Harold's powerless, impotent, amoral god.

[OBW]

You know something? I think that Harold often overstates things for effect. But even at his most severe overstatement, the best you can say about some of your conclusions as to what those statements mean is that they could be what he means. But not necessarily so. I really think you should stick to critiquing specific statements in specific ways rather than broad-brushing things in extremely general ways. It seems that there was a tremendous fallout here several years ago relating to just this kind of thinking and response to people.

Now I would like to simultaneously suggest to Harold that he not pigeonhole everything into one or two pet side issues. Like suggesting that orthodoxy is mostly about things standing in contrast to science. Yes there are people who are dogmatic about certain aspects of ancient history that they will cling to in the face of science. But that is not a general swipe at orthodoxy. And there is no doubt that what we call orthodox has changed over time. Surely there is a core that has remained fairly solid. But the things around the sides are often in flux. Why? Because they probably don't belong within orthodoxy in any way shape or form.

But as long as you keep forcing everything about broad topics to be all about some side issue, you will be treated by may as dust to be brushed aside. Sort of like saying that everything is about race. Or homophobia. Or even cargo cults. Some people force their pet issues into everything. Don't be that person.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

You know something? I think that Harold often overstates things for effect.

Really? No way! I had no idea. Harold, I take everything back. (not)

Mike, maybe you've missed the dozens upon dozens (hundreds?) of posts Harold and I've made back and forth on these issues over the years, but I honestly don't know how you could be so seemingly clueless about why he posts what he posts and why I post what I post. In any event I think you should have waited and given him a shot at me first. But hey, maybe that's your "alternative view" of proper forum netiquette.

Some people force their pet issues into everything. Don't be that person.

Well, the fact is that they are MY pet issues. You have yours. I have mine. Harold has his. I'm sure you remember our days in the Local Church where we weren't allowed to have pets, much less pet issues. You don't want to got back to those days, do you? Lighten up bro. Don't be that person.

[Timotheist]

No pet issues are allowed... we should be all be of one mind, one with the Lord's current move on the earth.

[UntoHim]

Thanks Tim! You're right.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

No pet issues are allowed... we should be all be of one mind, one with the Lord's current move on the earth.

Last time I heard that statement I was in the LC. Or do you mean the Southern Baptists? No? AOG? No? Acts 29 Yes/No? In our homes? Yes/No? Etc. Where is the current move of God on the earth or is it just the move of God in each individual heart with each individual attempting to find God's movement on the earth within themselves? Fill me in.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Dave

Last time I heard that statement I was in the LC. Or do you mean the Southern Baptists? No? AOG? No? Acts 29 Yes/No? In our homes? Yes/No? Etc. Where is the current move of God on the earth or is it just the move of God in each individual heart with each individual attempting to find God's movement on the earth within themselves? Fill me in.

Your fellowship has to be based on LSM publications. Otherwise you or I are not one with the Lord's move.....Although it does seem rather narrow that the eternal omnipresent God is limited by a man-made Christian publishing company where He moves on the earth.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Terry

Your fellowship has to be based on LSM publications. Otherwise you or I are not one with the Lord's move.....Although it does seem rather narrow that the eternal omnipresent God is limited by a man-made Christian publishing company where He moves on the earth.

Terry, you're just stating what LC states or are you stating your position or both?

Originally Posted by awareness

He can say whatever about my God, and I can't defend against it. Cuz I can't describe my God. I only sense Him, and trust from there, in spite of my unknowing. Untohim knows my God better than I. He's amazing.

I am a little confused. Who is amazing? Your God? or UntoHim?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Mike, maybe you've missed the dozens upon dozens (hundreds?) of posts Harold and I've made back and forth on these issues over the years, but I honestly don't know how you could be so seemingly clueless about why he posts what he posts and why I post what I post. In any event I think you should have waited and given him a shot at me first. But hey, maybe that's your "alternative view" of proper forum netiquette.

And this is where the response ends out disproportionate to the cause. What I am saying is that you quote from one of his posts and make broad statements about what it all means, not just that you have a problem with those particular statements.

Your response reminds me of the person who has listened to a whole lot of different things that were deemed to be going wrong, but did not comment, then finally the dam breaks and everything that was ever wrong with everything is dumped onto the present situation. While it is popular to discuss the straw that broke the camel's back, in reasoned discussion, you can't do it that way. You have to take on each issue discretely. Having done that, you can then bring a number of them together to make statements.

