To my friends in Alternative Views

[UntoHim]

Alt Views is back up and running again! (the good news)

(maybe not so good news) Alt Views has a new moderator: awareness (that's Mr. awareness to you)

awareness is intimately familiar with anything that would upset the Admin of the forum (in fact he practically majors in this discipline), however, as the moderator of this forum board.................................you will probably see no change at all.

Please give awareness all the due respect and consideration that you have lavished upon the previous moderator.

[zeek]

Wow my two year ban flew by! It seems like I was only gone a few days. And now Awareness is moderator. It seems that this Alternative Views is in an Alternative Universe.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Wow my two year ban flew by! It seems like I was only gone a few days. And now Awareness is moderator. It seems that this Alternative Views is in an Alternative Universe.

I agree, that was a quick two years on your ban. Surprisingly my calendar still reads 2015...I should change it right away. How time flies when you are having fun. I just don't feel two years older. We should track the forum until your ban was supposed to end in 2017.

This is wild but an interesting beginning with awareness as moderator. Knowing him he is likely to kick us off repeatedly for disagreeing with his ideas which while profound are rather sketchy at times or maybe I mean while they are rather sketchy they are profound at times.

I would like to know if awareness feels the power or the empowerment. Like superman he might land on this forum at any moment. We are awaiting his entrance as the new "moderator".....Let it be!

I would be remiss if I didn't thank UntoHim for figuring a way to keep Alt Vw alive and well, dismissing all bans and allowing freedom of thought on Alt Vw forum...of course we still remain concerned about being banned again and the limited ability to post on the open forum. Of course, UntoHim reserves the right to move our posts on the open forum to Alt Vw at any time which is disconcerting. We all have been in the LC and most of us have had Christian backgrounds before our involvement. This idea that there are all of these atheistic, agnostic etc forums out there where we can express our views is ridiculous considering the fact that we have been a part of the LC which is the NAME of this forum. Maybe, just maybe people who visit this forum would be heartened knowing that you don't have to jump into fundamentalist Christianity when you leave the LC or at least you could question the faith without ridicule. Wouldn't that be the realistic LCD? The problem is that there are several who would mock and deride those who would express those views. That's why Alt Vw is "coded" as zeek has noted.

UntoHim, I get it .... this is the best you can do...actually I think you can do better!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Alt Views is back up and running again! (the good news)

(maybe not so good news) Alt Views has a new moderator: awareness (that's Mr. awareness to you)

awareness is intimately familiar with anything that would upset the Admin of the forum (in fact he practically majors in this discipline), however, as the moderator of this forum board.................................you will probably see no change at all.

Please give awareness all the due respect and consideration that you have lavished upon the previous moderator.

My congratulations to MR. Awareness on his well-deserved promotion!

I'm hosting a little get together at my place tonight and all are welcome!

You can find me at my IP address. BYOB.

[awareness]

I'm not worthy.

Now that I'm the co-pilot I might fly this thing into the French Alps ...

And you'll get banned for not taking my personalty as your own.

I'm the MOTA - Moderator of the age.

[zeek]

I still want to see Alt Views opened up to all viewers without a password. Let members make their own decision about whether or not they get involved here. Didn't our experience in the local church make us value freedom more? Why not exercise that freedom here? Come on Mr. Moderator set Alt Views free.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I still want to see Alt Views opened up to all viewers without a password. Let members make their own decision about whether or not they get involved here. Didn't our experience in the local church make us value freedom more? Why not exercise that freedom here? Come on Mr. Moderator set Alt Views free.

I'm new to this. Don't know yet what my powers are, if any. Will be finding out today sometime. Let's have hope, UntoHim is quite a guy. He's full of surprises and infinite possibilities.

[UntoHim]

I really haven't talked with Harold about removing the password yet. What you guys need to understand that if this forum board is going to be out on the open forum, then the posts on it will have to conform more closely to the general theme of the forum. The reason I password protected Alt Views (and thus making the actual threads hidden from the open forum) was to create a board where off topic themes (politics, philosophy etc) could be discussed without becoming a distraction to the main missions of LCD. If Alt Views is to become a regular forum board, it would have to be more closely moderated, and I don't think you guys want that!

Again, just because Alt Views is password protected does NOT make it inaccessible to Forum members. They only have to take the simple step of getting the password, which I'm quite sure Harold will gladly give out to whoever requests it. I have tried to figure out how to put up a forum board description, but kind of gave up on it. I will spend some time the next day or so and figure out how to do that. Then people will have something more substantial to go on when considering whether or not to participate. Keep in mind, ALL the regulars of LCD already have the password and can view the threads.

Nothing is perfect, including LCD. I wish I could wave a magic wand and get every current and former LC member come and participate in our discussions. But alas, we must settle for what we have, and thus it is with Alt Views. It is not a perfect compromise between letting anyone post anything they want, or simply disallowing en mass the postings of those with "alternative views" to those of us who feel that orthodox, evangelical Christianity holds the answers for both current and former LC members. The only other alternative is for those with such alternative views is to start their own forum, and choose for that forum a mission(s) that suit their worldview and understandings of what might be helpful for current and former LC members. I am NOT suggesting, much less insisting, that you fellows take this course, but I also wouldn't discourage you either. If you did, I would gladly put up a permanent link on LCD, and encourage those with "alternative views" to participate in such a forum, although they would be welcome to post on LCD as well.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I really haven't talked with Harold about removing the password yet. What you guys need to understand that if this forum board is going to be out on the open forum, then the posts on it will have to conform more closely to the general theme of the forum. The reason I password protected Alt Views (and thus making the actual threads hidden from the open forum) was to create a board where off topic themes (politics, philosophy etc) could be discussed without becoming a distraction to the main missions of LCD. If Alt Views is to become a regular forum board, it would have to be more closely moderated, and I don't think you guys want that!

Again, just because Alt Views is password protected does NOT make it inaccessible to Forum members. They only have to take the simple step of getting the password, which I'm quite sure Harold will gladly give out to whoever requests it. I have tried to figure out how to put up a forum board description, but kind of gave up on it. I will spend some time the next day or so and figure out how to do that. Then people will have something more substantial to go on when considering whether or not to participate. Keep in mind, ALL the regulars of LCD already have the password and can view the threads.

Nothing is perfect, including LCD. I wish I could wave a magic wand and get every current and former LC member come and participate in our discussions. But alas, we must settle for what we have, and thus it is with Alt Views. It is not a perfect compromise between letting anyone post anything they want, or simply disallowing en mass the postings of those with "alternative views" to those of us who feel that orthodox, evangelical Christianity holds the answers for both current and former LC members. The only other alternative is for those with such alternative views is to start their own forum, and choose for that forum a mission(s) that suit their worldview and understandings of what might be helpful for current and former LC members. I am NOT suggesting, much less insisting, that you fellows take this course, but I also wouldn't discourage you either. If you did, I would gladly put up a permanent link on LCD, and encourage those with "alternative views" to participate in such a forum, although they would be welcome to post on LCD as well.

How can anything thing that ex-Local churchers do or choose to discuss be irrelevant to LCD? For it is all a testimony to the fact that there is a life of freedom after leaving the Local Church in which there are abundant opportunities to experience the God-given goods of life? That is the most powerful fact that those locked in the fear of a lie of misery or hell or 1000 years of weeping and gnashing of teeth can learn from ex-local churchers. It should not be suppressed from people by a password.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm not worthy.

Now that I'm the co-pilot I might fly this thing into the French Alps ...

And you'll get banned for not taking my personalty as your own.

I'm the MOTA - Moderator of the age.

Not 24 hours as a moderator and it has already gone to his head.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

How can anything thing that ex-Local churchers do or choose to discuss be irrelevant to LCD?

I sure hope my personal life is not open to discussion.

[UntoHim]

I was considering having my little terrier, Miss Zoe, take over as moderator, but I found out that she is a rock-ribbed fundamentalist and does not believe that a female should have authority over a male.
Nevertheless, I would like to nominate her to be the official mascot of Alt Views.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I sure hope my personal life is not open to discussion.

That's not fair game, and will likely be where I, and hopefully we, draw the line.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I was considering having my little terrier, Miss Zoe, take over as moderator, but I found out that she is a rock-ribbed fundamentalist and does not believe that a female should have authority over a male.
Nevertheless, I would like to nominate her to be the official mascot of Alt Views.

Accepted, but only if she wears a habit ... and a cowl for official services.

[UntoHim]

Sorry, when I tried all that she said "I'm not THAT much of a fundamentalist!"
We'll just have to settle for the bandanna for now.

[UntoHim]

Oh, and don't worry about Harold flying this thing into the side of a mountain, I have taken precautions so that he cannot lock me out of the cockpit. (but I can lock him out if I want)

Also, don't worry about him making any technical mistakes, like accidentally deleting a post, I can magically undo that (I think). However, if he accidentally edits a post when he really meant to quote you, well that's another story! As far as banning someone, well there is no way for someone who is a moderator of a forum board to do that without banning from the whole forum.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As far as banning someone, well there is no way for someone who is a moderator of a forum board to do that without banning from the whole forum.

WOW! That's a big hammer. Someone would have to tick us all off to deserve that. Forums can be self correcting by members. I've seen that.

[UntoHim]

All of you Alt Viewers, please put your heads together and come up with some sort of short description that can be placed for all to view. Make it as descriptive and enticing as you can!

[zeek]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

All of you Alt Viewers, please put your heads together and come up with some sort of short description that can be placed for all to view. Make it as descriptive and enticing as you can!

How about: Alternative Views --a forum where we are free from the yoke of fundamentalism until Bro. UntoHim changes his mind and bans us for two years only to change his mind again and allow us to return until he changes his mind again? I'm enjoying my new guest status by the way.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

How about: Alternative Views --a forum where we are free from the yoke of fundamentalism until Bro. UntoHim changes his mind and bans us for two years only to change his mind again and allow us to return until he changes his mind again? I'm enjoying my new guest status by the way.

Guests can say whatever they want but no one should listen to them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Guests can say whatever they want but no one should listen to them.

I think certain guests like zeek ought to wear a scarlet "Q" or something like that to show that they have been quarantined at some point.

We also should perform background checks and post their credit scores!

It's extremely important for me to know such things about other posters.

You can never be too sure about these things.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I was considering having my little terrier, Miss Zoe, take over as moderator, but I found out that she is a rock-ribbed fundamentalist and does not believe that a female should have authority over a male.
Nevertheless, I would like to nominate her to be the official mascot of Alt Views.

I was hoping instead that we could use this special moment to memorialize my late hiking companion "Sandy" .....

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think certain guests like zeek ought to wear a scarlet "Q" or something like that to show that they have been quarantined at some point.

We also should perform background checks and post their credit scores!

It's extremely important for me to know such things about other posters.

You can never be too sure about these things.

Scarlet Q, credit scores, pictures of dogs, awareness as moderator, former members relegated to Guest status. We seem to be losing our seriousness of thought and discussion of Christian thought and ideas. Where will it go next? Videos of lap dancers?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

Scarlet Q, credit scores, pictures of dogs, awareness as moderator, former members relegated to Guest status. We seem to be losing our seriousness of thought and discussion of Christian thought and ideas. Where will it go next? Videos of lap dancers?

It seems the number one thought of Christians is our faith in God which faith you seem to readily dismiss on a regular basis.

So if we step back for a moment from our "serious thought" for some lighter times, is that all you can think of as an "alternative" viewpoint is lap dancers?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It seems the number one thought of Christians is our faith in God which faith you seem to readily dismiss on a regular basis.

So if we step back for a moment from our "serious thought" for some lighter times, is that all you can think of as an "alternative" viewpoint is lap dancers?

ad hominem --- worst yet...having no sense of humor....moderator...wouldn't this fall under the rules for quarantining Ohio?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I was hoping instead that we could use this special moment to memorialize my late hiking companion "Sandy" ....

R.I.P. Sandy ... I've been told that when we go to heaven even our pets will be there.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Scarlet Q, credit scores, pictures of dogs, awareness as moderator, former members relegated to Guest status. We seem to be losing our seriousness of thought and discussion of Christian thought and ideas. Where will it go next? Videos of lap dancers?

So you are asking: How Alternative is this forum section going to be?

This thread is about friends, so it's fine if it goes a little hay-wire.

We're a new creation. It'll take a little time to get our footing.

Bro Dave, I elect you to come up with an announcement for Alt Views. To be published to promote it. Something that will make all exLCers, even those that have left the Christian tradition, and perhaps went into nothing, or into some other religion. Just a draft will do. I think, Yer da Man.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

ad hominem --- worst yet...having no sense of humor....moderator...wouldn't this fall under the rules for quarantining Ohio?

