The Split off Thread - The Thread with no Name

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's one thing to no longer trust contemporary leaders who have never earned that trust, but it's another thing to no longer trust those who have been proven over the span of 2,000 years.

Sounds like a Roman Catholic answer to me. Have you resorted back to your cradle religion?

[UntoHim]

Ok Harold, your trying my patients you little rascal. You're just about the only poster that makes me want to activate that stupid, petty "infraction" system that comes with the vBulletin software. If you weren't so darn cute I'd whip you with a wet noodle. In the meantime will you please stop trying to sidetrack and derail every thread with your baiting? Didn't mommy tell you that there is a time and place for everything?

Hey let's take a look at ZNP's last post. I think it's well worth some attention and consideration. I like how it's kind of getting down to brass tacks. It's where the rubber meets the road. What I call dealing with the "here and now" of the realities we face today. Maybe we can build off of this post and proceed from there. Or we can go back to my favorite theme of comparing and contrasting the teachings and practices of the original apostles with what could be put into practice today.

Let's get off the gospel of John kick. (Sorry zeek, that was a really good post - maybe we can spit off to another thread using you post and some of the others)

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok Harold, your trying my patients you little rascal. You're just about the only poster that makes me want to activate that stupid, petty "infraction" system that comes with the vBulletin software. If you weren't so darn cute I'd whip you with a wet noodle. In the meantime will you please stop trying to sidetrack and derail every thread with your baiting? Didn't mommy tell you that there is a time and place for everything?

You're the boss. So I'll say one more thing I've learned about Christianity, and then I'll shut up.

In my life time involved with Christians one thing I've learned that sticks out like a sore thumb :

Christianity is a religion of : SHUT UP.

Not only when you go to traditional church do they practice SHUT UP, but even in a Christian group like the local church, that allows speaking, if you say anything outside of the accepted speaking you'll be told to SHUT UP, or shouted down with "Oh Lord Jesus."

So I'll SHUT UP, and be a good Christian.

[zeek]

Mr. Awareness--Let Dr. Zeek help. My prescription for you is take two aspirin and watch the video linked below five times a day for the next 30 days. If you don't feel those old local church mind-numbing incantation, conformity and shame reflexes kicking in by then, call me. We will begin electroshock treatment immediately. Have a nice day.

http://youtu.be/XrNl6-j9x5w

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

You're the boss. So I'll say one more thing I've learned about Christianity, and then I'll shut up.

In my life time involved with Christians one thing I've learned that sticks out like a sore thumb :

Christianity is a religion of : SHUT UP.

Not only when you go to traditional church do they practice SHUT UP, but even in a Christian group like the local church, that allows speaking, if you say anything outside of the accepted speaking you'll be told to SHUT UP, or shouted down with "Oh Lord Jesus."

So I'll SHUT UP, and be a good Christian.

Yes, please shut up. If there are some good things about "Christianity" and one of them is telling people to shut up who make stupid and rude comments like you just made to UntoHim, then that's fine by me.

Harold, your comment to UntoHim was chickensh*t. It was like something a snotty-nosed 8-year-old would say. How old are you anyway? Staying on topic is a rule. It has nothing to do with religion. Stop trying to twist everything that doesn't suit you into some kind of evil religious attack. It's self-righteousness and self-absorption to the nth degree.

Your every cutesy comment is not appreciated. Grow up and get used to it. In the meantime, shut up.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, please shut up. If there are some good things about "Christianity" and one of them is telling people to shut up who make stupid and rude comments like you just made to UntoHim, then that's fine by me.

Harold, your comment to UntoHim was chickensh*t. It was like something a snotty-nosed 8-year-old would say. How old are you anyway? Staying on topic is a rule. It has nothing to do with religion. Stop trying to twist everything that doesn't suit you into some kind of evil religious attack. It's self-righteousness and self-absorption to the nth degree.

Your every cutesy comment is not appreciated. Grow up and get used to it. In the meantime, shut up.

Awareness was not saying shut up to UntoHim, but rather using the term to express what he percieved UntoHim to be directing him to do. It seems to me that what you are doing to awareness in the above post is exactly what you are accusing him of, i.e. telling him to shut up, and being rude. Please explain to me how that is OK.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Awareness was not saying shut up to UntoHim, but rather using the term to express what he percieved UntoHim to be directing him to do. It seems to me that what you are doing to awareness in the above post is exactly what you are accusing him of, i.e. telling him to shut up, and being rude. Please explain to me how that is OK.

I know awareness wasn't telling UntoHim to shut up. Awareness is rarely that gutsy or direct. He'd rather deal in plausibly deniable innuendo. He'd rather make ****ty little remarks that imply that others are in sway of religion, but he, only he, is enlightened enough to see the truth. That's his one-note symphony.

Frankly, I'm sick of it. UntoHim deserves better than that kind of crap.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I know awareness wasn't telling UntoHim to shut up. Awareness is rarely that gutsy or direct. He'd rather deal in plausibly deniable innuendo. He'd rather make ****ty little remarks that imply that others are in sway of religion, but he, only he, is enlightened enough to see the truth. That's his one-note symphony.

Frankly, I'm sick of it. UntoHim deserves better than that kind of crap.

So you admit to rudeness and you're justification is that you don't like awareness' style and attitude? I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

[UntoHim]

Ok guys let's move on.

I think I got my point across to Harold, and he is quite "aware" of what is not acceptable on the forum. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing more to discuss.

Apostles anyone?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

So you admit to rudeness and you're justification is that you don't like awareness' style and attitude? I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly.

No, I don't admit to rudeness. Harold deserved what he got. UntoHim didn't. There's a big difference there. You have your answer, now let's drop it.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ok guys let's move on.

I think I got my point across to Harold, and he is quite "aware" of what is not acceptable on the forum. As far as I'm concerned there is nothing more to discuss.

Apostles anyone?

You may have gotten your point across to Harold, but not to Igsy who doesn't seem to understand that when one calls someone a chicken-sh*t and tells someone to shut up in order to censure them, one is being rude. Igsy seems believes he has license to do that kind of thing here . I perceive that by reprimanding Harold publicly and not doing the same to Igsy, you may be enforcing a double standard here.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

You may have gotten your point across to Harold, but not to Igsy who doesn't seem to understand that when one calls someone a chicken-sh*t and tells someone to shut up in order to censure them, one is being rude. Igsy seems believes he has license to do that kind of thing here . I perceive that by reprimanding Harold publicly and not doing the same to Igsy, you may be enforcing a double standard here.

Can we move on. How about spelling his name Igzy. A little more polite.

Harold has pushed the limits more than any other, and he knows it. I'm no prude to distasteful language, but the many and continual assaults to the faith and on the Bible I treasure tend to be more insulting at times than a few 4 letter words. It's obvious that Harold at times likes to flame others by his comments, and often times it stretches my forbearance to a limit. To critique the LRC is fitting in this setting, but he goes way beyond that.

Harold knows I love him as a brother, so sometimes he even appreciates my push back, but the other day even he got a little saucy. To salt it up with another poster is one thing, but when he insults the owner/moderator of the forum, then it needs to get shut down, and hopefully man up with an apology.

Peace.

[UntoHim]

Ok, I'm only going to address this one more time.

Igzy didn't call awareness a chickensh*t but only that his comments were. Now that being pointed out, I really, really don't want to see these kinds of words posted here, and the reasons should be obvious to all.

The truth is I wasn't quite as offended at what Harold posted as Igzy seemed to think I was (or should have been), and I apparently wasn't quite as offended at Igzy's retort to Harold as zeek seemed to think I was (or should have been). Both these posters are kind of "grandfathered in" as far as forum etiquette, but there are limits and I think they both know that.

Ok was going to post more but I'm headed off to worship Him who was, who is and who is coming, and I suggest that everyone else do the same

[Cal]

My problem with Harold is that he hides behind cheeky innuendo. He is constantly suggesting that everyone is in the throes of misguided religious delusion and that he, only he, has seen the light.

But his "light" is the false light of skepticism whereby everything is placed in doubt, presumably to the end of setting us "free." But free to do what? Apparently to spread more skepticism, because that's all he seems to know how to do. Rarely is there is a positive affirmation of faith from him. I'm afraid that for him even faith is suspect.

All that might be tolerable (though sad) if he didn't feel the need to paint everyone and everything with the same broad brush of superstitious rube-ism in the most (insert adjective here) way possible. It just rubs me the wrong way.

God knows I love Harold. Too much to let him get away with that stuff.

(Note PG noun and a promise not to go R again.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

My problem with Harold is that he hides behind cheeky innuendo. He is constantly suggesting that everyone is in the throes of misguided religious delusion and that he, only he, has seen the light.

But his "light" is the false light of skepticism whereby everything is placed in doubt, presumably to the end of setting us "free." But free to do what? Apparently to spread more skepticism, because that's all he seems to know how to do. Rarely is there is a positive affirmation of faith from him. I'm afraid that for him even faith is suspect.

All that might be tolerable (though sad) if he didn't feel the need to paint everyone with the same broad brush of superstitious rube-ism in the most (insert adjective here) way possible. It just rubs me the wrong way.

God knows I love Harold. Too much to let him get away with that stuff.

(Note PG noun and a promise not to go R again.)

Is it such a bad thing to have such a strong skeptic among us? I feel there are far too many "yes men" in most religious organizations, but when you talk about the LRC, they take "Amen brothers" to a whole new extreme. It is a strong testimony that we can have fellowship among those with such strongly held differences of opinion.

I would prefer cheeky inuendo to direct insult. You should consider this from his angle, he is almost always speaking from an extreme minority opinion, that can probably be very tough and require tough skin.

95% of the time most people are in the throes of misguided religious delusion. Just look at the thread on alien technology. "Bad archaelogy" is attributing ancient texts to real aerial battles between aliens. "Good archaelogy" is saying that these texts were not meant to be read literally but instead spiritually. Because....? "Bad Archaelogy" is thinking that these primitive people were describing astronauts to the best of their ability. "Good Archaelogy" is thinking that these primitive people were describing angels. Because....?

Either way, Good or Bad, no one has explained the archaeological finds and artifacts. The "Bad archaeologists" explain it away by creating an even bigger mystery. The "Good archaeologists" just ignore the questions altogether.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Is it such a bad thing to have such a strong skeptic among us? I feel there are far too many "yes men" in most religious organizations, but when you talk about the LRC, they take "Amen brothers" to a whole new extreme. It is a strong testimony that we can have fellowship among those with such strongly held differences of opinion.

And it is these two very extremes that would make this forum irrelevant, or for that matter any decent dialogue. I agree that total "yes men" in the LRC are not having any worthwhile discourse, but constant skepticism about religion and humanity in general tends to derail any discussion we have here.

It is perfectly appropriate to be the forum skeptic about all things LRC. Those discussions have been quite educational, but awareness has more positive things to say about islam, new age, atheism, and native american religions. Upon leaving the LC, he truly has thrown the "baby out with the bathwater." That is what concerns me.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And it is these two very extremes that would make this forum irrelevant, or for that matter any decent dialogue. I agree that total "yes men" in the LRC are not having any worthwhile discourse, but constant skepticism about religion and humanity in general tends to derail any discussion we have here.

It is perfectly appropriate to be the forum skeptic about all things LRC. Those discussions have been quite educational, but awareness has more positive things to say about islam, new age, atheism, and native american religions. Upon leaving the LC, he truly has thrown the "baby out with the bathwater." That is what concerns me.

Sounds like a gospel contact.

A lot of Christians focus on the spiritual, he seems to focus on the humanity. Although his posts are not "balanced" the real question is do his posts balance the forum.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Is it such a bad thing to have such a strong skeptic among us?

I don't mind someone being a Christian skeptic if he does it honorably. Unfortunately, the two are often mutually exclusive. Funny how that works.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't mind someone being a Christian skeptic if he does it honorably. Unfortunately, the two are often mutually exclusive. Funny how that works.

All the more reason to be prudent in speech. The motive might not be to win an argument but to demonstrate a double standard

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I would prefer cheeky inuendo to direct insult.

You are engaging in the fallacy of the false alternative. Direct insult is not the only other option. How about simply telling the person where you feel they've gone wrong and giving them a chance to retort?

Innuendo doesn't allow for retort. It dares the person to keep his cool while baiting him to lose it, since it is often one thing pretending to be something else. Case in point, Harold pretending to be a good boy following orders, but really his remark was a swipe.

Say what you mean and mean what you say. I'm all for clever repartee, but not taunting.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Sounds like a gospel contact.

A lot of Christians focus on the spiritual, he seems to focus on the humanity. Although his posts are not "balanced" the real question is do his posts balance the forum.

It is LSM which focuses on the super spiritual, that is why so many of us have focused on the humanity side, and rightly so.

This is what many are saying -- they do not balance the forum.

[Cal]

I'd rather someone just come out and punch me in the mouth than spend all day insulting me in a coy manner. One's manly, the other is something else.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

All the more reason to be prudent in speech. The motive might not be to win an argument but to demonstrate a double standard

I have no idea what this means.

[zeek]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
It's one thing to no longer trust contemporary leaders who have never earned that trust, but it's another thing to no longer trust those who have been proven over the span of 2,000 years.

Response by awareness:
Sounds like a Roman Catholic answer to me. Have you resorted back to your cradle religion?