But this discussion starts cold with a post from another thread, followed by a statement that defines in rather absolute terms, the nature of the G(g)od that Harold believes in. I see the same things you do and I find that despite the amount of rhetoric that could support that position, I also see some that does not. Therefore the blanket declarations you made as fact are disputable.

And don't forget that when you blow-up at a coworker, spouse, friend about one somewhat small thing because of what you have kept buried inside, you are often the one that seems off kilter.

And what you did looks nothing like a discussion. More like an ambush. You want to discuss any of those items? Provide a specific quote (enough to be sure it is not out of context) and tell what that quote seems to be saying to you.

And I can assure you that a quote about the nature of orthodoxy ("right thinking") does tend to be dogmatic and unbending. As people we are too prone to fight for what we think is true without really considering any contrary ideas. If you don't actually consider other ideas then you can't really say you have right thinking. You can only clearly say that you have the thinking you want to have.

But this small quote about "right thinking" does not support a statement of "blind, deaf and dumb god who's only virtue is that he loves everything and everyone unconditionally." That is a non sequitur. Sort of like some of the jokes going around when I was in Jr High.

Q: What's the difference between a motorcycle?
A: A telephone pole because a tree has no doors.

Disjointed gibberish.

No what you wrote was not meaningless. But it was not connected to what you went to great lengths to set up to topple.

I hate to say it, but the way you approached responding to a statement about orthodoxy and rigid thinking was more of an ad hominem or a strawman.

And that is the entire premise of the first post setting up the contents of a new thread.

I don't care how much I wish Harold would be more focused and at least rational in his responses rather than seeming to be out to be the fly in every tub of ointment. If you want to have a discussion about the nature of God/god, then do that. Don't just show up to declare that someone has said it. You need to prove it. Not just point to "all the previous posts over a lot of time."

That is the kind of thing that Lee did to get us to accept that he was right about whatever. He used it on the meaning of economy in The Economy of God. (paraphrased)"If you look through the whole of scripture you will see that . . . ." Where? Show me one example. Don't just say it is so. And don't put up a quote that really has nothing to do with it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

And this is where the response ends out disproportionate to the cause. What I am saying is that you quote from one of his posts and make broad statements about what it all means, not just that you have a problem with those particular statements.

Your response reminds me of the person who has listened to a whole lot of different things that were deemed to be going wrong, but did not comment, then finally the dam breaks and everything that was ever wrong with everything is dumped onto the present situation. While it is popular to discuss the straw that broke the camel's back, in reasoned discussion, you can't do it that way. You have to take on each issue discretely. Having done that, you can then bring a number of them together to make statements.

But this discussion starts cold with a post from another thread, followed by a statement that defines in rather absolute terms, the nature of the G(g)od that Harold believes in. I see the same things you do and I find that despite the amount of rhetoric that could support that position, I also see some that does not. Therefore the blanket declarations you made as fact are disputable.

And don't forget that when you blow-up at a coworker, spouse, friend about one somewhat small thing because of what you have kept buried inside, you are often the one that seems off kilter.

And what you did looks nothing like a discussion. More like an ambush. You want to discuss any of those items? Provide a specific quote (enough to be sure it is not out of context) and tell what that quote seems to be saying to you.

And I can assure you that a quote about the nature of orthodoxy ("right thinking") does tend to be dogmatic and unbending. As people we are too prone to fight for what we think is true without really considering any contrary ideas. If you don't actually consider other ideas then you can't really say you have right thinking. You can only clearly say that you have the thinking you want to have.

But this small quote about "right thinking" does not support a statement of "blind, deaf and dumb god who's only virtue is that he loves everything and everyone unconditionally." That is a non sequitur. Sort of like some of the jokes going around when I was in Jr High.

Q: What's the difference between a motorcycle?
A: A telephone pole because a tree has no doors.

Disjointed gibberish.

No what you wrote was not meaningless. But it was not connected to what you went to great lengths to set up to topple.

I hate to say it, but the way you approached responding to a statement about orthodoxy and rigid thinking was more of an ad hominem or a strawman.

And that is the entire premise of the first post setting up the contents of a new thread.