I recognize the tongue-in-cheek in the question.

But I also do not see the ad hominem. Ohio may not have provided evidence that you actually dismiss faith. But it seems that the characterization of the positions we take is exactly what the proper discussion/argument is about. Not entirely. But if the words seem to tell us something, that is what they are saying to us and what we will respond to. Right or wrong.

It would be nice to know what it is that you say that he is characterizing as a dismissal of faith. But I'm pretty sure that the first-pass reading of some of your posts has left me with the same sense. We may be wrong. And commenting on it now without directly providing an example that you can argue against is not entirely fair. It is now Ohio's impression from something not on the table that you can therefore not show how you actually meant something different than what he thought you meant.

Sometimes I seem to read the same thing. Then at others I find evidence that you are not entirely opposed to faith. So that does honestly cloud the meaning of the other posts.

But Ohio did not throw up a characterization of you as evidence that some position of yours is bad. He provided what he read to be an aspect of the position(s) that you have posited here. Fair game.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

So you are asking: How Alternative is this forum section going to be?

This thread is about friends, so it's fine if it goes a little hay-wire.

We're a new creation. It'll take a little time to get our footing.

Bro Dave, I elect you to come up with an announcement for Alt Views. To be published to promote it. Something that will make all exLCers, even those that have left the Christian tradition, and perhaps went into nothing, or into some other religion. Just a draft will do. I think, Yer da Man.

How about : Alternative views where the water of religion turns into the wine of chaos?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I recognize the tongue-in-cheek in the question.

But I also do not see the ad hominem. Ohio may not have provided evidence that you actually dismiss faith. But it seems that the characterization of the positions we take is exactly what the proper discussion/argument is about. Not entirely. But if the words seem to tell us something, that is what they are saying to us and what we will respond to. Right or wrong.

It would be nice to know what it is that you say that he is characterizing as a dismissal of faith. But I'm pretty sure that the first-pass reading of some of your posts has left me with the same sense. We may be wrong. And commenting on it now without directly providing an example that you can argue against is not entirely fair. It is now Ohio's impression from something not on the table that you can therefore not show how you actually meant something different than what he thought you meant.

Sometimes I seem to read the same thing. Then at others I find evidence that you are not entirely opposed to faith. So that does honestly cloud the meaning of the other posts.

But Ohio did not throw up a characterization of you as evidence that some position of yours is bad. He provided what he read to be an aspect of the position(s) that you have posited here. Fair game.

So your justification for Ohio's personal innuendo about Dave is that you have had the same thoughts about Dave yourself? That would work as an argument if you were incapable of personal innuendo, but inasmuch as you are human I kinda doubt that. Dave commented on the frivolous character of the discussion. Offended, Ohio's responded with an ad hominem.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

I recognize the tongue-in-cheek in the question.

But I also do not see the ad hominem. Ohio may not have provided evidence that you actually dismiss faith. But it seems that the characterization of the positions we take is exactly what the proper discussion/argument is about. Not entirely. But if the words seem to tell us something, that is what they are saying to us and what we will respond to. Right or wrong.

It would be nice to know what it is that you say that he is characterizing as a dismissal of faith. But I'm pretty sure that the first-pass reading of some of your posts has left me with the same sense. We may be wrong. And commenting on it now without directly providing an example that you can argue against is not entirely fair. It is now Ohio's impression from something not on the table that you can therefore not show how you actually meant something different than what he thought you meant.

Sometimes I seem to read the same thing. Then at others I find evidence that you are not entirely opposed to faith. So that does honestly cloud the meaning of the other posts.

But Ohio did not throw up a characterization of you as evidence that some position of yours is bad. He provided what he read to be an aspect of the position(s) that you have posited here. Fair game.

I'm not into using the word "faith" because just like the word "God" it has been so abused over the years that its meaning is clouded. Now someone is going to say I don't have faith but in my opinion experience supersedes faith. We also need to consider thought. In the end we only believe what we actually know to be true no matter what words we use.

Did Paul have faith until Jesus personally visited him in a profound way? He was blinded by his experience with Jesus. Paul never said that believers would have his experience but he preached about having faith in his experience (or faith in his experience of Jesus). I don't find that compelling. We use our personal experience as a point of faith for ourselves as well as others. (Note that this is why we recruited others to come into the LC as well convince us of its truth---those still in it have faith in the LC). We think that the problem is just the LC---if only we leave the LC but continue on the Christian faith all will be well. The problem is much deeper. Is it the problem of what we describe as "faith"?

I left the LC and decided I didn't want to convince anyone of anything anymore. I had brought in at least 30-40 of my relatives into the LC as well as others from campuses in SC and Detroit. I looked at what I had done and asked myself how I had been so blinded by my faith in the LC, WL or the scriptures. You might say, well, if only you had been just devoted to Jesus you would have been okay. Nonsense. Look at all the sincere Christians who came into the LC such as John Ingalls etc who were devoted to Christ and the Bible and were seekers of Christ. That was their problem because it led them to devoting (and wasting) many years of their lives to what they "believed" was the truth. It wasn't just following a man or a movement. It was following what they believed was an inerrant Bible for starters...which opens us up to all kinds of mischief.

Often, from my perspective, people are not seekers but say they have all the answers. One of my basic realities is that revelation is continuous which, for example, would indicate that no one has all the answers. I try to read posts with an open mind and heart but I often find redundancy and absolutism which makes it difficult to be forthcoming without being characterized as you have done or Ohio has done ...

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

So your justification for Ohio's personal innuendo about Dave is that you have had the same thoughts about Dave yourself? That would work as an argument if you were incapable of personal innuendo, but inasmuch as you are human I kinda doubt that. Dave commented on the frivolous character of the discussion. Offended, Ohio's responded with an ad hominem.

I absolutely was not nor did not.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I'm not into using the word "faith" because just like the word "God" it has been so abused over the years that its meaning is clouded.

That's how I feel about the word "love." I think we should strike it from the English language. Nobody even knows what the word means anymore. Hollywood ruined it. From now on you will not be hearing me talk about "love."

Originally Posted by Dave

Often, from my perspective, people are not seekers but say they have all the answers. One of my basic realities is that revelation is continuous which, for example, would indicate that no one has all the answers. I try to read posts with an open mind and heart but I often find redundancy and absolutism which makes it difficult to be forthcoming without being characterized as you have done or Ohio has done ...

Dave do you live in a little bubble with cyber connections? You regularly attempt to belittle those folks who treasure faith in God and His word, and then play the victim when challenged. Perhaps I can find a violin or a harp to comfort you.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I recognize the tongue-in-cheek in the question.

But I also do not see the ad hominem. Ohio may not have provided evidence that you actually dismiss faith. But it seems that the characterization of the positions we take is exactly what the proper discussion/argument is about. Not entirely. But if the words seem to tell us something, that is what they are saying to us and what we will respond to. Right or wrong.

It would be nice to know what it is that you say that he is characterizing as a dismissal of faith. But I'm pretty sure that the first-pass reading of some of your posts has left me with the same sense. We may be wrong. And commenting on it now without directly providing an example that you can argue against is not entirely fair. It is now Ohio's impression from something not on the table that you can therefore not show how you actually meant something different than what he thought you meant.

Sometimes I seem to read the same thing. Then at others I find evidence that you are not entirely opposed to faith. So that does honestly cloud the meaning of the other posts.

But Ohio did not throw up a characterization of you as evidence that some position of yours is bad. He provided what he read to be an aspect of the position(s) that you have posited here. Fair game.

Hey bro Ohio defended me, in a list of goofiness of which me as moderator was included.

Bro Dave was just wondering just how goofy this AltV's is gonna get ... especially with me at the wheel. Way to go bro Ohio. I need all the help and support I can get. Dave is right. I'm about as pathetic a moderator as it comes. What was UntoHim thinking? And why didn't OBW take the job? Was OBW not goofy enough to moderate AltV's?

But bro Dave is perfect for AltV's. The expressed mission of the main -- open -- forum is to provide a evangelical answer for those leaving the local church. It's UntoHim's burden.

Like Dave, I don't identify as a evangelical. But I support UntoHim in his mission. When I look back after the LC I see my attempts to go to evangelical churches as a stepping stone ; a softening of the loss of the LC life. We come out of a movement that we think is completely Bible based, and wish to carry on with that in some form from there.

Come to think of it, I saw the C. in Ft. Lauderdale dry up, attempting to go on in that way after parting from Witness Lee. It didn't hold.

And I've seen others after leaving the LC try to hold something together in an evangelical way. But the mojo is gone, in many, but not all, cases. John Ingalls and Bill Mallon come to mind. They were clergy before, during -- co-workers with Lee -- and after the local church ... as they still are today ... with some form of evangelicalism.

But how many of us have seen this, have seen things dissolve into strangeness after leaving the LC, for even those hanging within the boundaries, maybe loosely howbeit, of evangelical churchism?

Well AltV's very purpose is for those of us that have gone off in different directions.

We welcome the Dave's, and all others, that no longer hold to a narrow Christian view. I'd like to hear from, for example, some that have gone off to Buddhism.

And yes, their position is "fair game," as long as it is done in kindness and brotherly love. I promise, to the best of my ability, to treat any Buddhist with kindness and consideration. Else I'll have to ban myself ... a definite probability ... as my history proves. (UntoHim is crafty. He knows if he makes me a moderator then I'll have to be a good boy. Let's hope he's right.)

It may sound corny, but it's my goal as moderator, to engender brotherly love, between those of differences.

So bro Dave, and bro Ohio, please kiss and make up. As Peter Gabriel sang, "Kiss That Frog." Great video. Paula Cole is a perfect symbol of beauty -- like Dive and Ohio -- kissing the ugly frog (Dave and Ohio).

How's that for argumentum ad hominem?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I absolutely was not nor did not.

Then I misunderstood. You frequently make what appear to me to be oblique sarcastic statements the exact intent of which I have to guess. This was apparently an instance of that kind.

[zeek]

By the way, Mr. MOTA, where is the mission statement for LCD? I used to run into a mission statement and rules when I logged on. Now I couldn't find them after a brief search. It seems to me that the LCD mission statement might provide an apt point of departure for an Alt Views mission statement.

[OBW]

So your justification for Ohio's personal innuendo about Dave is that you have had the same thoughts about Dave yourself? That would work as an argument if you were incapable of personal innuendo, but inasmuch as you are human I kinda doubt that. Dave commented on the frivolous character of the discussion. Offended, Ohio's responded with an ad hominem.

If Ohio's post had been one that I saw as other than an at least partly joke in a string of jokes, and the comment about faith had been provided as a basis for dismissing a serious position offered by Dave, then I could see an ad hominem. I will agree that the statement about faith was a jab at Dave's comment (though somewhat comical) concerning "seriousness of thought and discussion of Christian thought and ideas." Ohio may have been more serious in that sentence than the other. But I can honestly say that I can see where he got the idea. Yet I have also seen where Dave seems to say otherwise.

He seems a little like me (in different ways). Not so easy to pin down. I have this serious thought that so much of the emphasis of the whole of evangelicalism/fundamentalism is simply way off the mark, and their worship is too loosey-goosey, yet I keep finding myself unable to think that up and moving is the right thing to do. I bet I have had some people really wondering about me.

One thing that is missed in all of this is that an ad hominem is not simply a statement against the person. It is a statement against the person used as a diversion from the actual argument. Since there was no true argument in play, but rather a string of sillier and sillier posts about a mascot for the sub-forum, there can be no ad hominem in the true sense in which it is used in the context of argument. It is a variant on a strawman. And propping up a straw man against nothing is really silly.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

If Ohio's post had been one that I saw as other than an at least partly joke in a string of jokes, and the comment about faith had been provided as a basis for dismissing a serious position offered by Dave, then I could see an ad hominem. I will agree that the statement about faith was a jab at Dave's comment (though somewhat comical) concerning "seriousness of thought and discussion of Christian thought and ideas." Ohio may have been more serious in that sentence than the other. But I can honestly say that I can see where he got the idea. Yet I have also seen where Dave seems to say otherwise.

He seems a little like me (in different ways). Not so easy to pin down. I have this serious thought that so much of the emphasis of the whole of evangelicalism/fundamentalism is simply way off the mark, and their worship is too loosey-goosey, yet I keep finding myself unable to think that up and moving is the right thing to do. I bet I have had some people really wondering about me.