There's interesting middle ground that could be explored between these two arguments. Should we accept everything that the historical church has put out over the past 2000 years? Should we reject Roman Catholicism carte blanche?

To me both positions are extreme. But I don't agree with shutting down the discussion without discussing the alternatives. Once we leave the local churches all roads are open. But which one[s] should we take? Discussing such matters might be germaine to the mission of this website. Yes?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You are engaging in the fallacy of the false alternative. Direct insult is not the only other option. How about simply telling the person where you feel they've gone wrong and giving them a chance to retort?

Innuendo doesn't allow for retort. It dares the person to keep his cool while baiting him to lose it, since it is often one thing pretending to be something else. Case in point, Harold pretending to be a good boy following orders, but really his remark was a swipe.

Say what you mean and mean what you say. I'm all for clever repartee, but not taunting.

I have always compared debate to sports, whether tennis, or basketball, or whatever. If I prefer that you hit the ball to my forehand it is very likely that you are going to focus on my backhand. That is the way it should be.

This reminds me of a spanish class I took in college. The professor had given a list of a number of topics that we had to be ready to give a talk on in Spanish. I was ready on all but one, "How I got to school". Prior to the class I heard two kids talking, and one looked my way and said "I wonder how he is going to use that topic to preach the gospel". That was when I knew that would be the topic I would get.

What you "dislike" is really the most profitable aspect of his posts. Innuendo is difficult to deal with, so it gives you a chance to practice.

Everyone loves Isaiah 54:17, but how many really read 54:3-16?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is LSM which focuses on the super spiritual, that is why so many of us have focused on the humanity side, and rightly so.

This is what many are saying -- they do not balance the forum.

But not all. I for one appreciate his posts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'd rather someone just come out and punch me in the mouth than spend all day insulting me in a coy manner. One's manly, the other is something else.

So then you can deal with some weapons that are formed, but not all. God's promise to us is that "no weapon that is formed will prosper". He is helping you to receive God's promise. So, thank the Lord for His help.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I have no idea what this means.

When you preach the gospel it is not merely about the truth, it is also about your testimony. How you walk.

Let me give you an example which should make this very clear. I spent a lot of my life on swim teams and swimming. When not in practice we often dunked each other. Once I was dunked rather viciously by several kids right before a swim meet. I didn't realize it at the time but later figured out that the goal was to keep me from going so that their friend would be able to swim. At the time I could not figure any way to counter this attack.

Years later I was in a pool and went to dunk some kid and instead of fighting back he submerged. His response caught me by surprise and I took a mouth of water and came up choking. He merely swam away from deep under water. From then on I learned how to counter the dunk.

So, if you preach all truths and make all mysteries known, but you don't have love, what is the point? Likewise if I can demonstrate to others your lack of love and patience, then who cares what your argument is, I have proven that your gospel is empty.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
It's one thing to no longer trust contemporary leaders who have never earned that trust, but it's another thing to no longer trust those who have been proven over the span of 2,000 years.

Response by awareness:
Sounds like a Roman Catholic answer to me. Have you resorted back to your cradle religion?

There's interesting middle gorund that could be explored between these two arguments. Should we accept everything that the historical chusrch has put out over the past 2000 years? Should we reject Roman Catholicism carte blanche?

To me both positions are too extreme. But I don't agree with shutting down the discussion without discussing the alternatives. Once we leave the local churches all roads are open. But which one[s] should we take? Discussing such matters might be germaine to the mission of this website. Yes?

The only path we should take is the narrow one that leads to life, it is the one that few find, it is the one that leads to the cross, it is the one that we would never choose, but it is the one that the Lord will lead us to. Just ask Awareness.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have always compared debate to sports, whether tennis, or basketball, or whatever. If I prefer that you hit the ball to my forehand it is very likely that you are going to focus on my backhand. That is the way it should be.

This reminds me of a spanish class I took in college. The professor had given a list of a number of topics that we had to be ready to give a talk on in Spanish. I was ready on all but one, "How I got to school". Prior to the class I heard two kids talking, and one looked my way and said "I wonder how he is going to use that topic to preach the gospel". That was when I knew that would be the topic I would get.

What you "dislike" is really the most profitable aspect of his posts. Innuendo is difficult to deal with, so it gives you a chance to practice.

Everyone loves Isaiah 54:17, but how many really read 54:3-16?

I don't think the sports analogy works. If the purpose is to discuss, then being obtuse, argumentative just for the heck of it, contrarian without cause or evidence, or in any other way simply non-discussive is pointless. It is not about getting the ball by the other guy before he can respond. It is about putting the "ball" in front of everyone and considering where the forces that might be working on it will take it.

In other words, it really is nothing like sports. If the goal is truth, then no matter how "true" you may ultimately be proved to be, just ramming it past your "opponent" is contrary to discussion. The truth needs to be shown as true. This is going to sound somewhat postmodern. The truth is not the truth until you show it as true. Actually, the better way of saying it is that the truth will not be accepted as true until it is shown to be true. But until the others see it as true, it doesn't matter that it is actually true, it is seen as not true. No amount of finesse and back-spin changes the lack of showing the truth.

While we can be assured that most LRC-faithfuls would be glad to simply ram something down our throats, they don't win our approval or respect. They just intimidate any other LRC lurkers that might be considering — something that they are not supposed to do.

Harold may actually have something to add to many of the conversations. But he chooses to add nothing. He makes statements with no sound basis for acceptance, or even intentionally irrelevant, and closes the door.

As for the idea of using this as a place to practice your skills of persuasion, they should at least be practiced on something worthy of spending time upon. Since the topics have points, pointless and off-topic comments loose their demand for response. But they are given in a manner that demands a response, and in the process sucks the life out of the existing discussion.

And returning to the beginning. The goal of this forum is open discussion, not trixsy bantering by opponents trying to get one by on the others. You were not really around early enough in the other forum to see Bilbo at his best. I defended him most of the time, but for different reasons. Bilbo represented a kind of LRC mentality that we honestly need to learn to deal with. But he was notorious for asking some side question, or making some kind of side issue out of something that he then used to virtually overrun some threads in a kind of baiting. "Forget the original discussion and get wrapped up in mine. It is pointless and keeps you from dealing with the real issues." Of course he would never say any of that. But it was too evident. For example, he got into serious arguments about what kind of thing PL had actually done with or to any of the women at the LSM in his office. If there was no proof of actual sexual intercourse (I presume those are acceptable words) then he tried to demand that everything about PL and the firestorm around him be dropped or dismissed. So if the discussion was the overstepping of the LSM office (without any discussion of PL's sins) he made it into that, with the goal of derailing the discussion. (And he's probably lurking here and contemplating signing up just to refute this — and then start arguing about what kind of sin it was that they tried to excommunicate him over.)

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

To me both positions are extreme. But I don't agree with shutting down the discussion without discussing the alternatives. Once we leave the local churches all roads are open. But which one[s] should we take? Discussing such matters might be germaine to the mission of this website. Yes?

Yes, a resounding YES!

Originally Posted by OBW

As for the idea of using this as a place to practice your skills of persuasion, they should at least be practiced on something worthy of spending time upon. Since the topics have points, pointless and off-topic comments loose their demand for response. But they are given in a manner that demands a response, and in the process sucks the life out of the existing discussion.

And returning to the beginning. The goal of this forum is open discussion, not trixsy bantering by opponents trying to get one by on the others.

Yes, a resounding YES!

Hey, maybe we should keep this thread going after all.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
It's one thing to no longer trust contemporary leaders who have never earned that trust, but it's another thing to no longer trust those who have been proven over the span of 2,000 years.

Response by awareness:
Sounds like a Roman Catholic answer to me. Have you resorted back to your cradle religion?

There's interesting middle ground that could be explored between these two arguments. Should we accept everything that the historical church has put out over the past 2000 years? Should we reject Roman Catholicism carte blanche?

To me both positions are extreme. But I don't agree with shutting down the discussion without discussing the alternatives. Once we leave the local churches all roads are open. But which one[s] should we take? Discussing such matters might be germaine to the mission of this website. Yes?

Zeek, you seem to equate the "last 2000 years" with the RCC. I don't.

Neither do I accept "everything that the historical church has put out over the past 2000 years."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What you "dislike" is really the most profitable aspect of his posts. Innuendo is difficult to deal with, so it gives you a chance to practice.

Everyone loves Isaiah 54:17, but how many really read 54:3-16?

Pentecostals love Isaiah 54:17. Fundamentals love John 3.16.

No innuendo here.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I have no idea what this means.

Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.
54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.

According to Isaiah God is the God who created the Smith who forms the weapons. God is the God who created the waster to destroy. This is the same God who is teaching the children of the afflicted in verse 13 and the God who promises us in verse 17 that no weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper.

This is not an empty promise, who knows better what these weapons are than the God who created the guy who makes these weapons and the God who created the guy who uses these weapons?

Yes, I agree with OBW that it would be nice if people would stop lying and play nice. But until that day comes, I'll take the Lord's promise. He will teach us and great will be our peace. We have been established in righteousness and oppression is far from us. And,

54:15 Behold, they shall surely gather together, but not by me: whosoever shall gather together against thee shall fall for thy sake.

The promise is not that they will not gather against us, the promise is that they shall fall. The promise is not that the gates of Hades will not try to imprison us, but rather that the gates of Hades will not prevail.

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

It doesn't say that all things work together for good to them that teach the truth. Suppose you hate God, then you are not happy if God is glorified. If you love God, seeing God glorified is good. If you realize that your life, and death, are for a purpose, then being reviled, or vilified, or unrighteously treated, or despised, or despitefully used, or persecuted for Christ's name will work out for good.

Inuendo is like a bluff in poker. You are suggesting that you have an ace up your sleeve, but you haven't played it yet. If you call their bluff you expose their lie. Instead of walking away from the table, play the hand out. There is no reason to be provoked by someone bluffing, it is all part of the game. Do you think that someone who has built up everything they have by bluffing has any peace? When you itemize all of the oppression in the LRC you are giving the symptoms of something that is not established in righteousness. There is no peace, and as a result oppression is everywhere. Who taught them this? Surely not God. So then what about the other promises, God said that "surely they will gather against thee, but not of Me" this will no longer apply. They will expect and anticipate people gathering against them, hence the lack of peace and the oppression all around. This is why we can give thanks to God who created the Smith and the Waster. The day of judgement will come on them, and the waiting for that day to arrive is much worse than the judgement coming suddenly.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Pentecostals love Isaiah 54:17.

Of course what many of them miss is that this verse is a conclusion. God will teach your children, the benefit they will get from this training is that "no weapon formed will prosper". They will be established in righteousness, they will have great peace, they will be far from oppression.

A lot of childish Christians do not understand that they are not living a life whose root is God's teaching. Their life is not established in righteousness. They don't have peace, and they are totally ensnared in oppression, both being oppressed and oppressing others. Yet when they are in trouble for all of this they want to claim verse 17 as a promise to them.

Sometimes you wonder if people actually even read the Bible at all.

[Cal]

I told Harold exactly what I thought he needed to hear. You might disagree. Fine. You didn't write it, I did. I can carry the can for what I wrote, and I don't need a bunch of hyper-spiritualizing to make it into something it wasn't.

If Jesus can call the Pharisees vipers, and Paul can call the Jews dogs, and Jude can call false teachers blemishes, then certainly I can call someone on their snotty attitude after putting up with it for several years.

Get over it and move on.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I told Harold exactly what I thought he needed to hear. You might disagree. Fine. You didn't write it, I did. I can carry the can for what I wrote, and I don't need a bunch of hyper-spiritualizing to make it into something it wasn't.

If Jesus can call the Pharisees vipers, and Paul can call the Jews dogs, and Jude can call false teachers blemishes, then certainly I can call someone on their snotty attitude after putting up with it for several years.

Get over it and move on.

So name-calling is OK here. Good to know what to expect.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

So name-calling is OK here. Good to know what to expect.

I'm not the one to say whether it is okay here or not. But I am one to say if I feel you've got it coming and you continue to test the good graces of people here I'll probably be the first to let you have it. So consider yourself advised.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

So name-calling is OK here. Good to know what to expect.

Zeek, does it bother you at all that awareness seems to use every opportunity to attack the credibility of the Bible and that of all genuine Christians any chance he can?

Where do the limits of free speech end and the respect for God's word begin?

[Cal]

People are entitled to their beliefs, but they are also obligated to support them in a proper manner. Indicting Christianity because a moderator on a board corrected them doesn't cut the mustard. Neither do logical fallacies, over-generalization, guilt by association, innuendo, playing the victim, and on and on.

All that stuff is just trouble-making, not argumentation.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm not the one to say whether it is okay here or not. But I am one to say if I feel you've got it coming and you continue to test the good graces of people here I'll probably be the first to let you have it. So consider yourself advised.

Right. So you decide who "has it coming" to them and what they have coming. So it seems, "judge not lest ye be judged" doesn't apply to you then. Like I said, good to know. And "consider yourself advised" is a kind of threat to me to watch out. I perceive that your attitude is devoid of the Christian spirit. And yet, it seems that, unlike Harold who gets censured regularly, you behave this way with impugnity here as well. If that's the way it is, better that it is known by all.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right. So you decide who "has it coming" to them and what they have coming. So it seems, "judge not lest ye be judged" doesn't apply to you then. Like I said, good to know. And "consider yourself advised" is a kind of threat to me to watch out. I perceive that your attitude is devoid of the Christian spirit. And yet, it seems that, unlike Harold who gets censured regularly, you behave this way with impugnity here as well. If that's the way it is, better that it is known by all.

