The Converse is also true

[So_crates]

Being the type of person who has always thought outside the box, I came to an important revelation one day.

It happened during my "where did I go wrong and how can I correct it" phase. You know, that period of time just after you tell the ministry to put it where the sun don't shine (unfortunately, that would be the whole ministry--no son shining there). Anyway, I was being approached by just about every sect in creation wanting me to go to their church.

I had devise dthis little test. Like the guy inThe Little Prince. You know he showed them a drawing if the said it was a hat he knew they were full of it, but if they said it was a snake swallowing an elephant he knew they were okay. Well, mine was to tell them my story and ask were I went wrong. If they gave me a 20 minute lecture on doctrine, I politely showed them the door. Needless to say a lot of people know what my door looks like.

The abortion of people presenting me their church came an amuzing piece of wisdom: Whenever your involved with a group, turn the tenents of the group on the group. You'll be shocked the things you'll learn about the group. It uncovers a lot of hypocracy.

Example: The ministry. I've done a lot of that in previous posts. Where were the leaders believing? How giving was the leadership? How forgiving? How much love did they really display? How much of the fruit of the spirit did they show us?

Believing, giving, foriving, love, and fruits of the spirit were all tenents of the ministry.

How much did they obey their own doctrine? Did they act like more than conquerers? Did they have the confidence of realizing them and god were a majority in any situation? Did they act like this world wasn't their home and they were just passing through?

Another little bit of wisdom along these lines comes from W.C. Fields. The comment in the brackets is mine. He once said, If you enter a card game [or any situation for that matter], if you haven't figured out who the patsy is within the first five minutes, your the patsy.

SoCrates

[Bolshevik]

That's a neat idea, a test to have ready.

Some JWs came by my home this summer. You could tell in each pair of door-to-door witnesses which was the seasoned "veteran" and who needed a little more cementing. I told them I'd been part of a group with similar "doctrines" as theirs . . . they asked why I left . . . I told them I didn't think that group was genuine in their approach . . . they said they could appreciate that

. . . course after telling them plainly I'd done what they're doing before they couldn't get off their stupid script still . . . eerrrr!! . . . they bored me . . . I was disappointed. It's more about grounding the one and not so much as finding more sheep.

[So_crates]

I can dig what your saying about JWs.

When I lived in FL, I went to the local bar to listen to the entertainment. The guy who sat nxt to me was the entertainments father. He was a JW. He told me he would teach me the word like I'd never been taught it before. I told him, "Don't bet on that." (Little did he know one of the people in my building was a JW. The fellow tenent was the biggest gossiper in the whole building) Anyhow, I explained my position and asked why my faith (pistis) failed me. I got a fifteen minute sermon on why something was in the bible, not on something addressing the problem.

Then he told me he had this book he wanted me to read on the names of God or somesuch. Told him I wasn't interested. he told me he'd bring it to me anyway. I told him to save himself the trouble even if he dropped it off I wouldn't read it.

I left wondering if I was that obnoxious when I was witnessing as a WOW. I mean, the guy couldn't care less about me. He was more interested in spreading his doctrine.

Same thing with the neighbor. he wasn't interested in people, only in spreading his doctrine.

For me this is where most religions fail and why the ministry was so effective at sucking us in. Churches could learn a thing or two from werewolf and company. When your wrestling with life your not interested in a sermon, you can get that on any street corner, you want answers, a direction to go in.

Werewolf knew if he feigned compassion people would flock to him. Isn't that why we all got involved in the ministry? The love bomb? They seemed more interested in us than sermonizing? As we all know now they were really more interested in our wallets and who could get who into the sack.

SoCrates

Edited December 27, 2010 by So_crates

[Twinky]

Anyhow, I explained my position and asked why my faith (pistis) failed me. I got a fifteen minute sermon on why something was in the bible, not on something addressing the problem.

I've met a few people from CFFM and some of them (who now fancy themselves as ordained) are just the same. You ask them something and they'll spout away about their favorite bit of scripture, never pausing for breath or even to look at you. No interest in why you might have asked a question.

It's all ego and self-love. No attempt to meet any kind of need, give any kind of answer. An over-dependence on this verse: "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified."

But they take this out of context, which is this:

"1 When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.<a name="8">"

In other words, to those who were already believers, and then speaking with them with meekness and respect.; in demonstrating God's power - which would include showing how God could help in a situation - not with words and more words and yet more words about how many scriptures they know - but only as mere words. Like the words have no practical application in a personal context.

Can't help thinking that's exactly how Jesus didn't answer questions from those genuinely wanting answers.

And don't take this wrong - not getting at CFFM in this response (don't know enough about them), only at one or two of their "ministers".

[Ham]

I'm trying to figure where "the Converse is also true" is being communicated here..

the converse is seldom true.

Mathematically speaking that is..

all believeing is (due to receiving_.. all receiving is.. due to believeing..

is the converse true? Is the original "theorem" true even to begin with?

mathematically.. sometimes it is a "big deal" to show the converse is true. There is Cauchy's (among many others) theorem.. the integral about a closed contour evaluates as zero, if the function is analytic..

then there is Morera's theorem. Choose the function to be continuous on some domain.. if every closed contour on the set D, we have f(z) = 0, then f is analytic..

but there are many, many details to be accounted for..

and sometimes there are additional conditions to be fulfilled..

[DogLover]

I'm trying to figure where "the Converse is also true" is being communicated here..

the converse is seldom true.

I can speak of shoes ... I did not always find that the Converse were true in their fit ... but now that I have found a New Balance (both in shoes and spiritually after leaving TWI), I have a better and more Godly walk.

[waysider]

---and would it be so wrong to just say, "I don't really know the answer but I care about you."?

Edited January 6, 2011 by waysider

[TrustAndObey]

but now that I have found a New Balance (both in shoes and spiritually after leaving TWI), I have a better and more Godly walk.

But what if you are the type of person that is attached to their old shoes.. Their just so comfortable, I tell you.. Especially my shirts from HS.. Just cause it has a few holes.. It's fine around the house.. (At least that's what I tell myself). lol..

[So_crates]

I'm trying to figure where "the Converse is also true" is being communicated here..

the converse is seldom true.

Mathematically speaking that is..

all believeing is (due to receiving_.. all receiving is.. due to believeing..

is the converse true? Is the original "theorem" true even to begin with?

mathematically.. sometimes it is a "big deal" to show the converse is true. There is Cauchy's (among many others) theorem.. the integral about a closed contour evaluates as zero, if the function is analytic..

then there is Morera's theorem. Choose the function to be continuous on some domain.. if every closed contour on the set D, we have f(z) = 0, then f is analytic..

but there are many, many details to be accounted for..

and sometimes there are additional conditions to be fulfilled..

A squirrel that studies calculus!!? And I'm lucky if I can balance my checkbook. :)

SoCrates

Edited January 7, 2011 by So_crates