, and may have actually said some of the most wonderful things ever said. but i don't--i WON'T--believe that God did what genesis says he did, or that he would require a man to suffer and die for my redemption. but i've already shared my heart with you on the subject, and it's clear that you couldn't care less.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
bliss, you said maybe i should've said, "So bliss, where in the word does it say..." well, i DID say:
"legal" means there's a law somewhere. perhaps a whole set of them. show me. where are these laws that God made himself subject to? where did it say--BEFORE ALL THIS HAPPENED--that IF man fell, God would have to send a redeemer?"
"show me" "where are these laws?" "where did it say?"
could i have been any clearer? come on!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Excerpts of posts by Sprawled Out on this thread in bold red:
“So...if God forgave adam, and adam's sins weren't passed down to me, there was no need for a redeemer, no need for jesus to die. and christianity dries up and blows away…i will say you told a good story, sunesis. well done. and it does seem to make sense, until you really think about it. first of all, from what i know of the bible (and i used to know a bit, back in the day), most of what you said is pieced together from here and there, really a cobbled-together theology that's been handed down, with the blanks filled in as needed. the bible doesn't really SAY half of that stuff. all that business about lucifer and the earth becoming without form--it's all just speculation. there's no way to really link one with the other. even the stuff about adam's fall is largely conjecture. NONE of what went on in his head and heart is written in genesis. none of that "how come God's holding back from me" stuff is really there. i get that it's nice and it seems to fit. but that doesn't make it true. or honest….me personally, i believe in a bigger God than you seem to. a God who loves bigger, more perfectly than i do. a God who understands we're only human. one who wouldn't require something as barbaric as a blood sacrifice for me to "get right" with him. i'm sorry, kids, i just can't get behind a God like that. if you can, good for you. but no thanks, no church for me….you think i'm bitter. but i'm not bitter at all. because i don't believe that God did any of those things. i believe that God is loving and forgiving, and would never set us up for failure. that doesn't mean i want to wipe my butt with scripture, just that i don't want to wash my brain with it…”
Sprawled Out, I hope you don’t mind that I pulled together some of your posts – I wanted to get a better idea of your viewpoint. That is why I mentioned some things earlier about critical thinking – how it helps reveal the “underpinnings” of our thinking process. That sort of goes in line with my saying it would be logical to establish a reference point – where are you coming from – what is your viewpoint? Reviewing the above statements I gather that: A. you do believe in God but B. do not accept the Bible as true? It would be helpful if you would confirm/clarify those two points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
you got it, t. though i love the bible, and think it's a wonderful book, i don't believe it's the word of God, inerrant, etc etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Thanks for clarifying that. I can understand your opinion from your reference point. Allow me to share my thoughts on the ideas talked about on this thread. My position: I am a Christian and believe God, the Creator, had the Bible written. Furthermore, in my humble opinion I think God had the message in the Bible written primarily for the salvation of our souls rather than to satisfy our intellectual curiosity. In other words – I believe the Bible is a means to an end [connecting with God to experience a transforming relationship with Him] and not an end in itself [becoming a Bible-know-it-all].And although there are lots of “meaty” things in the Bible to think about – I think a person comes to Christ not because it’s intellectually satisfying but because they realize their soul is in such a miserable state [worse than New York – LOL
– sorry I’m from there and couldn’t resist a good set up].
I’m not posting to argue about your initial post and main idea [“So...if God forgave adam, and adam's sins weren't passed down to me, there was no need for a redeemer, no need for jesus to die. and christianity dries up and blows away…”] – but to point out what a difference a point of view makes. I can understand how someone who believes in God but doesn’t accept the Bible as true – would interpret the God revealed in the Bible as being barbaric, unforgiving and unloving, especially so from your example of parents dealing with their children.
For me on the other hand [from my Christian viewpoint] Sunesis and Bliss’ admirable explanation of the need for a savior make perfect sense! And from within the framework of my belief system [i’m not saying this to prove a point but to reveal how our minds will work to justify our viewpoint] I make some inferences [they may be right or wrong – it’s just MY reasoning or “philosophizing”]: God created a morally responsible universe [giving His creatures freewill, establishing a standard of right and wrong, and a code of justice for infractions]. God is loving and forgiving [in providing a means of redemption]. And then thinking from the standpoint of a parent and civilized person [my kids would say “you’re either one or the other” LOL :) ] – I personally would consider a country barbaric that had no justice system nor moral or ethical standards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
thank you, t-bone. that's essentially what i meant when i said it's very difficult to really communicate across the gulf between our two positions. as you said, we each have a framework in which we operate, based on certain assumptions or givens. for either to truly see the others point of view, we'd have to set those aside. but for a bible-believer to do that would amount to subjecting yourself to "vain imaginations," at best--or at worst, the devil's own whisperings. while for me to do so would be a repeat of what i consider to be one of the biggest mistakes i ever made. (rather than repeat it, it's post #35 in this thread.)
which i guess makes it an exercise in futility.
(a new yorker, eh? hey, me too!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Belle said:
Sprawled Out said:I KNEW IT!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sprawled out
yes, belle, i was going to mention that--but got too caught up in the backandforth. and then i forgot.
but i thought it was funny when i read what you said. twi tried to drive the new york out of me ("come out!"), sending me to kansas, ohio, texas, washington state (lcm's personal retribution!) and massachusetts, but it didn't work. and my first move as a free agent was to head back home! :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.