The Bible authorizes us to rebuke, and it doesn't tell us to check with a committee before we do so.

And I didn't threaten you. I just meant to say I mean what I say and am not waffling on it.

By the way, now you are rebuking me. So you are doing just what you claim is judging when I do it, which means you are claiming to be an exception now, which invalidates your whole argument.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Zeek, does it bother you at all that awareness seems to use every opportunity to attack the credibility of the Bible and that of all genuine Christians any chance he can?
Where do the limits of free speech end and the respect for God's word begin?

If those are his opinions it would bother me if he was forced to suppress them. I don't have to agree with them and when I don't I give my opinion and try to back it up with argument or evidence.

I don't expect UntoHim to allow disrespect, profanity or obscenity, name-calling. But people expressing their honest opinions seems to what a forum like this one should be all about.

If people have to adhere to a particular doctrinal position in order to participate here I'd like to know.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Bible authorizes us to rebuke, and it doesn't tell us to check with a committee before we do so.

And I didn't threaten you. I just meant to say I mean what I say and am not waffling on it.

By the way, now you are rebuking me. So you are doing just what you claim is judging when I do it, which means you are claiming to be an exception now, which invalidates your whole argument.

No I just confronted you with how I see it. I don't claim the postion of judge and executioner. I'm not telling you what to do. Just giving you my point of view. You may not want that either. I understand.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

No I just confronted you with how I see it. I don't claim the postion of judge and executioner. I'm not telling you what to do. Just giving you my point of view. You may not want that either. I understand.

Honestly I don't see any difference between what you are doing and what I did to Harold. Maybe I was stronger, but the essence of the thing is the same. You are saying I behaved wrongly and need to change. I did the same to Harold.

The difference is I'm talking to you straight up.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

If those are his opinions it would bother me if he was forced to suppress them. I don't have to agree with them and when I don't I give my opinion and try to back it up with argument or evidence.

I don't expect UntoHim to allow disrespect, profanity or obscenity, name-calling. But people expressing their honest opinions seems to what a forum like this one should be all about.

If people have to adhere to a particular doctrinal position in order to participate here I'd like to know.

Not only so but Awareness was indoctrinated by the LRC to believe that Christianity is dead and evil. This forum is here to help recovering LRC members to dry out.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

No I just confronted you with how I see it. I don't claim the postion of judge and executioner. I'm not telling you what to do. Just giving you my point of view. You may not want that either. I understand.

So you are telling me I'm wrong but not encouraging me to change? What would be the point of that?

Seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to tell me I'm wrong but also to be able to say you are not doing what I did. Silliness.

[Cal]

What's funny about this thread is I bet you ten dollars Harold understood my point better than some of you have.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

So you are telling me I'm wrong but not encouraging me to change? What would be the point of that?
Seems to me you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to tell me I'm wrong but also to be able to say you are not doing what I did. Silliness.

I'm telling you what I see. It's just my opinion, like your impressions of Harold and whatever else are yours. What you do with the information is your business. If you think that either your view or mine is more than that, then we disagree.

I suppose that you see yourself as a straight-shooter who tells it like it is and lets the chips fall where they may. So be it.

My perspective allows for multiple points of view. To rebuke you would be to try to control your behavior. I'm not interested in being responsible for your behavior or Harold's. But I will express my opinions.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What's funny about this thread is I bet you ten dollars Harold understood my point better than some of you have.

Why do you suppose Harold started this thread but isn't participating in the discussion?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why do you suppose Harold started this thread but isn't participating in the discussion?

Yes, Awareness. Do TELL won't you ? Inquiring minds want to know !

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by zeek

Why do you suppose Harold started this thread but isn't participating in the discussion?

Igzy told him to shut up?

[OBW]

Ohio had this to say:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Zeek, does it bother you at all that awareness seems to use every opportunity to attack the credibility of the Bible and that of all genuine Christians any chance he can?

Where do the limits of free speech end and the respect for God's word begin?

In one sense I might disagree with Ohio about there being a limit to free speech. But actually, there really is a limit. It is never free. It costs to be able to speak as freely as we do. And one of the prices we pay is that a majority accepts the inability to simply stop what they don't like.

But I do agree with Ohio if for no other reason than this is not simply an open forum for anyone to say simply anything anytime and in any place. It is a forum with a purpose. Those who join it may not agree on everything, but they do need to agree on, or at least be bound by the purposes and rules of the forum. There are numerous topics that are simply not germane, even with the sort of "open mike" that a couple of the subforums allow.

We are not here debating "free speech." That is not relevant to the forum. I would agree that we should be able to say whatever we feel is truly of value to the discussions in progress. And Harold might try to argue that he is serious about some of his nonsense. But that is just that -- nonsense. One of the serious flaws in many of Lee's teachings is that he says things that are not actually founded on scripture or things that naturally flow from scripture. But he says them in a way that tricks too many people from thinking any more about it.

And we come along on this forum and discuss those teachings and eventually show that there is no clear way to get from what we know to be true to what Lee has said.

Harold sort of does the same. He says this stuff. And he makes no attempt to actually build a case for it. It just grabs sentiments, or prejudices (either way on either item) and gets you going. But there is no substance. If our objective is to take rational and plausible understandings of things and find our way to truth, then quickly dismissing the implausible or irrelevant is absolutely viable. And rejecting the out-of-bounds that doesn't even pretend to provide a basis is absolutely viable.

Igzy may have been harsh in his manner of assessment. But he was accurate. Scripture makes reference to the dung heap. We refer to it as BS. Or CS. It smells and it is rejected.

Sorry Harold. I know you can do better. Acting-out is not an acceptable behavior for adults. My kids got "time outs" for the kind of nonsense that you have been putting out lately. They were in single-digits in age at the time. You are more like 5 to 10 times that old. Your restraint should reflect some of that age. It isn't looking like the wisdom that comes with age, but the return to a second childhood.

[UntoHim]

Funny thing is that Harold did not start this thread. It was split off the "apostle" thread because posts like Harold's (the one that is now the opening post of this thread) were quickly taking us away from the subject at hand. And yes, Harold has made a bit of a cottage industry of doing this, and I have done my best to encourage him to not take threads off track. He is welcome to participate in any thread (just like anyone else), however every thread has a topic and people should not feel free to change the subject to their pet topic at every turn.

Finally, there are certain areas of the forum that are going to be more strictly moderated. These would include those within the categories of "apologetics" (apostles in in there) and probably "history" as well.

Harold, and others, may want to take their pet subjects to "Blogosphere@Localchurchdiscussions" - This is for personal blogs and just about anything goes there. If somebody wants to make those a one-way street, they are free to blog away and then close the blog to replies.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Igzy told him to shut up?

And for once, he listened. Go figure.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm telling you what I see. It's just my opinion, like your impressions of Harold and whatever else are yours. What you do with the information is your business. If you think that either your view or mine is more than that, then we disagree.

Everyone has opinions. But all are not created equal. The facts and the Lord witness with some more than others. All we can do is try to be tuned into them and Him. Still from a personal perspective we should not consider our own opinions privileged.

I suppose that you see yourself as a straight-shooter who tells it like it is and lets the chips fall where they may. So be it.

To me that's the only way to be on these forums. They don't lend themselves to subtlety and inflection, nor to thin skin.

If you observe the behavior of internet trolls, they always deal in shades of meaning that can be taken more than one way, to maintain plausible deniability. They suggest and imply and skirt the edges of taunting. They speak truth with the intent of lying. They pat you on the back while sticking a knife in your ribs.

In short they do everything but shoot straight. That's the last thing I want to be. I'm sure I have and will offend some people. But if I ever genuinely hurt someone I'll be first to apologize, and have.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

If those are his opinions it would bother me if he was forced to suppress them. I don't have to agree with them and when I don't I give my opinion and try to back it up with argument or evidence.

I don't expect UntoHim to allow disrespect, profanity or obscenity, name-calling. But people expressing their honest opinions seems to what a forum like this one should be all about.

If people have to adhere to a particular doctrinal position in order to participate here I'd like to know.

Here you jump from one extreme to a worse extreme. No one has required some "particular doctrinal position" at all, not from you or awareness or any other poster. Diversity is welcomed. And, btw, awareness is not the kind of person who "suppresses his opinions."

Need I say more? I probably have rehashed matter this ad nauseum.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here you jump from one extreme to a worse extreme. No one has required some "particular doctrinal position" at all, not from you or awareness or any other poster. Diversity is welcomed. And, btw, awareness is not the kind of person who "suppresses his opinions."

Need I say more? I probably have rehashed matter this ad nauseum.

Let me clarify or, as we used to say in the Local Church "be specific for reality". In your previous post you said :
"Zeek, does it bother you at all that awareness seems to use every opportunity to attack the credibility of the Bible and that of all genuine Christians any chance he can? Where do the limits of free speech end and the respect for God's word begin?"

So my question with respect to particular doctrinal position[s] could rephrased: Are belief in the credibility of the Bible, that the Bible is "God's word" and "respect" for the Bible as "God's Word" required in order to participate here?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Let me clarify or, as we used to say in the Local Church "be specific for reality". In your previous post you said :
"Zeek, does it bother you at all that awareness seems to use every opportunity to attack the credibility of the Bible and that of all genuine Christians any chance he can? Where do the limits of free speech end and the respect for God's word begin?"

So my question with respect to particular doctrinal position[s] could rephrased: Are belief in the credibility of the Bible, that the Bible is "God's word" and "respect" for the Bible as "God's Word" required in order to participate here?

This is a forum about "the recovery," and is occupied by current and former members. If a poster has no credibility in the Bible and respect for the Bible as God's word, by what basis does he critique "the recovery" and its leaders? By what compass does that poster chart his way?

Can a poster use the Koran to judge WL? Can he use the Apostles' creed to critique the Blendeds? Can the US constitution be used to evaluate the teachings of LSM? What yardstick can be used?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

So my question with respect to particular doctrinal position[s] could rephrased: Are belief in the credibility of the Bible, that the Bible is "God's word" and "respect" for the Bible as "God's Word" required in order to participate here?

Allow me to answer.

Those are not requirements for participation. But at some level, when you consider anything beyond science as being discussed toward truth, there has to be some level of acceptance of more than can be simply proved by mere observation. There are good people without believing in Christ. So simply saying that Christ makes us better is not, in itself, proof. (But the observation of a way of living that is not just good, or better, but also different might be persuasive in some circumstances. But even then it might be that the Spirit is using things to speak to someone at the right time.)

But the point is that discussing anything about religion eventually comes to points that are matters of faith. We may be too quick to treat some things are merely faith. But some clearly are. So someone coming along and disagreeing with those clear points of faith is, by definition, stepping outside of the bounds of the discussion.

That does not mean that not having that faith disqualifies you from the discussion. But it does mean that simply dissing the existence of that faith is a pointless thing. Either we believe or we don't. We have had more than one agnostic and/or atheist join in here who did not simply say "you can't believe." They engaged in the discussions in their context (that of religion), and occasionally asked whether the particular conclusions and or evidences were consistent with the belief upon which we claimed to hold. That might send us back to rethink whether we have been sloppy in describing our "truth" or whether we have actually made statements that we might need to back-track from.

Sometimes an outsider's view is good. They help you ferret out bad reasoning. Maybe even bad belief.

And Harold is not simply some atheist or unbeliever. He seems to be mired in a quandary between belief in God, and disbelief in a God that would have allowed a system that is so strong to claim his name to be so desperately wicked in some ways. Actually more wicked than many (most or all?) of the other Christian groups that they slander so mercilessly.

I think that he is squarely moving in his mind between Job, Job's wife, and Job's "friends" that came to tell him where he was the problem. He is not sure how to accept that free will can be allowed because of the problems it brings, yet demands that it continue to exist because he wants the free will to lash out about it.

This is not simply "wrong." It is not simply something that shouldn't be happening to him at this point in time. It is something that someone(s) close to him need to be walking with him through. Hopefully they will be better than those "friends" Job had.

And the issue is not that Harold is simply bad and we don't want him. he has been a good part of these forums for quite a while. But there has begun to be a dark side of it that is counterproductive in terms of the forum. And there is a lack of filter on his actions and statements. It is not to disparage Harold or hate him. None of us hate him. None of us want him to simply go away.

Actually, most of us hope he will stick around. But stop throwing out nonsense while refusing to actually think about the things actually being discussed. He is turning his back on what little help could be coming from this kind of semi-cold environment by lashing out at everything in it. I realize that it might be that what he really needs is to not be "listening" to our cerebral discussions about things and instead be speaking live with one or more true friends in Christ that can help him off this spiritual cliff he is dancing on. There is a need to be free to discuss the stuff this forum is about without these crazy interruptions. But there also needs to be a way for Harold to get some help. And due to the tendency for everyone to throw in their 2 cents, the open forum is not really a good place. I would suggest real-live people who are facing you or that you can at least hear their voices. But alternately, some ongoing email traffic, or even PMs to talk through things. Search through what is going on. Find answers.

