[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Dave---You said;
There was probably some truth in the tracts. The writers were touching different parts of the elephant. Ironically, their claims would have been closer to the truth if they had born titles like "My Point of View Concerning Witness Lee" by Max Rapoport or how about "My Opinion Concerning the Local Church Not Being a Cult" by John Rapp and so forth? Then, provided they were not lying about what they stated being their actual points of view and opinions, the titles would have been accurate.

I agree, if only they stated "my opinion, my point of view..." rather than "The Truth...." The Truth as though they had the inside track on "The Truth"

Originally Posted by zeek

I was thought I was submitting myself to the Holy Spirit every time I called "O Lord Jesus" and I think others probably did too. Of course, by turning from our mind to our spirit we may have abandoned common sense in the bargain. We will never know if Max was right about what the speaker was implying anyway.

Do you remember that time in Detroit when Ron K had us say "O Lord Jesus" over and over for about 30 minutes ---downstairs in the basement we were meeting in? ...I was getting dizzy after awhile ---but maybe in his mind he believed if we just did that for hours on end it would result in growth of our spiritual life.

Originally Posted by zeek

The question then becomes: How far do we take perspectivalism? In the story, the elephant represents the real world beyond our limited perspective. Perhaps if the blind men compare their limited experiences they would arrive at a fuller picture of what the elephant is than if they stay in the silos of their own perceptions. That's where open communication and dialogue comes in.

Unfortunately it appears that they were all touching the same spot e.g. ear ...or if they weren't they were trying to convince others that they were really touching the ear and not the trunk...because it didn't fit into what they had touched... WL maybe was touching the ear and he wanted everyone else to believe that touching the ear was their only hope and forget about the rest of the elephant.

Originally Posted by zeek

The devil is in the details. Take just one word in your statement above i.e. "good". That reality is wonderfully ambiguous is illustrated by the parable. If we each act out of our limited perception of what's good, we may inadvertently kill or be killed by the elephant. One person's good is another's evil. The deadlocked United States Congress illustrates what can happen when people have different perspectives about what is good. How do you determine what is good about the deeds you do? What do you do about people who have different conceptions of of what is good.

That's the problem with democracy...different perspectives...trampling on other points of view is the elephant killing others....but democracy is messy...

Originally Posted by zeek

According to the parable, your cousin is touching a different part of the elephant. So are the local churchers. How do we deal with that? On this forum we have an opportunity to enlarge our vision of reality by conversing with people who have different approaches to reality. I'm glad that UntoHim has opened up the possibility for open discussion from different perspectives here in "Alternative Views" so that, instead of suppressing or attacking another's view of the elephant we can perhaps enlarge our views by taking alternative views into consideration. Will we find a way to an enlarged vision or deadlock like Congress? Stay tuned.

Well, she is definitely touching a different part of the elephant and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to tell you what part of the elephant she is touching. Alternative views are very important whether we agree or not.