One thing that is missed in all of this is that an ad hominem is not simply a statement against the person. It is a statement against the person used as a diversion from the actual argument. Since there was no true argument in play, but rather a string of sillier and sillier posts about a mascot for the sub-forum, there can be no ad hominem in the true sense in which it is used in the context of argument. It is a variant on a strawman. And propping up a straw man against nothing is really silly.

I'm not sure that there is not a proposition under debate and that Ohio's statement is not an argument in that debate.The debate about the character of the members may be a hidden subtext of many discussions on LCD. If that's true then Ohio's statement could be an argument that Dave's lap dancing joke is evidence of the depravity that results from Dave's lack of faith. Of course, Ohio says I'm absolutely wrong about what he meant, but he offered no clarification, so I can't be sure.

[awareness]

Oil and water. Devotion must stand against lack of devotion. It's as easy as that to explain the clash between bro Ohio and bro Dave. In the end, if reached, it may turn out to be a matter of perception.

As moderator, as crazy as that is, I'm glad to see hearts expressed.

But I should recuse myself. I'm friends with both Ohio & Dave, so I'd be inclined to infract bro OBW.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Dave do you live in a little bubble with cyber connections? You regularly attempt to belittle those folks who treasure faith in God and His word, and then play the victim when challenged. Perhaps I can find a violin or a harp to comfort you.

Here is my problem with Ohio's statement. He (not only him by the way) likes to characterize everything they say as "untouchable" (e.g. belittle...those who treasure faith in God and His word) and yet they denigrate what I express as important to me. It's a double standard. Second, my personal experience (relatives, friends, etc) of "those who treasure faith in God and His word" basically are those who watch Fox News, the 900 Club, like to quote a few Biblical verses etc, are prejudiced against minorities etc and quite frankly have limited interest in helping those in need. Obviously all are not in that category but the majority I know fit that context. There just seems to be this idea that a person can say, "I treasure God and His Word" and I'm supposed to be impressed that he/she is really devoted to God when it doesn't ring true. This is especially true when I see the rancor on this forum from those who espouse this statement.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm not sure that there is not a proposition under debate and that Ohio's statement is not an argument in that debate.The debate about the character of the members may be a hidden subtext of many discussions on LCD. If that's true then Ohio's statement could be an argument that Dave's lap dancing joke is evidence of the depravity that results from Dave's lack of faith. Of course, Ohio says I'm absolutely wrong about what he meant, but he offered no clarification, so I can't be sure.

The more I look at this, the more I see a misreading of yet another joke. This time on my part related to Dave's response. And if that was the case, "it was a joke" was all Dave had to reply with. It would have died if you had not come along to insist on the characterization of an ad hominem.

From my reading of the thread, it looks like you have an answer looking for a place to put it. And your stated concern about intent rather than what is actually said supports that. And the way you then presumed the same intent to slander Dave onto me for disagreeing with your assessment even further supports it.

If you can't live with what is actually posted and have to dig for intent, and insist on it despite statements of others to the contrary, then maybe the innuendo was on your part.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

The more I look at this, the more I see a misreading of yet another joke. This time on my part related to Dave's response. And if that was the case, "it was a joke" was all Dave had to reply with. It would have died if you had not come along to insist on the characterization of an ad hominem.

I too read Dave's statement as a joke. I didn't read Ohio's response as a joke. I didn't see where you made a joke. You might want to put a laughing emoticon on your post when you intend a joke because if you have ever intended to be funny, I think I probably missed it. You inserted yourself into the dialogue between Dave and Ohio. That may have helped to keep the issue alive too. We'll never know what would have happened if we had not commented on it. C'est la vie.

From my reading of the thread, it looks like you have an answer looking for a place to put it. And your stated concern about intent rather than what is actually said supports that. And the way you then presumed the same intent to slander Dave onto me for disagreeing with your assessment even further supports it.

My comments were suppositions...questions not answers.

If you can't live with what is actually posted and have to dig for intent, and insist on it despite statements of others to the contrary, then maybe the innuendo was on your part.

What was posted was ambiguous. I'm looking for clarification. I dare say that anytime we read we always look for the writer's intent. Intent is a synonym for meaning. Writing without intent is gibberish.

When you said:

"It would be nice to know what it is that you say that he is characterizing as a dismissal of faith. But I'm pretty sure that the first-pass reading of some of your posts has left me with the same sense. We may be wrong. And commenting on it now without directly providing an example that you can argue against is not entirely fair. It is now Ohio's impression from something not on the table that you can therefore not show how you actually meant something different than what he thought you meant."

I took you to be saying that according to your understanding of Ohio's remark you agreed with him.

Wasn't that an instance of you not "liv[ing] with what is actually posted and hav[ing] to dig for intent?

This is another case of Ohio coming on taking a potshot at someone and then withdrawing from dialogue. That's sniping not discourse. It's hostile which is how I perceive most if not all his input on Alt Views. Let me be clear that in general I don't find your posts that way. In this case I interpreted your statement as agreeing with him at least to some degree. Unless you had a private conversation with him, I don't know how you would understand what he meant any better than I did. For us to get beyond that, he'll have to come back clarify his intent. We can let it go, but I predict that sooner or later the issue will raise it's ugly head again, because it's evident that Ohio has an issue with the direction of the discussion on Alt Views. He's not alone, as UntoHim has had a problem with it too.

So, rather than avoiding it, we should discuss how ideology is related to behavior. To some members here atheist seems a dirty word. There is an implicit proposition that atheist=depraved. UntoHim has labeled several of us atheists, therefore we must be depraved. Something like that seems to be implied in Ohio's post. If that's the case, then let's not dance around it.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

So, rather than avoiding it, we should discuss how ideology is related to behavior. To some members here atheist seems a dirty word. There is an implicit proposition that atheist=depraved. UntoHim has labeled several of us atheists, therefore we must be depraved. Something like that seems to be implied in Ohio's post. If that's the case, then let's not dance around it.

That bro Ohio took umbrage with Dave's remark about lap dances is no surprise. Dave may have said it in jest, but he surely knew it would make eyeballs pop out.

Other than that my vote is to cut bro Ohio some slack. I think he knows that just because someone is a UU doesn't mean they're depraved.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

That bro Ohio took umbrage with Dave's remark about lap dances is no surprise. Dave may have said it in jest, but he surely knew it would make eyeballs pop out.

Other than that my vote is to cut bro Ohio some slack. I think he knows that just because someone is a UU doesn't mean they're depraved.

I am more than willing to cut Ohio some slack as soon as he stops his attacks ---his last statement in reference to me (is this not an "ad hominem" and OBW appears to be in denial)...Ohio states, "You regularly attempt to belittle those folks who treasure faith in God and His word, and then play the victim when challenged." He provides no supportive information...he appears to be just trying to run me down for no good reason.

When is this going to stop???

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think certain guests like zeek ought to wear a scarlet "Q" or something like that to show that they have been quarantined at some point.

We also should perform background checks and post their credit scores!

It's extremely important for me to know such things about other posters.

You can never be too sure about these things.

Here, on the other hand, Ohio's irony was pretty funny.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here, on the other hand, Ohio's irony was pretty funny.

Now now ... bro Ohio should "kiss that UU frog" ... and we should all sing Kumbaya....

And be done with this. After we're all suppose to be "friends" ... according to the Big Kahuna . . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here, on the other hand, Ohio's irony was pretty funny.

Thanks.

I took the chance to poke a few jabs at awareness to lighten up his first day as moderator. Obviously my comments about the scarlet letter and doing a background check on ole zeek were all in jest. They were in response to our new MOTA's equally outrageous comment, "Guests can say whatever they want but no one should listen to them."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Dave

I am more than willing to cut Ohio some slack as soon as he stops his attacks ---his last statement in reference to me (is this not an "ad hominem" and OBW appears to be in denial)...Ohio states, "You regularly attempt to belittle those folks who treasure faith in God and His word, and then play the victim when challenged." He provides no supportive information...he appears to be just trying to run me down for no good reason.

When is this going to stop???

It may never stop.

That statement was my honest assessment of many of your posts. Obviously you don't like it, but that's too bad. There are no ad hominems here anywhere. Should I then get offended by your retaliations?

Thanks for re-quoting my comment in your post. The more I read it, the more I agree with it. Sorry if it bothers you, but it honestly portrays you. Obviously you disagree, but try to take it as constructive criticism. You seem to have a serious attitude problem with the majority of Christians.

Zeek made the comment about me, "This is another case of Ohio coming on taking a potshot at someone and then withdrawing from dialogue. That's sniping not discourse." He is right. I do take occasional "potshots" and then don't discourse them to death. What's wrong with that? It has also happened to me far too many times to count. I just don't have the time or patience of Job (aka UntoHim) to listen to your endless prejudices.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You made the comment about me, "This is another case of Ohio coming on taking a potshot at someone and then withdrawing from dialogue. That's sniping not discourse." You are right. I do take occasional "potshots" and then don't discourse them to death. What's wrong with that? It has also happened to me far too many times to count. I just don't have the time or patience of Job (aka UntoHim) to listen to your endless prejudices.

I was the one who said that, not Dave. Obviously all liberals look alike here on LCD.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I was the one who said that, not Dave. Obviously all liberals look alike here on LCD.

Look alike, talk alike, write alike, think alike. Kind of like all'ya'all characterize Christians, conservatives, believers, bible readers.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Look alike, talk alike, write alike, think alike. Kind of like all'ya'all characterize Christians, conservatives, believers, bible readers.

Right, blame your mistake on others. At least your're consistent. And keep the hate going, Christian. Some people don't know how to wear it. But, it looks good on you.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, blame your mistake on others. At least your're consistent. And keep the hate going, Christian. Some people don't know how to wear it. But, it looks good on you.

No blame and no hate, but consistency is a good thing, isn't it?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

No blame and no hate, but consistency is a good thing, isn't it?

It depends on the context. It's bad to be consistently late to school but it's good to consistently do your homework. To consistently make sniping comments, not admit errors and blame others in order to avoid taking responsibility isn't good, IMO.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

To consistently make sniping comments, not admit errors and blame others in order to avoid taking responsibility isn't good, IMO.

You are right. And that's why I (and UntoHim) consistently challenge your comments about those things in the Bible that I hold dear.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Look alike, talk alike, write alike, think alike. Kind of like all'ya'all characterize Christians, conservatives, believers, bible readers.

That's an exaggeration. It's thumpers, Bible Thumpers, not readers.

I think I come by such characterizing of others from my time in the local church. And this just about summarizes it:


"Do not think that the Lord is in the circle of Protestantism. He is outside
the door. Judaism is Satanic, Catholicism is demonic, and Protestantism is
without Christ. They teach Christ's name, but He is not there. Do you really
believe that today the living Lord Jesus is in the Protestant churches?
Whether you believe it or not, the Lord says that He is outside the door."1

"The great Babylon is fallen. This is a declaration. Christianity is fallen,
Christendom is fallen, Catholicism is fallen, and all the denominations are
fallen. Hallelujah!"2

"The Lord is not building His church in Christendom, which is composed of the
apostate Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations. This
prophecy is being fulfilled through the Lord's recovery, in which the
building of the genuine church is being accomplished."3

"Christianity today is stranded on the sands of superstition, superficiality,
and lukewarm theology."4

1Witness Lee, The Stream Magazine, vol. 14, no. 4 (LSM, Nov 1976) p. 12
(emphasis added)

2Witness Lee, The Seven Spirits for the Local Churches (LSM, 1989), p. 97

3Witness Lee in The New Testament Recovery Version, Matthew 16:18, footnote 4
(LSM, 1991), p. 99

4Witness Lee, The Triune God's Revelation and His Move, pp. 97-99 (messages
given by Witness Lee in Anaheim, CA, Aug 23 to Dec 13, 1995)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

That's an exaggeration. It's thumpers, Bible Thumpers, not readers.

Once a reader of the Bible opens his mouth, there are those who would call him a "thumper."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Once a reader of the Bible opens his mouth, there are those who would call him a "thumper."

Then Bart Ehrman is the Bible Thumper's Bible Thumper. He's the king thumper ... the T.O.T.A. - Thumper Of The Age. Personally, by the stated standard above, given that we all quote Bible verses -- even bro Dave -- we're all Bible Thumpers.

What's yer point bro Ohio?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Look alike, talk alike, write alike, think alike. Kind of like all'ya'all characterize Christians, conservatives, believers, bible readers.

This is the difference between you (and UntoHim and others) and myself, zeek and awareness. You went back into the very same religion (denominations) you condemned when you were in the local church.