Whatever. I doubt that I would be very good at this. But if I were contacted about it, I would at least try. I absolutely stand by some of the more cold-sounding things I said in earlier posts relative to the operation of the forum. But that does not mean that I cast Harold aside in the process. I'm just not sure that the forum is the fix. it might be more of the problem. It may be dredging up old problems. Highlighting the worst of the worst. Bringing it all back. And then some callous remark about how Mel whoever was not really so bad. Or a snip at the person rather than the post, action, idea, statement, etc. We all dance around that one. And despite our clear understanding that it is the idea and not the persons that we go after, we also know that it is sometimes hard to separate ourselves from our ideas.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a forum about "the recovery," and is occupied by current and former members. If a poster has no credibility in the Bible and respect for the Bible as God's word, by what basis does he critique "the recovery" and its leaders? By what compass does that poster chart his way?

Can a poster use the Koran to judge WL? Can he use the Apostles' creed to critique the Blendeds? Can the US constitution be used to evaluate the teachings of LSM? What yardstick can be used?

These are good questions Ohio. C.S. Lewis made a couple of points that I think are relevant. 1)human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. 2) they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. Lewis said that these two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

The first fact shows that we have the yardstick within us. The poster must critique The Recovery, and it's leaders and chart his way by that inner law. Even the Bible itself must be judged by that yardstick.

The second fact is that we all fall short of by the criterion of that yardstick, the law that is within us. So we are not in a position to throw stones at WL, the LC, the others here etcetera ad infinitum. May we not lose sight of the inner law or our standing with respect to it.

[zeek]

OBW-

That's a really fine and thoughtful answer. There is much there I perhaps I will speak to in more detail tomorrow. What I will say now is this. When we were in the Recovery we thought we were getting into the deep things of God.Yes Harold plays the provocateur. But, when I listen to him, I don't hear nonsense, I hear a challenge to go deeper. Perhaps we would prefer to skate on the surface rather then to accept the challenge that Harold poses to us. We might rather get back to our church games, our self-satisfied pious thoughts and our pat answers. If we drive Harold off of this website, we probably will.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

These are good questions Ohio. C.S. Lewis made a couple of points that I think are relevant. 1)human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. 2) they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. Lewis said that these two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

The first fact shows that we have the yardstick within us. The poster must critique The Recovery, and it's leaders and chart his way by that inner law. Even the Bible itself must be judged by that yardstick.

The second fact is that we all fall short of by the criterion of that yardstick, the law that is within us. So we are not in a position to throw stones at WL, the LC, the others here etcetera ad infinitum. May we not lose sight of the inner law or our standing with respect to it.

I agree that man is created with an "inner compass" called our conscience. Ecclesiastes says God has placed eternity in our heart. I understand that to mean that man has an existence after death, and that man exists due to a creator. In a similar thought, Paul told the Romans that the invisible things of God can be apprehended by the creation. (Rm 1.20)

Hence, the "yardstick" within is not for us to "judge the Bible," but for us to know there is a God, and that we are accountable to Him in the after life. I have to disagree that "the Bible must be judged by that yardstick." Our compass within leads us to God, but cannot be used to evaluate His every dealing with man. Actually, it is our yardstick which needs calibration by the word of God.

Paul addressed this idea (Romans 3.3-4) using a quote from the Psalm (51.4) of David's own repentance, when he wrote:

For what if some do not believe?

Shall their unbelief make God unfaithful?

Absolutely not! Even if every man is a liar, God is still true, as the scripture says:

You will be justified by Your words. You will win Your case in court.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

What I will say now is this. When we were in the Recovery we thought we were getting into the deep things of God. Yes Harold plays the provocateur. But, when I listen to him, I don't hear nonsense, I hear a challenge to go deeper. Perhaps we would prefer to skate on the surface rather then to accept the challenge that Harold poses to us. We might rather get back to our church games, our self-satisfied pious thoughts and our pat answers. If we drive Harold off of this website, we probably will.

When I read Harold's posts, I don't see the "challenge to go deeper," rather I read a continual discrediting of all things Christian and Biblical. It seems he longs to find salvation outside of the way of faith, and loves to zoom in on every apparent fault in man, that is, a "Christian" man.

Then you say to the rest of us, that by not accepting his "challenges," we are "skating on the surface," playing "church games," wallowing in our "self-satisfied pious thoughts" and our "pat answers."

zeek, do you have any idea how arrogant this sounds? Talk about condescending!

Harold is basically in a "church of one." Apart from him, everyone else is some hypocritical, foolish snob, living in deception. Only he sees thru the facade of religion, and he is challenging all others to "see" as he sees. To be honest with you, this is just pure old-fashioned self-righteousness. Unfortunately, I've seen it too many times already.

Supposedly, Harold is "right," and all others are in some form of "cargo-cult."

[zeek]

I have to disagree that "the Bible must be judged by that yardstick." Our compass within leads us to God, but cannot be used to evaluate His every dealing with man. Actually, it is our yardstick which needs calibration by the word of God.

How better to read the Bible than with such inner light as we have from God? Without that light the biblical text is nothing but dead letters.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When I read Harold's posts, I don't see the "challenge to go deeper," rather I read a continual discrediting of all things Christian and Biblical. It seems he longs to find salvation outside of the way of faith, and loves to zoom in on every apparent fault in man, that is, a "Christian" man.

Then you say to the rest of us, that by not accepting his "challenges," we are "skating on the surface," playing "church games," wallowing in our "self-satisfied pious thoughts" and our "pat answers."

zeek, do you have any idea how arrogant this sounds? Talk about condescending!

Harold is basically in a "church of one." Apart from him, everyone else is some hypocritical, foolish snob, living in deception. Only he sees thru the facade of religion, and he is challenging all others to "see" as he sees. To be honest with you, this is just pure old-fashioned self-righteousness. Unfortunately, I've seen it too many times already.

Supposedly, Harold is "right," and all others are in some form of "cargo-cult."

Like Igzy, I have to call 'em the way I see 'em. I'm not suggesting that you adopt Harold's perspective whole cloth. You can't do that anyway. I'm saying that Harold's insights provide a valuable function to this discussion, Without him, this discussion might slide into self-satisfied complacency, doctrinal reification, religious platitudes and a virtual good old boy network.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Like Igzy, I have to call 'em the way I see 'em. I'm not suggesting that you adopt Harold's perspective whole cloth. You can't do that anyway. I'm saying that Harold's insights provide a valuable function to this discussion, Without him, this discussion might slide into self-satisfied complacency, doctrinal reification, religious platitudes and a virtual good old boy network.

Igzy used the noteworthy phrase "cheeky innuendo" to describe many of Harold's posts ... I think it applies to yours too.

On the other hand, you say that you, "call 'em the way I see 'em," implying straightforward candid communication.

Try as you may, you can't have it both ways. Either you are as Igzy or you are as Harold.

[Ohio]

I have to disagree that "the Bible must be judged by that yardstick." Our compass within leads us to God, but cannot be used to evaluate His every dealing with man. Actually, it is our yardstick which needs calibration by the word of God.

Originally Posted by zeek

How better to read the Bible than with such inner light as we have from God? Without that light the biblical text is nothing but dead letters.

You are talking about two strikingly different scenes here.

One is using the wisdom of the world to discredit the word of God.

The other is having our heart enlightened by the scripture to hear God's speaking.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Igzy used the noteworthy phrase "cheeky innuendo" to describe many of Harold's posts ... I think it applies to yours too.

On the other hand, you say that you, "call 'em the way I see 'em," implying straightforward candid communication.

Try as you may, you can't have it both ways. Either you are as Igzy or you are as Harold.

So there's only two ways of interacting, Igzy's or Harold's? Those are my only two options? Where did you get that idea? Baloney.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

So there's only two ways of interacting, Igzy's or Harold's? Those are my only two options?

Surprise me then.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

OBW-

That's a really fine and thoughtful answer. There is much there I perhaps I will speak to in more detail tomorrow. What I will say now is this. When we were in the Recovery we thought we were getting into the deep things of God.Yes Harold plays the provocateur. But, when I listen to him, I don't hear nonsense, I hear a challenge to go deeper. Perhaps we would prefer to skate on the surface rather then to accept the challenge that Harold poses to us. We might rather get back to our church games, our self-satisfied pious thoughts and our pat answers. If we drive Harold off of this website, we probably will.

Nonsense. You are arguing against a strawman. There is no attempt to produce a good old boy network here. The point is not to drive off Harold, the point is to drive off impertinent manners of posting. As you said it's a matter of style. There are good manners of argumentation and bad ones. I agree that Harold makes me think. But all too often he simply throws stuff out that he can't back up, smarts off and generally acts as if just about everything is a joke. Then when pressed he plays the victim.

It's like he's become Bilbodog. Nothing against Bilbodog, but he didn't know a valid argument from a hole in the ground.

I don't want him to leave the board. I just want him to start using his brain more. I want him to read up on how make an argument and start doing it, and stop thinking being cute and clever is a substitute for thinking.

[Cal]

Let me say, also, OBW, you are really outdoing yourself here. This is really good stuff you are posting. Harold, if your are watching, read OBW's posts.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are talking about two strikingly different scenes here.
One is using the wisdom of the world to discredit the word of God.
The other is having our heart enlightened by the scripture to hear God's speaking.

Your the one who talked about the wisdom of the world not me. Again you offer a false option. Paul says in Romans 2:13-15 "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."

That's what C.S. Lewis was talking aboput in the passage I quoted. That is a fact quite apart from the Bible, as Paul makes clear. By the way, when he was making it clear, he was doing so based on his vision of Jesus which was also quite apart from the Bible, in as much as his writing had not yet been canonized. He goes on to point out that God appeared to Abraham also independent of the giving of the law, i.e. the Hebrew Bible as it was extant at the time Paul wrote Romans.

So C.S Lewis and the Bible itself testify that the wisdom of the world or the Bible are not the only two option. And, as indicated before, without the light within, the inner compass, the Bible is worthless.

Among the fundamentalist are those who wish to practice a form of idolatry which we might call "Bible-olatry": worship of the Bible. To put anything in place of God is an abomination. No?

By the way, am I being "straightforward" and "candid" enough in my "communication", Ohio? Because, I want to be sure you know what I mean.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me say, also, OBW, you are really outdoing yourself here. This is really good stuff you are posting. Harold, if your are watching, read OBW's posts.

Definitely agree about post #60.

Let me add my own thoughts.

Exclusive teachings and practices are especially pernicious because the adherent must actively thrust off what he once tenaciously clung to in order to take a step forward in his life. This process can be ugly, painful, heart-wrenching, confusing, or all of the above, and more.

I have corresponded with several lawyers, all of whom I consider much brighter than myself, yet each struggled in his own way to disengage himself from the lingering side-effects of fear, abuse, lies, falsehoods, etc. Very few can just walk away as if nothing happened. Even 5 or 10 talented ones seem to pass through the "valley of the shadow of death." Personally, I have my own struggles to fight through. Sometimes the forum helps, sometimes it frustrates.

I eventually concluded that the Lord can lead us into the LRC, and the Lord can lead us out. The tragedy is believing that the Lord didn't leave with us. We were indoctrinated with the fear that if we left, we left alone. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me conclude this thread with a personal testimony. Twenty years ago I passed through the lowest point of my life, lost my family, lost my job, lost my home, questioned even my own existence. I'll never forget driving on the highway in tears, and the Lord told me this, "I will allow you to suffer unrighteousness." Those words became so encouraging to me. I was no more a hapless, hopeless wretch of a disgrace. My Father may have been hiding behind the scenes, but I knew for sure He was watching over me. He loved me. There is no trial on earth He has not passed thru with His children.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

So there's only two ways of interacting, Igzy's or Harold's? Those are my only two options? Where did you get that idea? Baloney.

You are arguing details here. It was obvious that wasn't Ohio's point. His point was that every poster makes a basic decision to shoot straight or play games, to get to the essence of the issue or flitter about peripherals, to give others the benefit of doubt or play the opportunist.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And Harold is not simply some atheist or unbeliever. He seems to be mired in a quandary between belief in God, and disbelief in a God that would have allowed a system that is so strong to claim his name to be so desperately wicked in some ways. Actually more wicked than many (most or all?) of the other Christian groups that they slander so mercilessly.

I think that he is squarely moving in his mind between Job, Job's wife, and Job's "friends" that came to tell him where he was the problem. He is not sure how to accept that free will can be allowed because of the problems it brings, yet demands that it continue to exist because he wants the free will to lash out about it.

This is not simply "wrong." It is not simply something that shouldn't be happening to him at this point in time. It is something that someone(s) close to him need to be walking with him through. Hopefully they will be better than those "friends" Job had.

And the issue is not that Harold is simply bad and we don't want him. he has been a good part of these forums for quite a while. But there has begun to be a dark side of it that is counterproductive in terms of the forum. And there is a lack of filter on his actions and statements. It is not to disparage Harold or hate him. None of us hate him. None of us want him to simply go away.