I don't care how much I wish Harold would be more focused and at least rational in his responses rather than seeming to be out to be the fly in every tub of ointment. If you want to have a discussion about the nature of God/god, then do that. Don't just show up to declare that someone has said it. You need to prove it. Not just point to "all the previous posts over a lot of time."

That is the kind of thing that Lee did to get us to accept that he was right about whatever. He used it on the meaning of economy in The Economy of God. (paraphrased)"If you look through the whole of scripture you will see that . . . ." Where? Show me one example. Don't just say it is so. And don't put up a quote that really has nothing to do with it.

Actually bro Mike, Untohim's post was one huge ad hominem. As MOTA (Moderator Of The Altvs) I should cite him, and ban him for 2 years. But it was sooooooo cute. And he's my boss. Plus -- you guessed it, as always -- I love him. And he knows it. So I took it in good humor.

He can say whatever about my God, and I can't defend against it. Cuz I can't describe my God. I only sense Him, and trust from there, in spite of my unknowing. Untohim knows my God better than I. He's amazing.

We are tossed and driven
on the restless sea of time;
somber skies and howling tempests
oft succeed a bright sunshine;
in that land of perfect day,
when the mists are rolled away,
we will understand it better by and by.

By and by, when the morning comes,
when the saints of God are gathered home,
we'll tell the story how we've overcome,
for we'll understand it better by and by

[testallthings]

MY GOD

Originally Posted by awareness

Cuz I can't describe my God. I only sense Him, and trust from there, in spite of my unknowing.
We are tossed and driven
on the restless sea of time;
somber skies and howling tempests
oft succeed a bright sunshine;
in that land of perfect day,
when the mists are rolled away,
we will understand it better by and by.

By and by, when the morning comes,
when the saints of God are gathered home,
we'll tell the story how we've overcome,
for we'll understand it better by and by

[awareness]

Originally Posted by testallthings

MY GOD

I just love that song. We will understand it better by and by.

Bro TAT, you seem like you have a sweet heart.

Back to the by and by.

It seems everything is in the by and by. We wait for the Lord to return, in the by and by. The Jews await the Messiah in the by and by.

And even Nietzsche was awaiting the Übermensch, or the superman, in the by and by.

And even New Ager's await for the coming of the critical mass of enlightened people, that will bring utopia, in the by and by.

I guess we see it ain't right now, so it's got to be better in the by and by.

"Temptations, hidden snares
often take us unawares,
and our hearts are made to bleed
for a thoughtless word or deed;
and we wonder why the test
when we try to do our best,
but we'll understand it better by and by. "

[testallthings]

Br. Awareness,
If we have a sweet heart is from the Lord and to Him alone goes the glory.
I am sure the Lord has kept you and will keep you in Him by and by.
Thanks again for the song.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

You know something? I think that Harold often overstates things for effect.

Of course ....

Methinks the over-riding issue is that Harold seems to only know "bad" Christians; by that I mean angry, argumentative, judgmental, narrow-minded, hypocritical, etc. So when he reads either historical or contemporary events, that's all he sees.

When I grew up I felt that God was just a mean ole ogre on a throne, constantly out to get me, wanting to make my life miserable, and waiting to really stick it to me when I died. Why? That's all I knew from my father. Unfortunately, I have basically no memory of any childhood fun with my Dad. I have four brothers and four sisters and we all pretty much felt the same way growing up. It was our mother who taught us unconditional love.

If not for a few beloved Christian brothers in my life, I would never have known one iota of the love of God. Before my salvation, I was a sour, bitter, miserable pessimist who saw every glass as completely empty. It was only thru God's great love and endless mercy and grace, that eventually I was able to have a decent relationship with my Dad.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When I grew up I felt that God was just a mean ole ogre on a throne, constantly out to get me, wanting to make my life miserable, and waiting to really stick it to me when I died. Why? That's all I knew from my father.

It doesn't surprise me that our conception of God comes from our impression of our father as growing up.

I'm glad that you reconciled with your dad. That never happened for me. Nor with my mother. Even devoting my life to Christ in the LC was not enough for my mother. And my dad didn't get it at all. My mom was a fanatic Baptist, and my dad an unapologetic racist. It made me stoutly individualistic ... as you can see. And prolly, in the end, saved me from the local church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm glad that you reconciled

Reconciliation and forgiveness yield the peaceable fruit of righteousness.