It's not that we didn't try to do the same thing but at least in my case I couldn't do it. I was in Bible College - AOG (Pentecostal) before I went into the LC and I tried the Pentecostal AOG (hallelujah, speaking in tongues etc) when I left the LC for at least a couple years. I was teaching Adult Sunday school, leading prayer at the church, leading every morning prayer meetings etc. I finally concluded that it wasn't what I wanted to be involved in.

I tried other churches but in the end I just wanted out because it was its own extremism---an extension of the same thing we had in the LC. One of the reason we probably don't see this, in my opinion, is because we look at all the other people who believe in it sitting in the pews. Wasn't that the initial problem with the LC...at the time there were all kinds of people coming in. Because of the intensity and commitment that many of us had in the LC we actually became closer to what was going on and the uncomfortable nature of the LC. If we just attended a couple times a week we wouldn't see it. Get as involved in a denomination as we were in the LC and in the end you will most likely see the problems. There are exceptions just as there were exceptions in the LC but I can't buy into exceptions.

In my case, I don't see a half-way in the Bible---you are all out or you are lukewarm. It's not about doctrines or the inerrancy of the Bible...anyone can talk about that or argue about it but what is your involvement in your denomination or Christianity? Whether it is preaching the gospel, praying, Bible study etc (they are all interrelated).

I would be curious as to how active you are in your denominational/home church--the Christian life. To me that is a better gauge of Christian belief than arguing about the "sacred" scriptures or the "inerrancy" on this forum, that is, unless your primary Christian mission is to preach the gospel to those on this forum who don't agree with you---please don't think that I am laying a trip on you---that is the last thing I would hope to do. I think for the most part you either know whether you are living what you espouse as the Christian life or not....I just couldn't regularly attend a Christian church unless I was "all in"---because that is what I knew as the Christian life before LC--during LC--after LC until I decided it was not the path I wanted to continue.

When I left the LC after having brought many others to Christ and into the LC i didn't want to talk with anyone to get them out. Why, I felt I had done enough in bringing people into something that I no longer believed was viable. I wouldn't want to bring someone out of what they believe but just consider that the journey I took is different than theirs. I understand that after John Ingalls and Bill Mallon were kicked out they started going around to others teaching the Bible but were asked...if you were so wrong all these years and got us involved in the LC and supported it ....why we would we listen to you now? That is how I felt and didn't want to approach others in regards to what I thought I knew or believed was so wonderful...of course, initially as I noted I went back into the denominations but I wasn't interested in bringing anyone into them myself.

In regards to myself and the others we hadn't made contact nor what journey we each had encountered for over 20 years but we ended up arriving at similar positions and not because we all belong to the same church or have the same thinking. It happened, from my perspective, because after leaving the LC none of us wanted to try and twist someone else's arm to believe the same thing we did (been there done that), we didn't want to have a set of beliefs which we could not question or were uncompromising, we didn't want to be a part of any Christian group which have their own twist on doctrines and practices, etc. We were all done with that part of our lives and wanted to move on.

All of us have each arrived at a similar place without having to join another Christian group and sing Kumbaya together and without traveling the same journey other than the familiarity of the LC. I am sure that there are fundamental Christians on this forum who are very dedicated to God, Christ, the Bible and their church and more power to them but it is not something I have any interest in pursuing.

When I left the LC, although it took me a few years to figure this out---I have no interest in being tied to any Christian denomination where I can't ask questions and have to accept everything unconditionally or else I am going to hell or worse. That people actually believe this is mind boggling especially those who have come out of the LC where WL preached that very few of us would get into the kingdom but we would have to go through a kind of purgatory. There are so many theories coming out of the Bible regarding end times whether we are Christians, unbelievers, pets etc. Good luck to us all.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You are right. And that's why I (and UntoHim) consistently challenge your comments about those things in the Bible that I hold dear.

I'm trying to understand what your saying here. The statements I make about things the Bible are propositions or hypotheses based on how I see them. I usually try to present evidence or arguments to back up my view point. I welcome "challenges" to my POV in the form of presenting different viewpoints, counter-arguments and evidence. But, that isn't what you or UntoHim have been doing. We're not in the LC anymore. There members would shout down anyone who said anything that differed from the party-line that they held "dear." You seem to be trying to do similar thing on the page. Because you "hold things in the Bible dear" when someone has a different view of those things you attack them personally. How are you different than anyone else? Everybody holds their own viewpoint "dear." They think their viewpoint is the best one or they wouldn't hold it. That doesn't that justify making snide comments about others when they disagree.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'm trying to understand what your saying here. The statements I make about things the Bible are propositions or hypotheses based on how I see them. I usually try to present evidence or arguments to back up my view point. I welcome "challenges" to my POV in the form of presenting different viewpoints, counter-arguments and evidence. But, that isn't what you or UntoHim have been doing. We're not in the LC anymore. There members would shout down anyone who said anything that differed from the party-line that they held "dear." You seem to be trying to do similar thing on the page. Because you "hold things in the Bible dear" when someone has a different view of those things you attack them personally. How are you different than anyone else? Everybody holds their own viewpoint "dear." They think their viewpoint is the best one or they wouldn't hold it. That doesn't that justify making snide comments about others when they disagree.

Don't you also hold your own viewpoints "dear," and that's why you think others are attacking you personally. It's like you live in a bubble where your ideas rule supreme without challenges. How are you different than anyone else? You think your views are the best, and are no different than what you accuse me of. Like Paul says in Romans 2.1, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't you also hold your own viewpoints "dear," and that's why you think others are attacking you personally. It's like you live in a bubble where your ideas rule supreme without challenges. How are you different than anyone else? You think your views are the best, and are no different than what you accuse me of. Like Paul says in Romans 2.1, "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things."

That was my point: that everybody holds their opinions dear. I thought it was obvious that "everybody" includes me. My question was that since that is the case, why do you make an issue of it? But, you couldn't pass up what you thought was an opportunity to play a vindictive little game of gotcha.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

That was my point: that everybody holds their opinions dear. I thought it was obvious that "everybody" includes me. My question was that since that is the case, why do you make an issue of it? But, you couldn't pass up what you thought was an opportunity to play a vindictive little game of gotcha.

If this whole thing is just a game to you, then I'd rather not play.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If this whole thing is just a game to you, then I'd rather not play.

You cited a Bible verse to pass judgment on me. You must be a lot of fun in a card game. Explain how I'm playing a game. I don't see it.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

I didn't see where you made a joke.

If you are referring to where I said "The more I look at this, the more I see a misreading of yet another joke. This time on my part related to Dave's response" then you misread (or I was not clear). I was referring to my possible misreading of Dave's initial response as other than a joke.

I did not say that I made a joke. Makes me wonder if you actually read my posts or just certain words to which you took exception.

I indicated in so many words that I read Ohio's post in two parts.

The first part was concerning a vague comment by Dave about the serious nature of the discussions on the Alt Views forum. Ohio noted that of the Christians he knew, faith was the more common topics of serious discussion, but that it seemed that Dave was often dismissive of faith. I have since noted that sometimes I had the same general observation, but that after reading other of Dave's posts, I could not arrive at the same consideration.

The second was about the mascot. And while it might be a light-hearted jab, the question about only being able to come up with "lap dancers" was prefaced as being part of the banter about a mascot for the group. I mean, a dog? Or lap dancers? Might as well suggest Yoda. All equally random.

Originally Posted by zeek

I took you to be saying that according to your understanding of Ohio's remark you agreed with him.

I did not say I agreed. But I did note that I could see where he got the idea. I note that Ohio only posts occasionally. That does not mean he only reads occasionally, but it could. Given the right timing, he could have arrived at that conclusion. I indicated that I was not sure that it was an accurate conclusion.

But making the observation out loud is not an ad hominem.

Yes, if I (and you) had just let it go, it would not have had this prominent position in the thread.

But the stated intent (by you) to remain doubtful of what both Ohio and I have said, including now stating that I said things that I did not say, makes me wonder about you, at least a little. Seems that if someone does not engage heavily in the discussions that they should keep it to themselves. Especially if they do not agree with your position. That may not be a fair assessment. But it does seem to come across that way.

Originally Posted by zeek

This is another case of Ohio coming on taking a potshot at someone and then withdrawing from dialogue. That's sniping not discourse. It's hostile which is how I perceive most if not all his input on Alt Views. Let me be clear that in general I don't find your posts that way. In this case I interpreted your statement as agreeing with him at least to some degree. Unless you had a private conversation with him, I don't know how you would understand what he meant any better than I did. For us to get beyond that, he'll have to come back clarify his intent. We can let it go, but I predict that sooner or later the issue will raise it's ugly head again, because it's evident that Ohio has an issue with the direction of the discussion on Alt Views. He's not alone, as UntoHim has had a problem with it too.

On one hand, I hear you. I have noted that he does take excessive personal offense if certain things he says is challenged. But at the same time, it is rather extreme to take the position that he is simply out to derail a conversation.

But it sounds more like Bilbo than Ohio. And if there is a Bilbo in this discussion, it would seem more like you — unable to accept what is said as meaning what it says and insisting on making something out of it. Bring up every instance in which slights you have perceived are amplified onto a current event, even to the extent of ridiculousness. Deny that what someone said is what they meant.

Originally Posted by zeek

So, rather than avoiding it, we should discuss how ideology is related to behavior. To some members here atheist seems a dirty word. There is an implicit proposition that atheist=depraved. UntoHim has labeled several of us atheists, therefore we must be depraved. Something like that seems to be implied in Ohio's post. If that's the case, then let's not dance around it.

And you are right on this one. At the same time, despite the fact that some who seem, or claim, to be atheist are welcome on this board, my understanding is that the purpose of the forum, no matter how hard you parse the words, was designed for sharing observations concerning the so-called Local Churches and providing resources for eventually leaving that system for those who would desire that.

But the open-endedness of "leave" did not mean that the intent was open to just any kind of leaving. Maybe you think that would be good. But the owner of the forum does not. He does intent that it be a help for finding a way back into a truly "normal Christian life," not a non-Christian life.

So he offered this alternative views section for that. And I agree that they are probably not playing by their own rules to allow the discussions in a mostly "out of sight" place then coming in and railing on the positions they have already hidden from view and threaten to shut it down. But they should not be denied to right to come in and argue against the atheist positions. Just not in ways that defeat the very allowance of the section.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

What's yer point bro Ohio?

I don't know about Ohio's point, but saying "Bible thumper" is much like the opposite kind of statement of something being "biblical" or declaring that the bible is "inerrant." It declares a position as either simply right or simply wrong just because it has been labeled.

Define "Bible thumper" tightly enough to have a meaning that is other than "those who bandy-about Bible verses as the answer to everything" and we can then accept it as a basis for dismissal of their position. But instead, it is a different kind of attempt to reach a conclusion without actually having evidence. We just have a label.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

If you are referring to where I said "The more I look at this, the more I see a misreading of yet another joke. This time on my part related to Dave's response" then you misread (or I was not clear). I was referring to my possible misreading of Dave's initial response as other than a joke. I did not say that I made a joke. Makes me wonder if you actually read my posts or just certain words to which you took exception.

Right. I misunderstood you.

[awareness]

To my friends in Alternative Views:

Fences do make for good neighbors ... but not for good forums.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

To my friends in Alternative Views:

Fences do make for good neighbors ... but not for good forums.

Only if you are on the wrong side of the fence.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

Only if you are on the wrong side of the fence.

There's not a right side. We're all on the wrong side, so to speak, cuz we're only human. And that's the worst you can about anyone, to rob Twain.

I'm concerned because we chased our bro Ohio away. Why? Because he thinks when we point out the failings of Christianity we're talking about him, or things dear to him.

Zeek has already denied it. And I can't speak for everyone. But by far and away I don't hate Christians. And certainly not bro Ohio.

But sad to say, and I mean really really really sad, I don't trust them. I've been tricked, lied to, stolen from, and misled, too many times, by those calling themselves, and appearing to be very devoted Christians.

Lord knows I love believers, and give every one of them a chance, but the years have taught me that they are no more trustworthy than non-believers.

Sad to say ... soooo very very sad to say ....

But I'd trust bro Ohio to take one for me. Even tho he's only human, with the same or similar flaws as the rest of us.

[zeek]

[Dave]

Originally Posted by awareness

There's not a right side. We're all on the wrong side, so to speak, cuz we're only human. And that's the worst you can about anyone, to rob Twain.

I'm concerned because we chased our bro Ohio away. Why? Because he thinks when we point out the failings of Christianity we're talking about him, or things dear to him.

Zeek has already denied it. And I can't speak for everyone. But by far and away I don't hate Christians. And certainly not bro Ohio.