Actually, most of us hope he will stick around. But stop throwing out nonsense while refusing to actually think about the things actually being discussed. He is turning his back on what little help could be coming from this kind of semi-cold environment by lashing out at everything in it. I realize that it might be that what he really needs is to not be "listening" to our cerebral discussions about things and instead be speaking live with one or more true friends in Christ that can help him off this spiritual cliff he is dancing on. There is a need to be free to discuss the stuff this forum is about without these crazy interruptions. But there also needs to be a way for Harold to get some help. And due to the tendency for everyone to throw in their 2 cents, the open forum is not really a good place. I would suggest real-live people who are facing you or that you can at least hear their voices. But alternately, some ongoing email traffic, or even PMs to talk through things. Search through what is going on. Find answers.

Whatever. I doubt that I would be very good at this. But if I were contacted about it, I would at least try. I absolutely stand by some of the more cold-sounding things I said in earlier posts relative to the operation of the forum. But that does not mean that I cast Harold aside in the process. I'm just not sure that the forum is the fix. it might be more of the problem. It may be dredging up old problems. Highlighting the worst of the worst. Bringing it all back. And then some callous remark about how Mel whoever was not really so bad. Or a snip at the person rather than the post, action, idea, statement, etc. We all dance around that one. And despite our clear understanding that it is the idea and not the persons that we go after, we also know that it is sometimes hard to separate ourselves from our ideas.

This also is my take except I would think the forum is the right place to hash this out. We all have a background in the LRC, we all have some knowledge of the people and events that may be causing confusion, and we are all here to exercise our faith, patience, love, etc. in helping one another. The shortcomings are not so much a shortcoming in the "forum" but in us.

[zeek]

Nonsense. You are arguing against a strawman. There is no attempt to produce a good old boy network here.

People don't INTEND to succumb to groupthink. But it can happen. Especially when dissenting voices are driven out or stifled by shutting them up. Remember the Viet Nam War? Remember the Local Church?

I don't want him to leave the board.

Good. Neither do I. That makes two votes.

I just want him to start using his brain more. I want him to read up on how make an argument and start doing it, and stop thinking being cute and clever is a substitute for thinking.

Experience has taught me that people do what they want to do not what I want them to.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You are arguing details here. It was obvious that wasn't Ohio's point. His point was that every poster makes a basic decision to shoot straight or play games, to get to the essence of the issue or flitter about peripherals, to give others the benefit of doubt or play the opportunist.

Maybe if Ohio had shot straight I would have gotten his point. I would like to see that "given the benefit of a doubt" angle, but I haven't since I came on these sites. I don't expect to now. You shouldn't either. I intend to hold you to your own standard.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This also is my take except I would think the forum is the right place to hash this out. We all have a background in the LRC, we all have some knowledge of the people and events that may be causing confusion, and we are all here to exercise our faith, patience, love, etc. in helping one another. The shortcomings are not so much a shortcoming in the "forum" but in us.

In a way you are probably right. But it needs control — either voluntary or forced. And I am not talking about controlling Harold, but the rest of us. If it is simply "in the forum," it is open to everyone. That is seriously counterproductive to any kind of healing process. You need an environment that is safe. That won't have a flippant comeback when you (him or any of us) says something. We have quite a collection of people here on the forum. I'm not sure that half of them act in a manner that would be helpful for this. But they are fine for regular forum issues.

It needs more of a "by invitation only" to both participate and view. If it is just in the general forum, even if separated to a more appropriate thread or subforum, it is subject to the snips from everyone without filter.

And it would seem that would place us squarely where we are right now. Having to argue about how so-and-so shouldn't be talking "that way" in the "recovery from the recovery" subforum. And we would be "hashing it out."

Harold doesn't need any more hashing. He needs friends. And I've been no better than anyone else. I and others have correctly stated that what has been happening on the forum is not right. But that doesn't make Harold simply bad. Or require him to go away. But I don't see a good way to have the kind of personal and open communication that he really needs now inside of this forum. There are too many "unfriendlies." Not saying that there is anyone who is intentionally mean to Harold, but that their participation would be "mean" to the kind of dialog that needs to be happening. And even opening up the wounds in their presence is probably undesirable, therefore I would suspect an unwillingness to open up in that environment.

The last time we had someone open up in a significant way was a pretty ugly sight. The guy was encouraged to give all of these "details" and in the end it was all about his feelings and his acting out in a public way but too little of his "facts" panned out as true. There were some among us who were almost giddy with delight about what we were getting out of it.

Were we ashamed enough? Probably not. Would we be kinder to Harold? For certain individuals, I would say I am relatively certain they would. For some others, I'm not so sure.

In short (too late) open discussion does not properly apply to everything. Some things require one-on-one or a controlled small group. I hope that Harold finds that group. And it may be that he does not feel that those he knows personally in his vicinity are truly "safe." But neither is the open forum here. Yet we do understand where he is coming from better than most others. So we might be his best choice. But not all together and in the open. It's just not productive.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

. . . . Yes Harold plays the provocateur. But, when I listen to him, I don't hear nonsense, I hear a challenge to go deeper.

When I say "nonsense," I am not suggesting that it is simply irrelevant drivel with no meaning. But, as Igzy has more directly said, you can't just make out-in-left-field statements and expect everyone to simply take note and start to discuss them. You need to give some cause to their being more than irrelevant. You need to make them relevant. And saying it over and over more forcefully is not the way.

As one of my favorite podcasters often says, "the plural of anecdote is not data." In the same way, the plural of off-the-wall is not evidence. If there is something worthy of discussion, it needs to be more related to the topic than the fact that someone said it in relation to the topic. So it needs to have some evidence provided suggesting sufficient viability for further consideration. The guy who arrives at his car which is parked on the street in downtown (whatever big city you want to suggest) to discover the passenger-side window broken and his favorite CD taken from the seat could proposition that an extremely small but violent tornado smashed the window and sucked it out. It might be arguably possible, but does it warrant another thought? Is it plausible? Or is it a waste of brain power to continue to think of it that way? I suggest the latter. I realize this example is extreme, and silly. But it does demonstrate that we have reasonable cause to essentially ignore things that are not seen as meriting further consideration. If they are truly worthy of such consideration, then more than "I said it" should be found in favor of giving it more thought.

And now you have seen me once again argue both sides of this contentious issue. This side is "Keep the forum on target." The other is "how can Harold get the help he needs." On the latter, other than splitting the two apart, I'm not sure that this is very helpful to him. Maybe to us as we sharpen our skills of analytical and critical thinking. But not to Harold as he grapples with some deep issue(s) that he does not seem to be able to state calmly and clearly. And the fact that it is not calm and clear is not a critique. It is an observation that it needs what this forum cannot provide in its natural form.

[Cal]

Never mind...

[zeek]

OBW--

It strikes me as paternalistic to decide that this is not a right forum for Harold's psychological needs without consulting him on the matter. In keeping standard of directness that is so highly valued here I suggest that what you mean is that his comments are not appropriate or welcome here. And that may be the case. Because, it is quite possible that only a limited range of evangelical christian opinion is acceptable to the group here. Perhaps Harold's perspective is outside that narrow scope, "the narrow way" as someone has already remarked. Maybe he is on the broad path to destruction. Maybe I am too, at least in the minds of majority opinion here. Or maybe the avowed evangelicals on this site are on the fast track to dead religion as WL might have said. Who decides? Not me I'm sure of that.

It's all a matter of the mission of this forum isn't it though really? My policy would be to allow all to participate who can remain relatively coherent, relevant and refrain from verbal abuse. But I'm not in charge.

I think mission of this forum if there is one is what needs to be clarified.

[rayliotta]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is a forum about "the recovery," and is occupied by current and former members. If a poster has no credibility in the Bible and respect for the Bible as God's word, by what basis does he critique "the recovery" and its leaders? By what compass does that poster chart his way?

Can a poster use the Koran to judge WL? Can he use the Apostles' creed to critique the Blendeds? Can the US constitution be used to evaluate the teachings of LSM? What yardstick can be used?

"If a poster has no credibility in the Bible and respect for the Bible as God's word, by what basis does he critique "the recovery" and its leaders?" Gee, maybe on the basis that the poster spent most of his life in "the recovery"? Or still has family there? Is that not enough?

I'm with zeek on this one, I think it's important to clarify what assumptions are being made about participants in this forum. Ohio is quick to agree that particular doctrinal positions should not be held as a requirement here; however, I feel that when his basic religious beliefs are challenged, he seems to forget that, well, that's OK!

P.S. I do agree with Igzy and Ohio, though, that cheekiness should be strictly off-limits here. As we are all aware, "cheekiness" starts with "c", and that rhymes with "p", and that stands for "pool"!

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's all a matter of the mission of this forum isn't it though really? My policy would be to allow all to participate who can remain relatively coherent, relevant and refrain from verbal abuse. But I'm not in charge.
I think mission of this forum if there is one is what needs to be clarified.

Ok, this is one reason why I have let this thread develop.

Of course the all-encompassing "mission" of this forum is to serve as "An Online Community of Former and Current Members of the Local Churches". This is a pretty broad mission. So this is where the various sub-forums (boards) come into play. Sub-forums can be as broad or specific as we want them to be - same goes with the individual threads.

One reason I designed the forum with so many sub-forums (some say too many) is so that people can find something that interests or concerns them, also they may only have the time or interest to participate in one that one sub-forum, or even on just one thread. Some people may only want to start a personal blog and update that every once in a while.

Another reason for so many sub-forums is so that people can have the opportunity of "staying out of each others way". If somebody bothers you or upsets you then maybe just go off to some other forum board and continue on your merry way. If they follow you around solely for the purpose of annoying you then that's where moderation comes in. I have not had to moderate this kind of situation here very often, but I do wish more people would take advantage of the various sub-forums more then they have.

In regards to our friend Harold (what up my man, cat got yur tongue?)... I think one of the answers to the problems that I see discussed here is for him to limit himself to maybe just a few topics. Maybe he could open up some threads that would lend themselves to discussions that revolve around his interests and concerns. I don't see any reason why he couldn't even moderate his own thread or set of threads. This can be arranged with relative ease.

So, in the meantime I am up for further discussions and recommendations about how we can make our little community bigger and better, and most importantly a more safer and saner place for everybody.

[Cal]

I think the parameters of particular discussions are pretty obvious if you just pay attention and proceed from the assumption that the world doesn't revolve around you.

For example, if two people are discussing how Christ could be both man and God, and the assumption is he was both, it's really a nuisance for someone to start chiming in that he believes Christ wasn't really God.

If two people are discussing advanced theories of exegesis, it's a nuisance for someone who doesn't even know what exegesis means to chime in and say he thinks that exegezix stuff is a waste of time.

If some people are discussing the ins and outs of LSM's legal wranglings, it's a nuisance for someone to post "LSM stinks to high heaven!" and really have nothing else to add.

This might offend zeek's egalitarian sensibilities, but it's a fact. Everybody is welcome, but every comment is not appropriate, helpful or interesting--and some are just nuisances. When someone's comments begin to be more nuisance than appropriate, we begin to talk about that person as we are doing here.

Why else would we talk about it? Because deep down we feel Harold's scintillating conclusions have shaken the core of our beliefs and we must silence him forthwith?

Please.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

It's better to be one-sided then two-faced.

Great input UntoHim.

Not to bee a spelling be, but just wanted to tell you that your signature line says the opposite of what you intended to say.

"then" should be "than," otherwise you are encouraging some to be firstly one-sided and secondly to be two-faced

Perhaps a thread for proper grammer and speling?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think the parameters of particular discussions are pretty obvious if you just pay attention and proceed from the assumption that the world doesn't revolve around you.

For example, if two people are discussing how Christ could be both man and God, and the assumption is he was both, it's really a nuisance for someone to start chiming in that he believes Christ wasn't really God.

If two people are discussing advanced theories of exegesis, it's a nuisance for someone who doesn't even know what exegesis means to chime in and say he thinks that exegezix stuff is a waste of time.

If some people are discussing the ins and outs of LSM's legal wranglings, it's a nuisance for someone to post "LSM stinks to high heaven!" and really have nothing else to add.

This might offend zeek's egalitarian sensibilities, but it's a fact. Everybody is welcome, but every comment is not appropriate, helpful or interesting--and some are just nuisances. When someone's comments begin to be more nuisance than appropriate, we begin to talk about that person as we are doing here.

Why else would we talk about it? Because deep down we feel Harold's scintillating conclusions have shaken the core of our beliefs and we must silence him forthwith?

Please.

Then an open forum is not an appropriate setting for the discussion you would like to have. Perhaps a PM, or a forum that is invitation only. By definition, an open forum is open for all to chime in.

What might be more appropriate is if, after holding the open conversation, you might learn there are two or three who are interested in pursuing the conversation without interruption. Then set up an invitation only forum.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

And now you have seen me once again argue both sides of this contentious issue. This side is "Keep the forum on target." The other is "how can Harold get the help he needs." On the latter, other than splitting the two apart, I'm not sure that this is very helpful to him. Maybe to us as we sharpen our skills of analytical and critical thinking. But not to Harold as he grapples with some deep issue(s) that he does not seem to be able to state calmly and clearly. And the fact that it is not calm and clear is not a critique. It is an observation that it needs what this forum cannot provide in its natural form.

I don't see the "target of this forum" the sharpening of our analytical and critical thinking skills. I see the target of this forum a place where former and current members of the LRC can share openly.

If we care more about the truths and knowledge than we do about each other then we have become sounding brass.

If we feel that the LRC became an abusive environment that did not exhibit brotherly love, then the target for this forum is to exhibit the love we felt was lacking in the LRC.

If you feel that the LRC error is its exclusivity, then do you really think an invitation only forum is the remedy?

To me the remedy is obvious, we need to grow in grace. Isn't it hypocritical to be the very thing we are condemning? Oh sorry, that was Awareness point, and apparently that adds nothing to this discussion, my bad.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Great input UntoHim.

Not to bee a spelling be, but just wanted to tell you that your signature line says the opposite of what you intended to say.

"then" should be "than," otherwise you are encouraging some to be firstly one-sided and secondly to be two-faced

Perhaps a thread for proper grammer and speling?

Did, per chance, you mean spelling BEE, not spelling be?

In the meantime I'll check on the then versus than.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Did, per chance, you mean spelling BEE, not spelling be?

In the meantime I'll check on the then versus than.

There were several obvious "checker traps" in my post, and you only found that one? tsk tsk ...

It's been half a century, but I still remember Kathleen Walsh in grade school beating me in the Spelling Bee. She got to represent our school. I whooped her in math though.

Normally I don't comment on such things, but your error changed the meaning completely. Then is used sequentially in causal events "if this then that." Than is used comparatively like "better this than that."

Just trying to lighten up the thread.

Anybody seen Harold?

Somebody call CMW. Harold usually shows up when the ladies post.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

It strikes me as paternalistic to decide that this is not a right forum for Harold's psychological needs without consulting him on the matter.

It strikes me as naive to suggest that the kind of thing that I am suggesting may be the issue can simply be "hashed out" in public (as someone essentially else put it). Are you ready to openly discuss some of your deepest personal issues and hang-ups in this open forum and with the entirety of the membership? I doubt it.

And you are extremely presumptive (and wrong) to say that I am trying to get Harold off the forum in any way I can. Far from it. From the standpoint of the forum, I would like to see the lucid, coherent Harold regularly participating. Even some of the odd things he has said in the past are welcome because they were at least related enough to warrant consideration.

I think I see the outgrowth of something going on inside these recent comments that suggests something that is not going to be helped by the open display of the problems to a bunch of people, some of whom seem to revel in snippy comments about almost anything.

And your response makes me wonder if you really read and understood what I said, or just want to make your own contrary points. Just what Harold needs right now (not). You can complain that I am presumptive about how it might should be. But at least I have his interests in mind. It would seem that you are not thinking about his interests, but your own.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I don't see the "target of this forum" the sharpening of our analytical and critical thinking skills. I see the target of this forum a place where former and current members of the LRC can share openly.

You didn't really understand what I said. There is a target for this forum. And it is open sharing.

And what I said about "sharpening analytical and critical thinking skills" was as snipe at what I would expect to happen with many of the participants of the "lets help Harold get through this issue" thread as they put their left brain to work on a right brain problem.

I agree that we need to display the true brotherly love that was not displayed by the LRC. That does not mean that this forum can be that place. We have limited controls. We might be able to exclude a potty-mouthed mocker, but pretty much everyone else is welcome. That is not a true place of fellowship. And some fellowship does require that it be with those that a fellowshipee selects as his/her "safe" group.

We were admonished to confess our sins to one another. But I doubt you can find anyone that thinks that means to everyone. We may not be talking about sins here, but the kind of fellowship involved is similar. It is open, but within a defined, confined space. Not in the open.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Then an open forum is not an appropriate setting for the discussion you would like to have.

Open is relative. We already have rules, so by your definition we are not open as it is.

I wish you guys would quit arguing theory and start being practical. We are talking common sense here. Can't you tell a trouble-maker from someone who really wants to contribute? If not then don't ever try to be a moderator. Leave that someone with some discernment.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Definitely agree about post #60.
Let me add my own thoughts.
Exclusive teachings and practices are especially pernicious because the adherent must actively thrust off what he once tenaciously clung to in order to take a step forward in his life. This process can be ugly, painful, heart-wrenching, confusing, or all of the above, and more. .

That's what I call growing pains ! We don't all grow at the same time and thus as Christians, not all of us being on the same page has been frustrating for me.

I eventually concluded that the Lord can lead us into the LRC, and the Lord can lead us out.

He did this with me for sure ! There is absolutely no doubt in my mind and in my heart, the Lord led me into the LC and led me out.

The tragedy is believing that the Lord didn't leave with us. We were indoctrinated with the fear that if we left, we left alone. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And that was OUR mistake for believing a lie. It was Jesus Himself Who saved us and delivered us. There was no doubt whatsoever in our hearts and minds when we surrendered our lives to Him, we were forever gratefully endebted unto Him (Christ that is, not Chuck. ) We put our trust IN HIM! We read the Word of God with fresh revelation and understanding. HE revealed Himself to US and we believed HIM. We believed IN Him. He began a good work in us and we were excited as all get out (at least I was) that HE was going to finish it ! (He still is because He is Faithful and True. He keeps His Word & His Promises! Halleluiah to the Lamb of God! )

What I believe happened to many people in the LC, is they lost their first love to JESUS. They put the LC before GOD Himself. Why do they place so much emphasis on the 'body' ? The HEAD is what holds the body not the other way around ! The HEAD controls the body's movements. We get our instructions from our HEAD ...JESUS CHRIST Himself. He makes no mistakes! We have the free will to choose His Way or the bye way. bye-bye.

My Father may have been hiding behind the scenes, but I knew for sure He was watching over me. He loved me. There is no trial on earth He has not passed thru with His children.

Your words/experience remind me of one of my favorite scriptures: 1 Corinthians 10:13
There has no temptation (trial) taken you but such as is common to man: yet God is faithful, Who will not suffer (allow) you to be tempted (tested) above that you are able; with the temptation (trial) He will also make a way (for you )to escape, that you may be able to bear it.

Thanks for the testimony Ohio !
Carol

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Your words/experience remind me of one of my favorite scriptures: 1 Corinthians 10:13 There has no temptation (trial) taken you but such as is common to man: yet God is faithful, Who will not suffer (allow) you to be tempted (tested) above that you are able; with the temptation (trial) He will also make a way (for you) to escape, that you may be able to bear it.

Thanks for the testimony Ohio !
Carol

So nice to hear from someone who actually reads what I write.

Thanks for sharing!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So nice to hear from someone who actually reads what I write.

Thanks for sharing!

And it takes a women to get weird Harold out of his box ...... now back in I go ... Reading your posts, and all others ...

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

It strikes me as naive to suggest that the kind of thing that I am suggesting may be the issue can simply be "hashed out" in public (as someone essentially else put it). Are you ready to openly discuss some of your deepest personal issues and hang-ups in this open forum and with the entirety of the membership? I doubt it.

And you are extremely presumptive (and wrong) to say that I am trying to get Harold off the forum in any way I can. Far from it. From the standpoint of the forum, I would like to see the lucid, coherent Harold regularly participating. Even some of the odd things he has said in the past are welcome because they were at least related enough to warrant consideration.

I think I see the outgrowth of something going on inside these recent comments that suggests something that is not going to be helped by the open display of the problems to a bunch of people, some of whom seem to revel in snippy comments about almost anything.

And your response makes me wonder if you really read and understood what I said, or just want to make your own contrary points. Just what Harold needs right now (not). You can complain that I am presumptive about how it might should be. But at least I have his interests in mind. It would seem that you are not thinking about his interests, but your own.

If you feel this way or have seen this you should deal with it in a PM. I think it should definitely be out of bounds to psychoanalyze a poster on an open forum whether or not you are qualified to do so. If you were qualified I suppose it would be a basis to lose your license. If you aren't it is the definition of presumption.

Either way I hope that all can agree that the moderator has the right to delete any attempts at psychoanalysis on an open forum. Again, PM's should be used in a case where you are burdened for someone's health.

[Cal]

Harold, since I know you're watching I hope and believe you know that I was not being mean. Some of these guys around here are panic-stricken over what I said, but I know you're not because I know you know what I meant.

You said you were going to shut up. I just called that bluff, and a bluff it was. Your comment was snotty and out of line. You're a big boy and you know that.

Every cynic is a closet romantic. And you are a prime example of that. Cynics want us to believe that everything is too corrupt for them. But the fact is nothing is good enough for them, because they are closet idealists. They've raised their standard too high because they've been hurt and don't want to get hurt again.

Whether or not we like it (and we should) God has chosen to work through people. He speaks through them. Some of that speaking is inerrant. We call that "the Bible." Jesus affirmed the whole Old Testament. So if you believe in Jesus, you should believe the OT. Once you jettison the Word, or start picking and choosing which parts of it you are going to believe, you've left solid ground and are in a dangerous place.

Don't think that you can find truth simply by following "the Spirit." Even Jesus didn't do that. When he was being tested in the wilderness and seemed to even begin to hallucinate, he went back to the Word. That's our example.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Open is relative. We already have rules, so by your definition we are not open as it is.

I wish you guys would quit arguing theory and start being practical. We are talking common sense here. Can't you tell a trouble-maker from someone who really wants to contribute? If not then don't ever try to be a moderator. Leave that someone with some discernment.

This is practical, this is common sense. The post you were offended at was a reply to the moderator. The moderator has already commented on it and no one has taken offense at the moderators response.

Several of us were taken aback by your harsh tone, some have gone so far as to question it. I thought it would be best to ignore it, but this thread has a life of its own because everyone wants to know the rules.

I think this case is very interesting because of the long history of posts. To my opinion, and this is my own view, Awareness has always been polite to posters. His comments can be seen as derogatory towards our beliefs, but not towards our person. So it is the most clear case example you could get of someone being silenced for having different beliefs, heretical beliefs, or at the very least not fundamental beliefs. Which oddly enough was the point of the post that has caused this whole turmoil.

Second, I rarely respond to these posts by Awareness, unlike other posters on this forum that I have a great deal of respect for, because there is always a grain of truth in what he says. You may take offense that he appears to be condemning all Christians, but the reality is, what he says is surely true of some.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you feel this way or have seen this you should deal with it in a PM.

There goes the "open forum" right out the window again.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Several of us were taken aback by your harsh tone, some have gone so far as to question it. I thought it would be best to ignore it, but this thread has a life of its own because everyone wants to know the rules.
I think this case is very interesting because of the long history of posts. To my opinion, and this is my own view, Awareness has always been polite to posters. His comments can be seen as derogatory towards our beliefs, but not towards our person.

Bilbodog was also quite polite. That was his cover for being disruptive. When pressed he resorted to niceness. I once compared him to Eddie Haskell on Leave it to Beaver, because Eddie was unfailingly nice, too. But everyone knew something was not quite right with him, the grown-ups more than the kids.

Now, Harold isn't as bad as Bilbodog, but he does overuse the same kind of needling the Dog so deftly employed. He wouldn't cut your head off, he'd just try to kill you with 1000 wounds.

At some point the bull gets tired of the matador. The matador hopes the bull is weakened enough when he finally goes berserk. Matadors are not honorable. They are brave, in a way, but not honorable.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Even Jesus didn't do that. When he was being tested in the wilderness and seemed to even begin to hallucinate, he went back to the Word. That's our example.

Hallucinate? What gave you that idea?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Harold, since I know your are watching I hope and believe you know that I was not being mean. Some of these guys around here are panic-stricken over what I said, but I know you're not because I know you know what I meant.

You said you were going to shut up. I just called that bluff, and a bluff it was. Your comment was snotty and out of line. You're a big boy and you know that.

Every cynic is a closet romantic. And you are a prime example of that. Cynics want us to believe that everything is too corrupt for them. But the fact is nothing is good enough for them, because they are closet idealists. They've raised their standard too high because they've been hurt and don't want to get hurt again.

Whether or not we like it (and we should) God has chosen to work through people. He speaks through them. Some of that speaking is inerrant. We call that "the Bible." Jesus affirmed the whole Old Testament. So if you believe in Jesus, you should believe the OT. Once you jettison the Word, or start picking and choosing which parts of it you are going to believe, you've left solid ground and are in a dangerous place.

Don't think that you can find truth simply by following "the Spirit." Even Jesus didn't do that. When he was being tested in the wilderness and seemed to even begin to hallucinate, he went back to the Word. That's our example.

Hey, I just look at it like it has been the LCD version of "The Roast of Weird Harold."

I've had some good belly laughs.

The line I liked the most came from dear bro Ohio : "Harold is a church of one." That's close to the mark, and a new way of looking at myself. I've always considered myself "A cult of one."

And concerning your words about Jesus and the Old Testament ; the Bible is all we got. Sure we got other early accounts, but they are dubious.

And the OT was what they had back in those days. What other reference point did they have? Jesus was a Jew. Paul was a Jew. All the first Christians were Jews.

Do you think Jesus or anyone else would reference Hindu scriptures, or Taoist, or Buddhist holy writ?

However, if you're gonna dig back, for your references, trying to find elements of what people back then thought of Jesus, and what he was/is, you'll have better luck looking into the Greek/Roman pantheon mythologies than the OT.

I know the claim, out here, is, that I make statements I can't back up. True. But that's because of the nature and narrow mission of this forum. Not because I'm' not willing to go into thorough detail and argumentation. Doing so would unquestionably take the forum off course. (Altho, we've allowed talks of UFOs and ETs, which is out in left field on LCD, if you ask me ... unless Lee was an ET, of course...ET from heaven....)