But sad to say, and I mean really really really sad, I don't trust them. I've been tricked, lied to, stolen from, and misled, too many times, by those calling themselves, and appearing to be very devoted Christians.

Lord knows I love believers, and give every one of them a chance, but the years have taught me that they are no more trustworthy than non-believers.

Sad to say ... soooo very very sad to say ....

But I'd trust bro Ohio to take one for me. Even tho he's only human, with the same or similar flaws as the rest of us.

I've stayed involved despite the hits I have taken from Ohio and UntoHim. I've been upfront as to my position (Unitarian Christian) and have been beat about the head for having made that "confession". UntoHim has run us off the main forum for the most part even though we could provide some insight. We are on AltVw and there are going to be people who enjoy the dialogue we bring which is different or not. I don't think it matters whether you "love" believers or not. I would hope in the end we all respect each others opinion even though it can get testy at times....how can you sort out clarifications without disagreeing. Should we all sit around and agree with each other...b o r i n g.....?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Dave

I've stayed involved despite the hits I have taken from Ohio and UntoHim. I've been upfront as to my position (Unitarian Christian) and have been beat about the head for having made that "confession". UntoHim has run us off the main forum for the most part even though we could provide some insight. We are on AltVw and there are going to be people who enjoy the dialogue we bring which is different or not. I don't think it matters whether you "love" believers or not. I would hope in the end we all respect each others opinion even though it can get testy at times....how can you sort out clarifications without disagreeing. Should we all sit around and agree with each other...b o r i n g.....?

Maybe the conservatives [the ones that have labeled you, Aware and I liberals] are having difficulty making a rational defense of their faith because 1) they were ill-prepared to do so by Lee and his minions. After all, Lee's training was really all about learning his opinions. He did not place his teaching in the context of other theological or atheological and philosophical positions. By defining himself and his followers as outside Christianity he cut us off from most of the intellectual history of the church including the strongest rational arguments for it. 2) Although they are trying to hold onto their faith, it was probably shaken by the disappointment and disillusionment brought to them by their local Church experience. Now we come along and challenge their faith further. It's bound to provoke defensive emotional reactions and apart from OBW that is what I'm mostly perceiving from them. It seems to me that if a person's faith were strong, they would be able to talk about alternative views without going personal and attacking the people who hold them. Of course, by that criteria, even the Apostle Paul's faith wasn't strong since he sometimes impugned the morals of people who disagreed with him. Is Christianity just fundamentally antithetical to pluralism? As I pointed out elsewhere, according to the Gospels of Mark and Luke, Jesus wasn't because he said "He that is not against us is for us". There is much in other religions, philosophy and secularism that is not against the Christian faith. Can the conservatives accept that?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by zeek

Maybe the conservatives [the ones that have labeled you, Aware and I liberals] are having difficulty making a rational defense of their faith because 1) they were ill-prepared to do so by Lee and his minions. After all, Lee's training was really all about learning his opinions. He did not place his teaching in the context of other theological or atheological and philosophical positions. By defining himself and his followers as outside Christianity he cut us off from most of the intellectual history of the church including the strongest rational arguments for it. 2) Although they are trying to hold onto their faith, it was probably shaken by the disappointment and disillusionment brought to them by their local Church experience. Now we come along and challenge their faith further. It's bound to provoke defensive emotional reactions and apart from OBW that is what I'm mostly perceiving from them. It seems to me that if a person's faith were strong, they would be able to talk about alternative views without going personal and attacking the people who hold them. Of course, by that criteria, even the Apostle Paul's faith wasn't strong since he sometimes impugned the morals of people who disagreed with him. Is Christianity just fundamentally antithetical to pluralism? As I pointed out elsewhere, according to the Gospels of Mark and Luke, Jesus wasn't because he said "He that is not against us is for us". There is much in other religions, philosophy and secularism that is not against the Christian faith. Can the conservatives accept that?

NO! I have no faith in the Evangelical Fundamentalists whatsoever. Hopeless. This is not only from observations but from direct contact with my relatives, my wife's relatives, and others... Of course, I am referring mostly to the right wing Conservative Fundamentalists who, for example, would vote for a Mormon, listen to a Mormon (Glenn Beck) on Fox News for his opinions etc. I don't have any problem with Mormons but there is a major contradiction between their faith and specifically voting for someone who is part of a cult in their eyes. Oh, I forgot, after Romney met with Billy Graham the Billy Graham Assn took the Mormons off their web page where they had listed Mormons as a cult.

[rayliotta]

Perhaps the motto of the Alt Views forum could be, "Look, but don't touch."

[rayliotta]

From where I stand, the biggest problems with the "Lord's Recovery" (or whatever we, or they, choose to call it today) or less religious than they are social, or relationship-related.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

It seems to me that if a person's faith were strong, they would be able to talk about alternative views without going personal and attacking the people who hold them. Of course, by that criteria, even the Apostle Paul's faith wasn't strong since he sometimes impugned the morals of people who disagreed with him. Is Christianity just fundamentally antithetical to pluralism? As I pointed out elsewhere, according to the Gospels of Mark and Luke, Jesus wasn't because he said "He that is not against us is for us". There is much in other religions, philosophy and secularism that is not against the Christian faith. Can the conservatives accept that?

Reminds me of a rather roundabout way of saying what Rob Bell did several years ago. Something like "truth is truth no matter where you find it." And while I personally don't think that means that it is always wise to just go digging through just any source for the purpose of finding its collection of truth, it is equally wise to not dismiss it once found just because of its source.

If it is truth, even if not said in so many words, it will not contradict what is (or should be) believed from within the Christian faith. I noted some time back in reading (actually hearing in a podcast) something by either Socrates or Plato that needed only slight alteration to be something Paul said. It would be hard to tie it down again, but it was remarkable. But if it is true, it is true.

I agree that there is too much need by today's Christians to have unity in thought at a fairly detailed level. There should be more inclusiveness. But there is something that is unique to the Christian that is not found in the non-Christian. And that is faith in Christ. In that, Paul was adamant to keep those who would listen focused. Focused to "the faith" which is the core. That would be the means of salvation and living. But that is not the sum total of truth. I cannot immediately think where Paul "impugned the morals of people who disagreed with him." If you are referring to where he chastised some for trying to earn their salvation through OT rituals, that was more like freeing them from a bondage being put on them by others. If you are talking about where he speaks of their righteousness and/or morality, I'm not sure that simply letting everything be is the right answer, especially if it appears that everything is potentially going off the rails.

I'm not sure that what Jesus said about those that are not against us was concerning those who are simply not engaged or fully on the same page. You might argue that when Jesus said that, he was referring to the same people who will come and declare that they have done so much in Jesus' name but will be rejected. They should not be rejected now because they are not against. But at the judgment, whether they are "for" will be an issue for God to sort out. Yet if you are suggesting that simply because a different religion that believes in a different way/god, but you can find truth in their teachings are theoretically for us, I think you are misapplying the statement.

If you are talking about allowing anything inside of the fellowship of Christians just because there is truth there, I'm not sure that is a valid position. On the other hand, those who are outside of the fellowship of faith are among our neighbors and therefore deserving of all love and kindness that we would bestow upon ourselves. In that I believe that too many Christians, especially among the conservatives, are seriously deficient.

There is an odd kind of "dance" in this. Our living in and among the world should be as righteous as it is among ourselves as Christians (and some need to work on that). But the fellowship among Christians is not simply open to anyone who want to come despite having no desire to actually be among those who believe. Yet being gatekeeper to be sure that there are no errant beliefs, within or without the Christian faith, does not seem to be one of the needs. Not saying that there should be no teaching, admonishing, etc., toward unity in the faith. But there was a parable about a field of grain into which someone else threw some weeds. The command was to let the weeds stay and let the harvesters deal with it. So there is also a level in which we probably are not intended to try to keep our ranks pure.

I said a lot to say that there is a boundary to what is generally accepted within the Christian community. But that boundary should not be nit-picking over doctrines. Or even recognizing truth outside of the written words of the Bible. And if part of coming to this faith is to come among those who believe, observe, learn, consider, until you decide to believe for yourself or move on, then keeping unbelievers out seems a bit hypocritical. Yet that does not mean that we simply accept unbelievers as members.

It is complicated. And the typical approach to it mostly misses the important things in favor of the nit-picking.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Reminds me of a rather roundabout way of saying what Rob Bell did several years ago. Something like "truth is truth no matter where you find it." And while I personally don't think that means that it is always wise to just go digging through just any source for the purpose of finding its collection of truth, it is equally wise to not dismiss it once found just because of its source.

If it is truth, even if not said in so many words, it will not contradict what is (or should be) believed from within the Christian faith. I noted some time back in reading (actually hearing in a podcast) something by either Socrates or Plato that needed only slight alteration to be something Paul said. It would be hard to tie it down again, but it was remarkable. But if it is true, it is true.

Although a reasonable person must admit that they may not know the truth is, they don't suppose that the truth is actually different for the Christian than is for the non-Christian. There is one ultimate truth about everything whether we know what is is or not.

I agree that there is too much need by today's Christians to have unity in thought at a fairly detailed level. There should be more inclusiveness. But there is something that is unique to the Christian that is not found in the non-Christian. And that is faith in Christ. In that, Paul was adamant to keep those who would listen focused. Focused to "the faith" which is the core. That would be the means of salvation and living. But that is not the sum total of truth. I cannot immediately think where Paul "impugned the morals of people who disagreed with him." If you are referring to where he chastised some for trying to earn their salvation through OT rituals, that was more like freeing them from a bondage being put on them by others. If you are talking about where he speaks of their righteousness and/or morality, I'm not sure that simply letting everything be is the right answer, especially if it appears that everything is potentially going off the rails.

In Paul’s response to this in Galatians 1–2 he rants, curses his opponents, justifies his own apostleship by appealing to direct revelation, and argues that any of his converts who accept the view of his enemies will be cut off from Christ.

I'm not sure that what Jesus said about those that are not against us was concerning those who are simply not engaged or fully on the same page. You might argue that when Jesus said that, he was referring to the same people who will come and declare that they have done so much in Jesus' name but will be rejected. They should not be rejected now because they are not against. But at the judgment, whether they are "for" will be an issue for God to sort out. Yet if you are suggesting that simply because a different religion that believes in a different way/god, but you can find truth in their teachings are theoretically for us, I think you are misapplying the statement.

The judgment symbolizes ultimate justice. Given what little I know about the complexity of the human condition, that is unimaginable to me. Is it different for you or any other human being?

If you are talking about allowing anything inside of the fellowship of Christians just because there is truth there, I'm not sure that is a valid position. On the other hand, those who are outside of the fellowship of faith are among our neighbors and therefore deserving of all love and kindness that we would bestow upon ourselves. In that I believe that too many Christians, especially among the conservatives, are seriously deficient.

Based on what I said above, there can't be one truth for Christians and another for everyone else. If no one knows what the ultimate truth is that applies to Christians as well. The sickness of an insular parochial view of the truth that removes itself from dialectical relationship with society at large including science and rational debate was well demonstrated to me when I was in the LC. I won't willingly repeat the error.

There is an odd kind of "dance" in this. Our living in and among the world should be as righteous as it is among ourselves as Christians (and some need to work on that). But the fellowship among Christians is not simply open to anyone who want to come despite having no desire to actually be among those who believe. Yet being gatekeeper to be sure that there are no errant beliefs, within or without the Christian faith, does not seem to be one of the needs. Not saying that there should be no teaching, admonishing, etc., toward unity in the faith. But there was a parable about a field of grain into which someone else threw some weeds. The command was to let the weeds stay and let the harvesters deal with it. So there is also a level in which we probably are not intended to try to keep our ranks pure.

If by "dance" you may mean a dialectical relationship, I agree. Faith must be held in transparency with what can be known as true and in recognition of our ignorance. The Christian has no special truths to appeal to. What we believe about things is no more probable for us then for anyone else. Christian faith doesn't warrant a special epistemological privilege.

I said a lot to say that there is a boundary to what is generally accepted within the Christian community. But that boundary should not be nit-picking over doctrines. Or even recognizing truth outside of the written words of the Bible. And if part of coming to this faith is to come among those who believe, observe, learn, consider, until you decide to believe for yourself or move on, then keeping unbelievers out seems a bit hypocritical. Yet that does not mean that we simply accept unbelievers as members.