So I have to shorten how I back up my statements ... and then leave the rest of it up to you to look into my claim yourself ... if you're inclined.

And my backup to this claim that, you'll find better results trying to figure out what Jesus was thought of in the minds of those 2000 years ago, and since, and why Christianity was so inclined to spread in the Roman world, by looking into the Greco-Roman world I say :

The story of Jesus is like the stories of the children of Zeus ...

The rest is then up to you. I'm saying if you look into it, you'll likely be quite surprised at how well it fits ... considering how minds, even of Jews, were working back then ... and the Roman powers and influences 'that be' were working back then ...

"The Way" did not come up out of a vacuum ... nor did Jesus come as an ET, in a hidden spaceship. All the minds back then were thoroughly soused with Greek/Roman teachings, plays, dramas, writings, learning, and the Greek Roman whole works. It couldn't be avoided or escaped. And it had an impact on the formation of "The Way." The Greco-Roman systems were lubrication for The Way. The Jesus story wasn't a new story back then, and could be easily accepted by minds steeped in the Greek Roman world, which was pretty much everyone ....

I've said too much ... and suppose should shut up again ...

Come closer bro Igzy. Let me pat you on the back and stick the knife in yer ribs ...

And if you were truly a straight shooter, like you claim, you would have just come right out and called me the Anti-Christ ... or at least a serpent and viper, trying to poison everyone .. with truths that lead to lies (whatever that means - sounds like being accuse of "using Witness Lee's works to destroy Witness Lee's works," to me ... and just as silly .... good laugh tho ... thanks fer that ... Oh! Now everything is a joke to me, again. I'm in a no win situation ...

[Cal]

****************

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hallucinate? What gave you that idea?

When the devil took him to the top of the temple, that kind of thing. I'm not saying the devil wasn't really tempting him. I just doubt Jesus really was on the top of the temple. I think it was happening in his mind.

[Cal]

**************

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

you'll find better results trying to figure out what Jesus was thought of in the minds of those 2000 years ago, and since, and why Christianity was so inclined to spread in the Roman world, by looking into the Greco-Roman world I say :

The story of Jesus is like the stories of the children of Zeus ...

The rest is then up to you. I'm saying if you look into it, you'll likely be quite surprised at how well it fits ... considering how minds, even of Jews, were working back then ... and the Roman powers and influences 'that be' were working back then ...

The Jesus story wasn't a new story back then, and could be easily accepted by minds steeped in the Greek Roman world, which was pretty much everyone ....

Harold,

If the "Jesus story" fit into the Greco-Roman minds so well, then why in the heart of Greek culture and learning, the Areopagus in Athens, did the contempory philosophers confront Paul, calling him a "babbler," yet some still wanted to hear him, because he was "an announcer of strange demons -- bringing good news of Jesus and the resurrection?"

Sounds to me like the whole "Jesus story" with Him resurrecting from the dead was altogether "new news." Something they had never heard!

Actually the bigger question you need to address is your own motive. Why do you post what you do? Why do you fill your heart with "factoids" which seem to discredit the scripture? Why are you so afraid the Bible might be true?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Bilbodog was also quite polite. That was his cover for being disruptive. When pressed he resorted to niceness. I once compared him to Eddie Haskell on Leave it to Beaver, because Eddie was unfailingly nice, too. But everyone knew something was not quite right with him, the grown-ups more than the kids.

Now, Harold isn't as bad as Bilbodog, but he does overuse the same kind of needling the Dog so deftly employed. He wouldn't cut your head off, he'd just try to kill you with 1000 wounds.

At some point the bull gets tired of the matador. The matador hopes the bull is weakened enough when he finally goes berserk. Matadors are not honorable. They are brave, in a way, but not honorable.

I never had any issues with Bilbodog. I think it best to learn how to deal with all kinds. I think it is like tennis, as long as the ball is in the court it doesn't matter how hard or how much spin is on it.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey, I just look at it like it has been the LCD version of "The Roast of Weird Harold."

I've had some good belly laughs.

The line I liked the most came from dear bro Ohio : "Harold is a church of one." That's close to the mark, and a new way of looking at myself. I've always considered myself "A cult of one."

And concerning your words about Jesus and the Old Testament ; the Bible is all we got. Sure we got other early accounts, but they are dubious.

And the OT was what they had back in those days. What other reference point did they have? Jesus was a Jew. Paul was a Jew. All the first Christians were Jews.

Do you think Jesus or anyone else would reference Hindu scriptures, or Taoist, or Buddhist holy writ?

However, if you're gonna dig back, for your references, trying to find elements of what people back then thought of Jesus, and what he was/is, you'll have better luck looking into the Greek/Roman pantheon mythologies than the OT.

I know the claim, out here, is, that I make statements I can't back up. True. But that's because of the nature and narrow mission of this forum. Not because I'm' not willing to go into thorough detail and argumentation. Doing so would unquestionably take the forum off course. (Altho, we've allowed talks of UFOs and ETs, which is out in left field on LCD, if you ask me ... unless Lee was an ET, of course...ET from heaven....)

So I have to shorten how I back up my statements ... and then leave the rest of it up to you to look into my claim yourself ... if you're inclined.

And my backup to this claim that, you'll find better results trying to figure out what Jesus was thought of in the minds of those 2000 years ago, and since, and why Christianity was so inclined to spread in the Roman world, by looking into the Greco-Roman world I say :

The story of Jesus is like the stories of the children of Zeus ...

The rest is then up to you. I'm saying if you look into it, you'll likely be quite surprised at how well it fits ... considering how minds, even of Jews, were working back then ... and the Roman powers and influences 'that be' were working back then ...

"The Way" did not come up out of a vacuum ... nor did Jesus come as an ET, in a hidden spaceship. All the minds back then were thoroughly soused with Greek/Roman teachings, plays, dramas, writings, learning, and the Greek Roman whole works. It couldn't be avoided or escaped. And it had an impact on the formation of "The Way." The Greco-Roman systems were lubrication for The Way. The Jesus story wasn't a new story back then, and could be easily accepted by minds steeped in the Greek Roman world, which was pretty much everyone ....

I've said too much ... and suppose should shut up again ...

Come closer bro Igzy. Let me pat you on the back and stick the knife in yer ribs ...

And if you were truly a straight shooter, like you claim, you would have just come right out and called me the Anti-Christ ... or at least a serpent and viper, trying to poison everyone .. with truths that lead to lies (whatever that means - sounds like being accuse of "using Witness Lee's works to destroy Witness Lee's works," to me ... and just as silly .... good laugh tho ... thanks fer that ... Oh! Now everything is a joke to me, again. I'm in a no win situation ...

Along these lines, I have always felt that Christians who reject all the ancient texts as being myths or false gods, etc. are acting in a superstitious way. Just because they may not have known the one true God doesn't mean that they didn't know anything or that all of their eyewitness accounts and testimonies should be ignored and rejected.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, Harold, if you deny Jesus is The Way, and just try to put him up with some pantheon of gods, then you are expressing the anti-Christ.

Is that what you believe? Just come out and say it.

Do you believe that all human books should be banned and burned? If not, how about the ancient texts for the Greeks, Hindu, Egyptians, etc.?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Do you believe that all human books should be banned and burned? If not, how about the ancient texts for the Greeks, Hindu, Egyptians, etc.?

Some of the books should be banned or burnt.

The believers in Ephesus thought so too.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some of the books should be banned or burnt.

The believers in Ephesus thought so too.

But what is your criteria? Pornography or art? Would you ban Copernicus theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you feel this way or have seen this you should deal with it in a PM. I think it should definitely be out of bounds to psychoanalyze a poster on an open forum whether or not you are qualified to do so. If you were qualified I suppose it would be a basis to lose your license. If you aren't it is the definition of presumption.

Either way I hope that all can agree that the moderator has the right to delete any attempts at psychoanalysis on an open forum. Again, PM's should be used in a case where you are burdened for someone's health.

I was not trying psychoanalyze Harold. I am merely pointing out that I see some of the signs that us lay people see when there are problems that are not the actual actions observed. It says that there is something needed that this forum cannot handle.

And that is exactly what I was saying. It cannot be hashed out here on the forum. I do not presume that it is the case and then claim that it is. It might be that Harold is simply being a willfull irritant. But somehow I doubt it. And if I am right, he needs 2 things. 1, to willfully deal with the forum rules, and 2, get some real friends (offline) that can help him work with his issues. I said that I don't think it is proper for it to be on this forum. Did something I said seem to say otherwise?

But if I am asking for anything, it is to lower the attack rhetoric while insisting that the forum not be treated in the way it has been (and at least partly by Harold). I'm not giving him a free pass. And I'm not presuming to psychoanalize or be the one with the skill to help him (if I'm right). I just see in the manner of his recent actions clues that more is going on than the recent actions. I can't say it for sure or know I am right.

But I guess you think I should keep it to myself because even saying what I did out loud might be construed as psychoanalysis and should be deleted by the moderator.

Sheesh.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I was not trying psychoanalyze Harold. I am merely pointing out that I see some of the signs that us lay people see when there are problems that are not the actual actions observed. It says that there is something needed that this forum cannot handle.

And that is exactly what I was saying. It cannot be hashed out here on the forum. I do not presume that it is the case and then claim that it is. It might be that Harold is simply being a willfull irritant. But somehow I doubt it. And if I am right, he needs 2 things. 1, to willfully deal with the forum rules, and 2, get some real friends (offline) that can help him work with his issues. I said that I don't think it is proper for it to be on this forum. Did something I said seem to say otherwise?

But if I am asking for anything, it is to lower the attack rhetoric while insisting that the forum not be treated in the way it has been (and at least partly by Harold). I'm not giving him a free pass. And I'm not presuming to psychoanalize or be the one with the skill to help him (if I'm right). I just see in the manner of his recent actions clues that more is going on than the recent actions. I can't say it for sure or know I am right.

But I guess you think I should keep it to myself because even saying what I did out loud might be construed as psychoanalysis and should be deleted by the moderator.

Sheesh.

I think that observations like this should be made via PM if you feel it is a health issue and not made on a public forum.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

"The Way" did not come up out of a vacuum ... nor did Jesus come as an ET, in a hidden spaceship. All the minds back then were thoroughly soused with Greek/Roman teachings, plays, dramas, writings, learning, and the Greek Roman whole works. It couldn't be avoided or escaped. And it had an impact on the formation of "The Way." The Greco-Roman systems were lubrication for The Way. The Jesus story wasn't a new story back then, and could be easily accepted by minds steeped in the Greek Roman world, which was pretty much everyone ....

Sounds like you have either been reading McLaren or listening to someone else who has.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

"The Way" did not come up out of a vacuum ... nor did Jesus come as an ET, in a hidden spaceship. All the minds back then were thoroughly soused with Greek/Roman teachings, plays, dramas, writings, learning, and the Greek Roman whole works. It couldn't be avoided or escaped. And it had an impact on the formation of "The Way." The Greco-Roman systems were lubrication for The Way. The Jesus story wasn't a new story back then, and could be easily accepted by minds steeped in the Greek Roman world, which was pretty much everyone ....

So then, at the fullness of the time God revealed His son?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Sounds to me like the whole "Jesus story" with Him resurrecting from the dead was altogether "new news." Something they had never heard!

The Greek pantheon is full of dead, resurrected, and ascended gods, and half divine half human beings that became immortal.

So no one back then would have any problem with the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. Such things were used for teaching back then, Jew or otherwise....

Which is why Christianity could so easily spread in the Roman world ...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But what is your criteria? Pornography or art? Would you ban Copernicus theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun?

Obviously I would not ban science, medicine, engineering, history, etc.

For starters, I would use the criteria in the Bible. Ephesus burned the books of those who practiced magic.

Do you feel the believers at Ephesus were wrong for doing this? Do you feel that Paul was wrong for permitting this, or that Luke was wrong for recording this?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think that observations like this should be made via PM if you feel it is a health issue and not made on a public forum.

The comments were made to the people who want to "hash it out" on the forum. It was not an attempt to get Harold to lighten up and start PMing people. You are still reading it as a plea to Harold. It is more of a plea to us. We don't need to hash anything out with Harold. It clearly is not about analysis, critical thinking, rhetoric and logic. Isn't that obvious? Do I need a degree in psychology and a desire to risk my license to see that? Or at least think I do and say it?

And if you don't see it, then fine.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by awareness

And it takes a women to get weird Harold out of his box ...... now back in I go ... Reading your posts, and all others ...

HA-HA ! I didn't get to say "Come out-Come out wherever you are Harold ! People here can be just as punchy towards you as you are towards the posters !

You can go back into your rabbit hole but like the rest of us, sooner or later you're bound to pop up to see if the coast is clear.

Every family has brats, know it alls and peace makers. The family of God is no different !

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Greek pantheon is full of dead, resurrected, and ascended gods, and half divine half human beings that became immortal.

Uh...this part belongs in the Aliens thread...fallen angels mixing w/humans producing hybrids (half divine human beings) that become immortal...LY DOOMED!

Did ya have a nice break Mr A ?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by OBW

Sounds like you have either been reading McLaren or listening to someone else who has.

McLaren. UGH. just my opinion!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

McLaren. UGH. just my opinion!