That's a purely practical human matter. I wish it were recognized as such. Then perhaps the worst crimes of exclusivism could be avoided. There is no basis in ultimate truth on which to make such decisions. Historically this is where groups go wrong because practitioners think they know. They mistake creed with knowledge. They mistake their judgment with God's. It is the principle source of religious persecution. It is the foundation of "us vs. them"--the basis of war right up to the present moment. It may be unavoidable but the world is worse for it and , sadly, insofar as Christianity does the same thing, it creates and participates in the world system as it is. So, it seems to me, Jesus' kingdom of God is antithetical to a visible institutional church.

[OBW]

I spliced two disjointed parts on one subject together here.

Originally Posted by zeek

Although a reasonable person must admit that they may not know the truth is, they don't suppose that the truth is actually different for the Christian than is for the non-Christian. There is one ultimate truth about everything whether we know what is is or not.

. . . .

Based on what I said above, there can't be one truth for Christians and another for everyone else. If no one knows what the ultimate truth is that applies to Christians as well. The sickness of an insular parochial view of the truth that removes itself from dialectical relationship with society at large including science and rational debate was well demonstrated to me when I was in the LC. I won't willingly repeat the error.

Can't disagree here. Truth is truth. Even in a postmodern world. I am willing to accept the view of someone who has not, or will not, accept something that is simply true as meaning that it is "not true for them." I am not agreeing with the idea that truth is personal, but agreeing that if they don't see it as true, then arguing about its all-encompassing status as true is pointless.

And yet we find all kinds of people who have come to assert that things are true when others assert that it is not. And as long we are talking about the things that are a matter of faith, or even of morals, there will be disagreements as to what is true. There are always the arguments of situational ethics, like it is OK to steal if you are hungry. Others carry those much further.

And without something that makes it ultimately be one way and not another (like a God), there may actually be some things that are not absolutely true for all.

When you say that there is nothing that is true for a Christian that is not true for others, I agree. But if the others don't agree, then there are two views of truth. We have faith that there is a God that ultimately decides (and we think we know what he thinks on the subject). If we are right, then there is an absolute truth. If we are not, or if the actual God is Buddha, then we may not be. If there is no God, then maybe there are areas in which there is no absolute truth. Just the truth as administered by the government in the area.

Originally Posted by zeek

In Paul’s response to this in Galatians 1–2 he rants, curses his opponents, justifies his own apostleship by appealing to direct revelation, and argues that any of his converts who accept the view of his enemies will be cut off from Christ.

First, I do not find where he curses anyone. And while he does appeal to direct revelation, he also refers to the acceptance of his position by the original apostles. On the rest I cannot agree in the way you have stated it.

Originally Posted by zeek

The judgment symbolizes ultimate justice. Given what little I know about the complexity of the human condition, that is unimaginable to me. Is it different for you or any other human being?

The judgment is exactly that. And it is no different for me than for anyone else. But it seems that this is not specifically what I was talking about. It was the difference in our understanding of the context of who is being spoken of in the reference by Jesus to who is not against us is for us. I don't know what the answer is, but I do sense a boundary in the who that is being referred to. Yet a broader boundary could be argued. I just gave my 2 cents on the subject.

It would not be unreasonable to assert that if the Buddhists are not against us, then they are for us. But why might I make that statement? As an absolute statement about the eternal position of Buddhists? Or to assure the followers that they do not have so many enemies "out there." In other words, don't make enemies out of those who are not making themselves enemies. For a religion in which you are to love your neighbor, that is somewhat different than saying that everyone is "in" that doesn't declare themselves "out."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

We have faith that there is a God that ultimately decides (and we think we know what he thinks on the subject).

What is this entity that "ultimately decides" and what do you know that "he thinks" on the subject?

If we are right, then there is an absolute truth. If we are not, or if the actual God is Buddha, then we may not be. If there is no God, then maybe there are areas in which there is no absolute truth. Just the truth as administered by the government in the area.

Doesn't it seem strange to you that the creator of the universe would be a human being? Only tradition makes that seem any less strange about Buddha or some other person than about Jesus. I see the whole New Testament is an attempt to put into words the experience of those who felt that they had somehow experience the divine through Jesus. It seems to me that when we take that experience and make it into concrete metaphysical propositions, the resulting propositions are absurd and unsupportable and the experience invalidated. If I'm wrong about this, please show me how it's done.

First, I do not find where he curses anyone. And while he does appeal to direct revelation, he also refers to the acceptance of his position by the original apostles. On the rest I cannot agree in the way you have stated it.

You are referring to Galatians, right? Chapter 1:8-9 "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. Chapter 5:10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine; and he who is troubling you will bear his judgment, whoever he is. 5:12 I wish those who unsettle you would mutilate themselves!

In Galatians Paul tells a story about his conflict with the Apostle Peter. The New Testament doesn't give us Peter's version of the event. Acts describes a controversy between Paul and the Apostles in Jerusalem. Again we get the story only from Luke who is obviously a partisan of Paul's. The Epistle of James points to conflict between Paul and the author which neither Luther nor Witness Lee nor many other Bible scholars over the years have been able to reconcile.

The judgment is exactly that.

Exactly what? A guy in a robe? A courtroom. A pronouncement of guilt or innocence? A sentencing? Is your understanding at bottom literal and anthropomorphic? If so, how do you justify this?

And it is no different for me than for anyone else. But it seems that this is not specifically what I was talking about. It was the difference in our understanding of the context of who is being spoken of in the reference by Jesus to who is not against us is for us. I don't know what the answer is, but I do sense a boundary in the who that is being referred to. Yet a broader boundary could be argued. I just gave my 2 cents on the subject. It would not be unreasonable to assert that if the Buddhists are not against us, then they are for us. But why might I make that statement? As an absolute statement about the eternal position of Buddhists? Or to assure the followers that they do not have so many enemies "out there." In other words, don't make enemies out of those who are not making themselves enemies. For a religion in which you are to love your neighbor, that is somewhat different than saying that everyone is "in" that doesn't declare themselves "out."

Interesting that you mention Buddha in this context. Jesus may well have been thinking of someone like Buddha when he said ""He that is not against us is for us". Just look at the sayings of Jesus and those of Buddha and it is evident that Jesus and Buddha were very much on the same page.

Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Jesus

Consider others as yourself.
Buddha

If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also.
Jesus

If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words.
Buddha

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. From anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold
Even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again.
Jesus

Hatreds do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love; this is an eternal truth…Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good. Overcome the misery by giving, overcome the liar by truth.
Buddha

Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.
Jesus

Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword.
Buddha

Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.
Jesus

If you do not tend one another, then who is there to tend you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick.
Buddha


The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.
Jesus

Do not underestimate good, thinking it will not affect you. Dripping water can fill a pitcher, drop by drop; one who is wise is filled with good, even if one accumulates it little by little.
Buddha

Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, “Friend, let me take the speck out of your eye,” when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.
Jesus

The faults of others are easier to see than one’s own; the faults of others are easily seen, for they are sifted like chaff, but one’s own faults are hard to see. This is like the cheat who hides his dice and shows the dice of his opponent, calling attention to the other’s shortcomings, continually thinking of accusing him.
Buddha

Your eye is the lamp of your body. If your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light; but if it is not healthy, your body is full of darkness.
Therefore consider whether the light in you is not darkness. If then your whole body is full of light, with no part of it in darkness, it will be as full of light as when a lamp gives you light
with its rays.
Jesus

As a man with eyes who carries a lamp sees all objects, so too with one who has heard the Moral Law. He will become perfectly wise.
Buddha

Your father in heaven makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.
Jesus

That great cloud rains down on all whether their nature is superior or inferior. The light of the sun and the moon illuminates the whole world, both him who does well and him who does ill, both him who stands high and him who stands low.
Buddha

See these and many more parallels between Jesus and Buddha @ http://www.malibuchronicle.com/excer...y-marcus-borg/

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

What is this entity that "ultimately decides" and what do you know that "he thinks" on the subject?

First, "this entity that ultimately decides" is called "God." I said that. I did not say I know what he thinks. I said we think we know what he thinks. That leaves the door open for stupidity on our part.

Originally Posted by zeek

Doesn't it seem strange to you that the creator of the universe would be a human being? Only tradition makes that seem any less strange about Buddha or some other person than about Jesus. I see the whole New Testament is an attempt to put into words the experience of those who felt that they had somehow experience the divine through Jesus. It seems to me that when we take that experience and make it into concrete metaphysical propositions, the resulting propositions are absurd and unsupportable and the experience invalidated. If I'm wrong about this, please show me how it's done.

First, what has been said about God/Jesus is not that God is a man, but that God, in Jesus, put on flesh to be a man for a period. That is different than saying that God is a human being.

As for the metaphysical propositions, that is the reason that there is faith involved. I'm not sure how you do that concerning a thing/being that is not within the bounds of the world with which we have the ability to study, consider, and posit concerning being.

Originally Posted by zeek

You are referring to Galatians, right? Chapter 1:8-9 "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before . . . .

My translation did not state it as Paul's curse on whoever, but a reference that I would read as being God's right/position to curse — which of course he can determine not to do. That surely showed that it was Paul's consideration that God would likely do as he suggested. But it was not Paul's incantation of a curse.

But it is possible that this is just one of competing understandings and the one used in the translation I was reading more or less reliable.

Referring to the judgment:

Originally Posted by zeek

Exactly what? A guy in a robe? A courtroom. A pronouncement of guilt or innocence? . . . .

That which is referred to within the Bible as "the day" or "the judgment." I don't find cause to dig around to define that for you. Either I was not as clear as I thought or you are blowing smoke.

Originally Posted by zeek

Interesting that you mention Buddha in this context. Jesus may well have been thinking of someone like Buddha when he said ""He that is not against us is for us".

I will leave the quotes from Buddhist texts as evidence that truth is truth wherever you find it. The fact of similarity should not be unexpected because even Paul said that there is knowledge of truth born into us.

But saying that something said by a Buddhist is true (without ever reading or hearing a Christian text or statement) is not the same as saying "he who is not against us is for us." The reference in Mark 9 has a context. It is not a generic statement concerning those who do not attack Jesus and his followers, or that make similar statments of truth. It is a statement concerning those who claim the name of Jesus but were not seen as being part of the group following Jesus. In todays' context it might be like finding that some from the RCC are truly performing miracles in the name of Jesus and a bunch of charismatics declaring that they are not of the charismatics, therefore they should stop. It might seem nice to expand the scope of the statement, but it has a context and it is not so broad.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, "this entity that ultimately decides" is called "God." I said that. I did not say I know what he thinks. I said we think we know what he thinks. That leaves the door open for stupidity on our part.

Of course, I understood you were referring to God. I hoped you would explain what God is. The "we" threw me. I do not think I know what God thinks. The universe has thoroughly outstripped my imagination. Whatever its source [if indeed it has a source] is completely beyond my comprehension. Why is there anything and not nothing? Being itself is the ultimate miracle.

First, what has been said about God/Jesus is not that God is a man, but that God, in Jesus, put on flesh to be a man for a period. That is different than saying that God is a human being.

Is that what incarnation means? That kind of suggests docetism to me. If he just "put on flesh" then do you suppose he wasn't 100% human? "Different" you say? So you're saying God was not a human being?

As for the metaphysical propositions, that is the reason that there is faith involved. I'm not sure how you do that concerning a thing/being that is not within the bounds of the world with which we have the ability to study, consider, and posit concerning being.

Typically it is done by supposing that there is a supernatural realm [call it heaven or some such] which exists unobservable to ordinary sensation...a spiritual world as it were. Surely you have heard of some such metaphysical realm somewhere along the line.

My translation did not state it as Paul's curse on whoever, but a reference that I would read as being God's right/position to curse — which of course he can determine not to do. That surely showed that it was Paul's consideration that God would likely do as he suggested. But it was not Paul's incantation of a curse. But it is possible that this is just one of competing understandings and the one used in the translation I was reading more or less reliable.

What translation are you reading that obfuscates the curse in those verses?

Referring to the judgment:That which is referred to within the Bible as "the day" or "the judgment." I don't find cause to dig around to define that for you. Either I was not as clear as I thought or you are blowing smoke.

Your answer is circular. Seems you don't know what the judgment is. Is "don't find cause" a euphemism for "I don't know?" No shame in that. I don't either. I haven't found anyone who does. So you're not alone. But, I haven't stopped asking because, who knows, maybe somebody eventually will.

Meanwhile, the eschatological "last judgement" seems to be at least a symbol for ultimate justice by way of analogy to the judicial act of a human king. Don't you agree?

I will leave the quotes from Buddhist texts as evidence that truth is truth wherever you find it. The fact of similarity should not be unexpected because even Paul said that there is knowledge of truth born into us.