I find much of his earlier work to at least have some real insight into the flaws in our practice and doctrine. But he seems to only see the flaws and seldom sees any viable answers. I'm actually reading A Generous Orthodoxy right now.

But I understand your position. If you only want to read truly good sources, I wouldn't have him on my list either.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Do you believe that all human books should be banned and burned? If not, how about the ancient texts for the Greeks, Hindu, Egyptians, etc.?

Not burned, but neither believed in. At least as much as contradicts the faith.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

The Greek pantheon is full of dead, resurrected, and ascended gods, and half divine half human beings that became immortal.

So no one back then would have any problem with the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. Such things were used for teaching back then, Jew or otherwise....

Which is why Christianity could so easily spread in the Roman world ...

Makes a lot of "sense" until I compare it with the facts of history like the apostles being beaten up in every town, and all of them eventually martyred.

I understand that Caesar Nero was also an easy "sell." Since he needed more "human street lights" to light up Rome, he welcomed the new religion of the gods.

But who am I to refute the "enlightened" awareness?

He is convinced that "Christianity easily spread in the Roman world" because "the Greek pantheon was full of dead, resurrected, and ascended gods, and half divine half human beings."

C'mon Harold, do you really believe what you post, or do you just enjoy annoying us.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

There goes the "open forum" right out the window again.

Can we take the next call please ? HA-ha... that's what Harold Camping used to say on his open forum when he was taking calls from listeners. (I listened to him in 1994..a few months before his then prediction that the end of the world would happen on or about Sept 6 1994. I didn't believe it because I never understood his mathematical explanations... in the end...his math was all wrong !

Sorry for getting OT.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Makes a lot of "sense" until I compare it with the facts of history like the apostles being beaten up in every town, and all of them eventually martyred.

I understand that Caesar Nero was also an easy "sell." Since he needed more "human street lights" to light up Rome, he welcomed the new religion of the gods.

But who am I to refute the "enlightened" awareness?

He is convinced that "Christianity easily spread in the Roman world" because "the Greek pantheon was full of dead, resurrected, and ascended gods, and half divine half human beings."

C'mon Harold, do you really believe what you post, or do you just enjoy annoying us.

He enjoys annoying us. Right Harold ? You old lughead !

[Cal]

***************

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

When the devil took him to the top of the temple, that kind of thing. I'm not saying the devil wasn't really tempting him. I just doubt Jesus really was on the top of the temple. I think it was happening in his mind.

IGZY !
IF that's the case, then your supposition lends itself to think Jesus merely thought he heard the devil speak and command Him to turn the stones into bread. Was that all in His Mind too ? That the devil took him to the pinnacle of the temple happened because GOD allowed, permitted Satan to take Him there! It was not Jesus' imagination !

Chop-chop Igzy. You got a good Head on your shoulders ! I know you do.. We all do!

Luv Ya !

[Cal]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

IGZY !
IF that's the case, then your supposition lends itself to think Jesus merely thought he heard the devil speak and command Him to turn the stones into bread. Was that all in His Mind too ? That the devil took him to the pinnacle of the temple happened because GOD allowed, permitted Satan to take Him there! It was not Jesus' imagination !

Chop-chop Igzy. You got a good Head on your shoulders ! I know you do.. We all do!

Luv Ya !

Luv ya, too. Either way, Jesus was severely tested and tempted. And he passed the test by leaning on the Word of God. That's the most important thing to take from the story, wouldn't you agree?

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Non-Judeo-Christian religions and philosophies often have a shadow of truth because basic truths resonate with mankind. But they are a shadow.

Hmm a shadow? I'm not so sure. Knowing Satan is a counterfeit, an imposter of the Truth, seems to me he took the Word of God & twisted it to fit peoples' ideology. He looks like the real thing. Talks like the real thing...but NO ONE gets to Abba GOD except through JESUS Christ, the TRUE Anointed One of the Father!

So it isn't that the Christ story is just another instance in a pattern in human beliefs that all reflect some deeper "Way." He is the Way that all other beliefs reflect in some dim manner.

I think I get what you're saying Igzy. I listen to Coast to Coast quite a bit.

George Noory has all kinds of people on his talk show. The topics are as wayyy out there as they are grounded. Sometimes when his guests are talking about future things to come, these people use their own lingo to explain in their own way the deep things of God. Sometimes they quote scriptures and also mix other teachings.
I try to keep an open mind and a level head. At all times, I am grounded on Christ Jesus the One & Only Solid Rock.

IMO, there are a lot of people who are tired of mainstream religion...the mainstream church. "Lively" or "Dead". They want GOD but they don't want the organized institution...and since the religious institution uses the Bible, they steer away from the Living WORD. One of my favorite passages in Acts is Paul's visit to Mars Hill. He looks around at all the idols..and begins his sermon with these words:
“Men of Athens, I notice that you are very religious in every way,for as I was walking along I saw your many shrines. And one of your altars had this inscription on it: ‘To an Unknown God.’ This God, whom you worship without knowing, is the one I’m telling you about.
“He is the God who made the world and everything in it. Since he is Lord of heaven and earth, he doesn’t live in man-made temples, 25 and human hands can’t serve his needs—for he has no needs. He himself gives life and breath to everything, and he satisfies every need.

I like to quote these scriptures to some of the guests and callers. You all ought to hear me talk to the radio and to the Lord about the callers or guests. Too funny !

Harold should know this, of course. But perhaps he's forgotten.

I don't know. To quote Bob Marley... I think he's just running and a running and a running away. Harold's running and a running and a running away..but he can't run away from the LORD...noo-noo-noo...he can't run away from the LORD.

(don't know why that song got inside my head right about now! )

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Luv ya, too. Either way, Jesus was severely tested and tempted. And he passed the test by leaning on the Word of God. That's the most important thing to take from the story, wouldn't you agree?

Yeppers.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Jews believed the OT was THE unique scripture of God. Jesus confirmed that. No amount of half-truths you serve up can deny that.

You've left the faith.

"The Faith?" What a nebulous conception, with no solid or stable definition.

So since I'm accused of not backing up what I say, I present two with one stone. Here's a quote from an early church father, both a man of the faith, and who realized that the Jesus story was like the stories of the Greek pantheon (this is one quote from among many):

"And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated.

And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.". - Justin Martyr's First Apology, chapter 21

Also, you say Jesus affirmed the OT. He also affirmed the Greek system as well :

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell [Greek=Hades]shall not prevail against it.

Hades was not a place in the Greek pantheon. Hades was the god of the dead. And the dead were said to go to the house of Hades, where a gate held the dead in.

So what Jesus was saying was, the gates of the god Hades will not hold his "called out ones" ; that death will not hold them.

Thus even Jesus reached back into the Greek pantheon, to make his point about the church.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some of the books should be banned or burnt.

The believers in Ephesus thought so too.

And it is said that I say outlandish things. Shame on you for supporting censorship ...

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

The comments were made to the people who want to "hash it out" on the forum. It was not an attempt to get Harold to lighten up and start PMing people. You are still reading it as a plea to Harold. It is more of a plea to us. We don't need to hash anything out with Harold. It clearly is not about analysis, critical thinking, rhetoric and logic. Isn't that obvious? Do I need a degree in psychology and a desire to risk my license to see that? Or at least think I do and say it?

And if you don't see it, then fine.

You are okay in my book OBW .. and your care and concern are much appreciated.

And you are right that I need friends to help me. And I have them ... but they're all over the place, and not close by ... We stay in touch and see each other from time to time ... whenever possible ... and however possible ... thank God for Skype ....

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Obviously I would not ban science, medicine, engineering, history, etc.

For starters, I would use the criteria in the Bible. Ephesus burned the books of those who practiced magic.

Do you feel the believers at Ephesus were wrong for doing this? Do you feel that Paul was wrong for permitting this, or that Luke was wrong for recording this?

I believe that anyone has the right to burn any book they wish. If you purchased the book, by all means, it is yours to burn as you please. I have a cousin who would read paperback novels while going up the chair lift at our ski resort. He would tear out each page as he read it. Over the course of a day of skiing he would finish a book and it would become progressively smaller to carry around.

But he never banned books, merely destroyed them. The case in Ephesus was not about book banning.

So lets make sure we are talking about the same thing. Lets use a real example of book banning, like the case of Copernicus that I mentioned, or the Salem witch trials, or any other example that you feel would be best.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

"The Faith?" What a nebulous conception, with no solid or stable definition.

So since I'm accused of not backing up what I say, I present two with one stone. Here's a quote from an early church father, both a man of the faith, and who realized that the Jesus story was like the stories of the Greek pantheon (this is one quote from among many):

"And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated.

And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Perseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by Aesculapius.". - Justin Martyr's First Apology, chapter 21

Also, you say Jesus affirmed the OT. He also affirmed the Greek system as well :

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell [Greek=Hades]shall not prevail against it.

Hades was not a place in the Greek pantheon. Hades was the god of the dead. And the dead were said to go to the house of Hades, where a gate held the dead in.

So what Jesus was saying was, the gates of the god Hades will not hold his "called out ones" ; that death will not hold them.

Thus even Jesus reached back into the Greek pantheon, to make his point about the church.

And you make some important points. First, God created man, all men. Since all men have a relationship with the creator, why wouldn't they have pieces to the puzzle of this mystery?

Second, yes Jesus referred to Hades, and the gates of Hades. Therefore I don't see why looking into who and what Hades is can be an issue with Christians. Faith in the word of the Lord is showing appreciation for the word, studying the word of Jesus is showing appreciation.

Third, if we look at the children of Zeus we can see that one was a real headache of epic proportions, not unlike this thread.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

And it is said that I say outlandish things. Shame on you for supporting censorship ...

Oh the outrage!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

You are okay in my book OBW .. and your care and concern are much appreciated.

And you are right that I need friends to help me. And I have them ... but they're all over the place, and not close by ... We stay in touch and see each other from time to time ... whenever possible ... and however possible ... thank God for Skype ....

"keep your friends close harold".

[countmeworthy]

I don't know if the comment I'm about to make applies to this thread or not. I wrote the following about Paul's visit to Mars hill in an earlier post:


He looks around at all the idols..and begins his sermon with these words:
“Men of Athens, I notice that you are very religious in every way,for as I was walking along I saw your many shrines. And one of your altars had this inscription on it: ‘To an Unknown God.’ This God, whom you worship without knowing, is the one I’m telling you about.
“He is the God who made the world and everything in it. Since he is Lord of heaven and earth, he doesn’t live in man-made temples, 25 and human hands can’t serve his needs—for he has no needs. He himself gives life and breath to everything, and he satisfies every need.

I love this account because like Jesus, Paul didn't preach the same ole, same ole everywhere he went. The Thread of Gold was interweaved in every message of Hope Jesus gave. When I read Paul's message on Mars Hill, I thought he was simply brilliant. (Of course, he learned from the Very BEST: the Master JESUS!)

While Paul walked among the most educated Greek scholars and philosphers he took note of the statues. When he saw the inscription 'To an unknown god', I bet he had an "AW HAW" moment. He figured out a way to explain their innate need to worship GOD. [We here on the forum, know every human being has this inborn need to worship. If we don't get it right and worship the ONLY and ONE TRUE God, we will find something or someone to worship. Hindus build their grotesque 20 armed idols, Buddhists have their Buddah, Atheists worship themselves. Most people worship money, toys, etc...Let's not get technical. You guys are smart enough and know what I mean..]

So to my point:
For what ever reason, that particular account of Paul and the accounts of Jesus' Ministry have helped me to share the gospel in different ways. Since having left the LC and having attended a few churches, the altar call usually goes something like: If you're not sure you're going to heaven and want to be sure..come forward or raise your hand etc..

The Holy Spirit through the gospels, has shown me how Jesus did not use the same formula in reaching people. So I try to follow the Lord's example. (I've led more people to the Lord outside a church building setting. To God be the Glory and Praise. )
On a very few occassions Jesus spoke from the Jewish Temple. Most of the time, He mingled w/the people. Sometimes there were crowds of thousands and sometimes He spoke to a few. On a couple of occassions, He ministered One on one with no one but He and the person.

I think Paul received that revelation when he addressed the people on Mars Hill. So when I read how he used his sermon about 'the unknown god' to get the people's attention, I learned something. Then I went back and remembered how Jesus did not use the same formula in drawing people to God.

Landing the plane now.

Carol

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

"The Faith?" What a nebulous conception, with no solid or stable definition.

Shame on you for dissing faith. This opening line says a whole lot to me about Harold. Finally, you told us something that you "believe in," that is before you started pasting internet quotes of what others believe.

Hebrews 11.1 provides a "solid and stable definition" if there ever was one, accompanied with a whole chapter full of examples.

Without faith, God and His word appear as nonsense. And that's what you have been telling us all along.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Shame on you for dissing faith. This opening line says a whole lot to me about Harold. Finally, you told us something that you "believe in," that is before you started pasting internet quotes of what others believe.

Hebrews 11.1 provides a "solid and stable definition" if there ever was one, accompanied with a whole chapter full of examples.

Without faith, God and His word appear as nonsense. And that's what you have been telling us all along.

Sorry I wasn't clear bro Ohio. So it's my fault you mis-perceived. I was not talking about faith. I was talking about "The Faith." I think I did, however capitalize it. Mis-communication happens on forums. My bad.