An idea he would have learned from Plato's Meno if he was as educated as he claimed.

But saying that something said by a Buddhist is true (without ever reading or hearing a Christian text or statement) is not the same as saying "he who is not against us is for us." The reference in Mark 9 has a context. It is not a generic statement concerning those who do not attack Jesus and his followers, or that make similar statments of truth. It is a statement concerning those who claim the name of Jesus but were not seen as being part of the group following Jesus. In todays' context it might be like finding that some from the RCC are truly performing miracles in the name of Jesus and a bunch of charismatics declaring that they are not of the charismatics, therefore they should stop. It might seem nice to expand the scope of the statement, but it has a context and it is not so broad.

You selected the narrowest of all possible interpretations. If Jesus really wanted to make your sense of the saying unambiguously clear he could have qualified his actual words with the phrase "and claim my name." But, he did not. Why do you suppose that was?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

Of course, I understood you were referring to God. I hoped you would explain what God is. The "we" threw me. I do not think I know what God thinks.

I thought that explaining God in the abstract, extrapolating beyond the text, was something I had already suggested that I was not that interested in (in so many words). As for "we," it is a generic referring to man, or at least Christians, in general, not to any particular person. I find myself with you in not thinking I know. But you hear the opposite from a lot of people. They seem so sure. They have taken WWJD to the level of fine detail.

Originally Posted by zeek

What translation are you reading that obfuscates the curse in those verses?

I typically use BibleGateways.com for my verse references, and often the NIV. But not always. Sometimes I have been looking through different translations and it gets left on another translation and I don't notice which one. But probably NIV.

But I have always read the passage as being similar to Jesus' use of extremes — love v hate — to clarify what is truly more of an exercise in ordering, not in rejecting/hating. So I have not read the "curse" as being the kind of extreme that you are suggesting. Yet you could be right. But it seems more like a desire to make it clear that certain teachings are simply contrary to what Paul had taught and should be rejected, not an opportunity to put someone down.

Originally Posted by zeek

Your answer is circular. Seems you don't know what the judgment is. Is "don't find cause" a euphemism for "I don't know?" No shame in that. I don't either . . . . Meanwhile, the eschatological "last judgement" seems to be at least a symbol for ultimate justice by way of analogy to the judicial act of a human king. Don't you agree?

I'm just saying that the full meaning of the term judgment when used in the scripture in the way that I used it is of a final ruling on a person's life. It is probably best described in the manner that you have. But it is not simply anything specific — at least not that we know. Could be. I just chose to let the terms be as they are in the Bible and not try to wash my reading over it. That is not circular. Just respect for what is there without finding it and repeating it. I did not think I needed to provide what the Bible said concerning it for you if I was not going to add more.

Originally Posted by zeek

You selected the narrowist of all possible interpretations. If Jesus really wanted to make your sense of the saying unambiguously clear he could have qualified his actual words with the phrase "and claim my name." But, he did not. Why do you suppose that was?

I have changed my lens over the past several years. Previously, I was always looking to find more than what was really there. And context was almost always ignored. Because of my realization of the kinds of errors we got into by letting Lee not only ignore context, but even openly disregard it and declare words as being somewhat meaningless until he gave his 2 cents on them, I now try to be very aware of the context and insist on a reason to ignore it and take on a wider view. While that leaves the absolute certainty up in the air, it does provide an anchor that has basis rather than an open-endedness that is limited only by the imagination. If our imagination is intended to be the limiting factor on reading words that are written, then the postmodern notion of saying writings are meaningless until I give them my meaning is all you are left with. And nothing means anything substantial because we all just come to our own conclusions and leave it at that. My truth v your truth.

Of course, the very idea of what is the context is itself not a certainty. Going back to the references to Paul cursing those preaching differently, is the context a verse, a couple of sentences, the whole of almost 2 chapters, or somewhere in between. That can sway how we read things. And I am prone to opening the window more than in the past because the fortune cookie approach to context and interpretation is prone to effectively eliminating context. The other extreme could be just as bad. But I think that the way that so much of the Bible was written argues for reading as narrative, or at least cohesive thoughts that span significantly more than one verse.

[awareness]

OBW, I'd respond to your great response to me but don't wish to take your conversation with zeek off its topic.

BTW, Buddha says that there is no need to leave your cradle religion to be a Buddhist, that, Buddhahood is in all. So Buddha, who came 500 yrs before Jesus, would not in the least have been against Jesus. They would have likely been buddies. And there is a likelihood that Jesus was exposed to the Buddhists of his day before starting his ministry. So the parallels that zeek draws, between Buddha and Jesus, may have had some direct causation.

We just don't have any gospels written by Buddhists. They were all written by Hellenized Jews ... apparently ... who may have robbed some from, or plagiarized, Buddhists ... without citation.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

OBW, I'd respond to your great response to me but don't wish to take your conversation with zeek off its topic.

BTW, Buddha says that there is no need to leave your cradle religion to be a Buddhist, that, Buddhahood is in all. So Buddha, who came 500 yrs before Jesus, would not in the least have been against Jesus. They would have likely been buddies. And there is a likelihood that Jesus was exposed to the Buddhists of his day before starting his ministry. So the parallels that zeek draws, between Buddha and Jesus, may have had some direct causation.

We just don't have any gospels written by Buddhists. They were all written by Hellenized Jews ... apparently ... who may have robbed some from, or plagiarized, Buddhists ... without citation.

Not sure there is still much of a discussion. Not that I am trying to weasel out of anything, but it seems to have mostly run its course.

As for the comment on "Buddhahood," I don't have much to say. My only comment would be that looking into Buddhist writings to find truth would not be something that I would seek to do. Not necessarily because I think it is a waste of time, but because at this point in my life, seeking to understand other world religions better is not something I feel a need to engage in. And I don't have the time for it. I hardly have the time I take to come here to this forum. I keep being about to leave every week or so. Mostly when it gets quiet. Or the topics are not really related to issues of interest (to me).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure there is still much of a discussion. Not that I am trying to weasel out of anything, but it seems to have mostly run its course.

That's a pity. I was enjoying "watching" the ping pong.

Originally Posted by OBW

As for the comment on "Buddhahood," I don't have much to say. My only comment would be that looking into Buddhist writings to find truth would not be something that I would seek to do. Not necessarily because I think it is a waste of time, but because at this point in my life, seeking to understand other world religions better is not something I feel a need to engage in. And I don't have the time for it. I hardly have the time I take to come here to this forum. I keep being about to leave every week or so. Mostly when it gets quiet. Or the topics are not really related to issues of interest (to me).

Well then, for whatever it's worth -- prolly nothing -- I provided a tidbit of info about Buddhahood, and saved you perchance from wasted time.

You are welcome.

But what's this about weaseling? So far I take that you are a man that has made up his mind, but hasn't entirely closed it. Do you still have hunger, both mental and spiritual? You're on this forum, and even AltVs, so need I even ask?

But even with your great intellect, or because of it, it is very hard to pin down just what you've made your mind up on. It's intriguing. Please don't go away ... and leave us hanging.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not sure there is still much of a discussion. Not that I am trying to weasel out of anything, but it seems to have mostly run its course.

As for the comment on "Buddhahood," I don't have much to say. My only comment would be that looking into Buddhist writings to find truth would not be something that I would seek to do. Not necessarily because I think it is a waste of time, but because at this point in my life, seeking to understand other world religions better is not something I feel a need to engage in. And I don't have the time for it. I hardly have the time I take to come here to this forum. I keep being about to leave every week or so. Mostly when it gets quiet. Or the topics are not really related to issues of interest (to me).

Back in 2007 I gave a talk on Tibetan Buddhism http://www.nrdp.net/uufsa/speakers/dp/ I wasn't interested in becoming Buddhist nor do I have any desire to engage their ideas but one of our speakers had changed from a Baptist Minister to Tibetan Buddhism and it piqued my interest. My discovery: don't hold your breath on Buddhism having any real solutions. Yes, there are individuals who are remarkable but they are not common. It's like the local church...following these remarkable leaders will supposedly lead you in the true path. Good luck. You can listen to the talk or read it if you have any interest.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

So far I take that you are a man that has made up his mind, but hasn't entirely closed it. Do you still have hunger, both mental and spiritual? You're on this forum, and even AltVs, so need I even ask?

But even with your great intellect, or because of it, it is very hard to pin down just what you've made your mind up on. It's intriguing. Please don't go away ... and leave us hanging.

I hope that you are accurate in these statements.

My mind is relatively closed overall. Meaning that I am a Christian. Despite being OK with these discussions that look elsewhere, I will try to argue (reasonably, I hope) in line with what I think is true.

But I have some significant questions concerning the overarching view of the Bible by almost all within the Evangelical side of the Protestant branch of Christianity. Not only the issue of inerrancy. And the conservative politics (I'm conservative, but not like the political among them). Also the overall view of the gospel. Evangelicalism seems to think that the Bible is all about preaching the gospel of salvation through faith/belief in the death and resurrection of Christ.

But Jesus taught a lot about living before he went through that ordeal. That does not diminish the importance of the cross. But it was not the sum total of his teaching. And he did not teach that everyone who believes should be a disciple in the way that the 12 were. Or even the slightly more distant group that comprised the 70 that were sent out. Rather, the bulk of the public teaching was on living. The private teaching was on leadership. I see a break in the teaching and to simply assert that everything is for everyone, followed by ignoring the parts that were clearly for the flock, is to miss the whole of the ministry of Christ.

We are so prone to exalting heroes of extraordinary religious activity, but ignore those who are examples of ordinary living in accordance with the teachings of Christ. It creates for too many the idea that the only thing that we "do for Christ" is in evangelism, mission trips, being a missionary or preacher, etc. It marginalizes the flock in favor of the shepherds. It chastises sheep for being sheep and not shepherds. Not intentionally. But it still does it.

And for many of us, having a system in which we were encouraged to participate made us feel more like we were important and not just spectators. But teachers should teach and the students should learn. There is nothing dishonorable in that. Getting to chose a song (which I understand is essentially a thing of the past) made us feel like we were directing the meeting. But was that ever intended to be our gift?

And not just talking about the LCM. Is being an active preacher of the gospel everyone's calling? Do we presuppose that this is one of the gifts that is given to everyone? Then maybe we should argue that every gift is given to everybody and we should simply be self-teaching, self-motivating, fully righteous examples of the full-grown man.

I don't know where this shakes out or what the balance is. But it is truly out of balance right now. At least from my viewpoint in the cheap seats.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

I thought that explaining God in the abstract, extrapolating beyond the text, was something I had already suggested that I was not that interested in (in so many words). As for "we," it is a generic referring to man, or at least Christians, in general, not to any particular person. I find myself with you in not thinking I know. But you hear the opposite from a lot of people. They seem so sure. They have taken WWJD to the level of fine detail.

"Not interested." What's behind that? Complacency because you know whom you worship and you cannot be bothered by fools like zeek? Ignorance because you don't know what you are worshipping and are thrown into confusion when you try to think about it? Is it faith? Faith in the Faith? Or faith in something else. Mustn't faith have an object? Or can one have faith in faith itself? If you find yourself thinking that you don't know, what does that make you? An agnostic?

I'll tell you that, as agnostic as I am, I'm not an agnostic. But, whatever object I can think of to represent God fails. I think I have experienced God. But, all my "experiences" fail too. God encompasses me and everything else including my notion that God encompasses everything. God, the source of everything, also swallows everything up. You know, like the Alpha and the Omega. God is both the ultimate fountain and the ultimate abyss. Whatever God is or isn't I can't be uninterested in it, because my existence depends on God even though I can't understand it. I am constantly amazed by the reality of this mystery that I am participating in because I was thrown into it not by my own choosing when I was born.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

I hope that you are accurate in these statements.

My mind is relatively closed overall. Meaning that I am a Christian. Despite being OK with these discussions that look elsewhere, I will try to argue (reasonably, I hope) in line with what I think is true.

But I have some significant questions concerning the overarching view of the Bible by almost all within the Evangelical side of the Protestant branch of Christianity. Not only the issue of inerrancy. And the conservative politics (I'm conservative, but not like the political among them). Also the overall view of the gospel. Evangelicalism seems to think that the Bible is all about preaching the gospel of salvation through faith/belief in the death and resurrection of Christ.

But Jesus taught a lot about living before he went through that ordeal. That does not diminish the importance of the cross. But it was not the sum total of his teaching. And he did not teach that everyone who believes should be a disciple in the way that the 12 were. Or even the slightly more distant group that comprised the 70 that were sent out. Rather, the bulk of the public teaching was on living. The private teaching was on leadership. I see a break in the teaching and to simply assert that everything is for everyone, followed by ignoring the parts that were clearly for the flock, is to miss the whole of the ministry of Christ.

We are so prone to exalting heroes of extraordinary religious activity, but ignore those who are examples of ordinary living in accordance with the teachings of Christ. It creates for too many the idea that the only thing that we "do for Christ" is in evangelism, mission trips, being a missionary or preacher, etc. It marginalizes the flock in favor of the shepherds. It chastises sheep for being sheep and not shepherds. Not intentionally. But it still does it.

And for many of us, having a system in which we were encouraged to participate made us feel more like we were important and not just spectators. But teachers should teach and the students should learn. There is nothing dishonorable in that. Getting to chose a song (which I understand is essentially a thing of the past) made us feel like we were directing the meeting. But was that ever intended to be our gift?

And not just talking about the LCM. Is being an active preacher of the gospel everyone's calling? Do we presuppose that this is one of the gifts that is given to everyone? Then maybe we should argue that every gift is given to everybody and we should simply be self-teaching, self-motivating, fully righteous examples of the full-grown man.

I don't know where this shakes out or what the balance is. But it is truly out of balance right now. At least from my viewpoint in the cheap seats.

It's interesting to read your perspective. As for myself, I consider myself a Unitarian Christian ala James Luther Adams (the most important Unitarian Theologian of the 20th Century). Basically I consider Jesus' overall message (e.g. Sermon on the Mount etc) important but I don't consider the Bible inerrant nor do I consider the virgin birth, the Trinity, Christ's death, resurrection and ascension credible etc. In my opinion, the Bible shows that Jesus taught a coming heavenly kingdom which he expected would happen within his generation and Paul thought and taught the same but it didn't happen in his generation. The NT Bible authors reflect their changing viewpoints as the nature of events changed (e.g. failure of the heavenly kingdom to arrive during their generation) as you see the dates when different gospels/epistles were written. There were more futuristic proclamations ala the book of Revelation as time waned on in the first century. I can't deny God but not in the same way that is common among Christians. I see God in nature and in the inevitability of our lives.

The local church casts tremendous doubt on the truth of Christian faith. When I was in Bible College I was convinced at the time that Christians could do better in helping new Christians grow and preaching the gospel. I had read Watchman Nee's book the Normal Christian Life and it had a significant impact on my Christian life. I was living in Santa Cruz and I preached the gospel every chance I could and I would spend my Saturday nights (my wife stayed at home) with a friend walking the boardwalk handing out tracts and sharing the Christian message. Previously I had worked with Teen Challenge in Detroit and I took the Christian message seriously.

One Saturday preaching the gospel Karl Hammond came up to me since he was also handing out tracts and we talked. When I found out that he had published the Normal Christian Church Life and that Witness Lee was a co-worker currently in the U.S. I was dumbfounded and excited. I started meeting for prayer with Karl every morning at 6am from then out, quit Bible College and enrolled in state College, and worked with him to build up the local church in SC.

To make a long story short---SC was great and exciting and we grew more than anyone expected but after moving to Detroit the elders who were closer to WL changed the message and made the Christian experience more onerous. However, like everyone else, we believed we had found the ultimate in the Christian experience only to discover that the LC was no better than the denominations it condemned. After I left the LC I went back to the AOG and became very involved. In the end, I arrived at the conclusion that I wanted to take a look at where I was in my life and the journey to my current thought has been a long process. I am very active in the Unitarian church but my perspective is a great deal more comforting especially since I don't have to be pigeonholed into one frame of thought. I am not criticizing those who have a system of belief that is written in stone but it is not a place where I want to go.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

"Not interested." What's behind that? Complacency because you know whom you worship and you cannot be bothered by fools like zeek? Ignorance because you don't know what you are worshipping and are thrown into confusion when you try to think about it? Is it faith? Faith in the Faith? Or faith in something else. Mustn't faith have an object? Or can one have faith in faith itself? If you find yourself thinking that you don't know, what does that make you? An agnostic?

I'll tell you that, as agnostic as I am, I'm not an agnostic. But, whatever object I can think of to represent God fails. I think I have experienced God. But, all my "experiences" fail too. God encompasses me and everything else including my notion that God encompasses everything. God, the source of everything, also swallows everything up. You know, like the Alpha and the Omega. God is both the ultimate fountain and the ultimate abyss. Whatever God is or isn't I can't be uninterested in it, because my existence depends on God even though I can't understand it. I am constantly amazed by the reality of this mystery that I am participating in because I was thrown into it not by my own choosing when I was born.

Don't take it so personal. I'm certainly not calling you a fool. Just have determined to put some amount of limit on what I will spend my time looking into. Since the reason for faith is the lack of proof one way or the other, then things that are not, in themselves, proof are what you come to rely on because of faith. Or you can decide to keep your options open and look elsewhere.

I realize that this part of the forum gives leeway that the other does not. Mostly it allows for the consideration beyond Christianity. But it also allows for some of the discussion within Christianity that they don't want discussed back in the open forum. And there has begun to be some pressure to take certain things here rather than there, although I would prefer input from some who might not bother coming here.

While I am not likely to start reading a book about some alternate religion, or on philosophy or psychology, I will not necessarily refrain from comment on what is posted here from such a reading. And it is never intended as other than an alternative perspective. That does not mean I simply won't read something.


But my alternatives are mostly related to intra-Christian issues. And there are plenty of those going on here. I generally keep my mouth shut on certain topics at church because the looks I would receive from so many would make for strained relationships. I have problems with a lot of things (not necessarily a matter of disbelief, but of openness to considering alternatives):

• 6-day creation (even 6,000 year creation)
• Evolution may have been the way that God created
• Adam was/not a literal, singular person
• The gospel is all about salvation and going to heaven
• Works are of no effect
• America is not (and has never been) a Christian nation — at least not in the sense of having a special place with God
• The Bible is inerrant
• The Bible is (maybe) not actually "the Word of God"

Those last three are real zingers for people around me. Especially the last. I believe that the Bible is entirely important to the Christian belief and practice. I believe that the writing is inspired. But not necessarily to the extent that we can make statements like "the Bible is our foundation" or other such things. This is a nuanced thought process at the moment. I think the Bible makes no special claims about itself. Even Paul's words to Timothy did not make the 66 books in our Bible into the Word of God. And all of that without denying the hand of God in it.

Inerrancy is only important for doctrines. I believe that the Bible is about living, not doctrines. And the Christian faith is about living, not doctrines.

I attend a very Calvinistic church and do not hold to "once saved always saved" in the way that they do. In the end you have to believe, not "used to believe" or "once believed."

I know this does not speak directly to your comments. But without disparaging your place on your journey, or that of any other, I will speak of mine. And as I am not entirely sure where that is going (other than still within the overall Christian faith), I like to hear what others have to say about it. About their own journey, and about mine. Obviously, if I thought I was on the wrong track, I would change my direction. So I will tend to defend where I am and where I think I am going. But as both of those have changed over the past 10 years of involvement in these forums, I seldom just ignore or forget what I read and hear. Some of it has helped me find new direction.

And while you probably would not describe things the way I have, and have interest in different things than I do, I see some of the same things in you. You read into, and talk about things that seem so far afield from what we typically call the faith, and then you make statements like your second paragraph. You seem clear that there is God, but need to . . . I was going to say put it in a box, but I don't think that is it. It seems more like a need to get some answers and resolution so that what may appear to be contradictions are resolved. In any case, my assessment concerning your journey is irrelevant. Here we are together in this forum on the same, yet different journey. We respond differently to frustrations. And this cold world of electrons and pixels doesn't reveal much other than words which can be spoken in so many different intonations. Even the smilies don't help all the time because there are so many complicated emotions required to really get everything across. And that is probably the reason that most of us do not write for a living. We would probably be terrible at it. Always saying precisely what we want to say and being misunderstood.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by OBW

Don't take it so personal. I'm certainly not calling you a fool. Just have determined to put some amount of limit on what I will spend my time looking into. Since the reason for faith is the lack of proof one way or the other, then things that are not, in themselves, proof are what you come to rely on because of faith. Or you can decide to keep your options open and look elsewhere.

Yes, faith itself is mysterious. Why go on believing when proof is lacking and probability doesn't support a conclusion? I could venture a theory, but as you are not interested I won't bother here.

I realize that this part of the forum gives leeway that the other does not. Mostly it allows for the consideration beyond Christianity. But it also allows for some of the discussion within Christianity that they don't want discussed back in the open forum. And there has begun to be some pressure to take certain things here rather than there, although I would prefer input from some who might not bother coming here.

Yes, I would prefer openness. One has to guess whether or not anything posted on the "open" forum will be allowed to stand. So, I choose not to post there at all.

I have problems with a lot of things (not necessarily a matter of disbelief, but of openness to considering alternatives):[LIST][*]6-day creation (even 6,000 year creation)

There is no evidence for this whatsoever that I know of. The question remains, why did the author write it this way? Could it be that the Sabbath was already valued as a traditionally practiced ritual without an ontological explanation? Thus, Genesis 1 shows that it was instituted by God and thus should be held sacred. That might be important to a people trying to keep their religion alive while in Babylonian captivity. That explanation isn't completely satisfying to me. But, it seems to have been part of the genesis of Genesis 1.

[*]Evolution may have been the way that God created

Whatever the mechanism, there is plenty of evidence for evolution. If you want to read an interesting attempt to integrate evolutionary thought with lively Christianity try Michael Dowd's Thank God for Evolution: How the Marriage of Science and Religion Will Transform Your Life and Our World.

[*]Adam was/not a literal, singular person

That's pretty much a settled issue for me.

[*]The gospel is all about salvation and going to heaven

If that's the case then I guess the best place for us in the meantime is paralyzed in a church pew.

[*]Works are of no effect

If Christianity is to be significant and consistent, ethics should flow organically from its foundational truth.

[*]America is not (and has never been) a Christian nation — at least not in the sense of having a special place with God

Historical facts don't support the proposition that America has ever been a Christian nation. But, if someone feels it's special, then it is. That's a subjective feeling like feeling blessed.

[*]The Bible is inerrant

Again, this objectifies a subjective feeling. That Bible is the sacred book of the historic Christian church. Believers are the ones who make it sacred by the act of believing,not the other way around.

[*]The Bible is (maybe) not actually "the Word of God"

The LCD thread on Witness Lee and the Psalms demonstrates that people don't even know what that means. Why must God approve every utterance of the Psalmist for it to be the Word of God? If every word is God breathed then when Pontius Pilate asks "What is truth?" that is God breathed. Shall we then conclude that God doesn't know what truth is? How ludicrous. All the characters in Shakespeare plays are Shakespeare-breathed. That doesn't mean that Shakespeare agrees with Lady Macbeth. From what I have read of the Koran every word there is actually supposed to have been dictated by God. So, at least in form it comes closer to appearing like a putative "Word" of God than the Bible. The Epistles of Paul appear to be the word of Paul although only a fragment thereof and one not intended by him for inclusion in the a sacred book of a new religion. People are the ones who make the Bible sacred.

Obviously, if I thought I was on the wrong track, I would change my direction. So I will tend to defend where I am and where I think I am going. But as both of those have changed over the past 10 years of involvement in these forums, I seldom just ignore or forget what I read and hear. Some of it has helped me find new direction.

I respect that. I assume everyone is doing the best according to the light they have unless I see evidence to the contrary.

And while you probably would not describe things the way I have, and have interest in different things than I do, I see some of the same things in you. You read into, and talk about things that seem so far afield from what we typically call the faith, and then you make statements like your second paragraph. You seem clear that there is God, but need to . . . I was going to say put it in a box, but I don't think that is it. It seems more like a need to get some answers and resolution so that what may appear to be contradictions are resolved.

I have no standing religion. I must find meaning in the present or it is all meaningless. Usually that problem, which is the problem of existence, has me contemplating God in relation to my life and everything else. That's the way I live every day. I call it my existential philosophy.

In any case, my assessment concerning your journey is irrelevant. Here we are together in this forum on the same, yet different journey. We respond differently to frustrations. And this cold world of electrons and pixels doesn't reveal much other than words which can be spoken in so many different intonations. Even the smilies don't help all the time because there are so many complicated emotions required to really get everything across. And that is probably the reason that most of us do not write for a living. We would probably be terrible at it. Always saying precisely what we want to say and being misunderstood.

When in doubt, the best way is for us to paraphrase what the other has said and then let the paraphrased person confirm or dis-confirm whether the paraphrase captured the intended meaning.