sprawled out

or a tricycle? :P

personally, i was always amazed how quickly all that stuff i'd been ceaselessly shoving into my head for years and years just melted away. it wasn't long at all before i came to myself! (which really confirmed to me how wrong it all was. i always figured that if it really was what i was designed to think and do and be, it would stick to me naturally. but it didn't, 'cause it wasn't.)

belle--what's the story behind that picture? if it weren't so way productions-schlocky, it'd scare the crap out of me.

i think we're really getting somewhere on this! it looks like 19 and counting. but as to the whole question of whether or not a light bulb is really necessary--i nominate topoftheworld to chair that committee. as for whether or not a compact flourescent should be considered, i'm wondering if that opens a can of worms--is there really any need to conserve in that way? and of course, what about global warming? carry on!

belle, as much as i appreciate your interest and willingness, i'm afraid that, until i can get this @#$%! lightbulb replaced, i can't see well enough to answer your questions. i have been thinking, however, that there probably should be an apostle involved somewhere in the process, since they're the ones who bring new light. but that's all i've got.

Just to be clear, i DON'T mean "how many GSers does it take to screw...in a light bulb." that's a whole 'nother question. i mean, if a light bulb (no particular wattage, could be incandescent or fluorescent, or even halogen, whichever you prefer. perhaps some debate is in order) were to need replacing (for whatever reason, it could be burned out, or maybe it's too bright, or not bright enough. i don't really know. this will require further discussion), how many (i'm thinking this should be a number. a positive whole number. but feel free to disagree) GSers (a general term for people who post on Grease Spot. do we include innies, wierwillites, waygb, etc? lurkers or newbies? maybe. possibly. another point of contention perhaps) would it take (i.e., would be required, would be necessary) to accomplish (right, at what point does potential energy become kinetic? that's gonna be a tough one) it (the aformentioned replacing)?

just watched a few minutes of some of the "music" on their site--OH MY GOD! it's just like all that saccarine CRAP you see on christian TV! maybe worse. i'd rather be yelled at by craiggy any day than have to sit through that. OUCH!

ah, yes, highway, i remember being repeatedly "corrected" for getting into it too much while performing. a**holes. you would get made fun of for getting wrapped up in the "craft." morons. silly me, i thought we were SUPPOSED TO give 110%! thank god i never got the hang of the "professional" way--what fun would that have been? back on the original topic--i also remember some GREAT music, even into the 80s. it just wasn't coming out of HQ. hmmm....

whose definition of "crap" do we use? i'm serious. one poster's crap is another's creed.

yes, belle, i was going to mention that--but got too caught up in the backandforth. and then i forgot. but i thought it was funny when i read what you said. twi tried to drive the new york out of me ("come out!"), sending me to kansas, ohio, texas, washington state (lcm's personal retribution!) and massachusetts, but it didn't work. and my first move as a free agent was to head back home! :P

thank you, t-bone. that's essentially what i meant when i said it's very difficult to really communicate across the gulf between our two positions. as you said, we each have a framework in which we operate, based on certain assumptions or givens. for either to truly see the others point of view, we'd have to set those aside. but for a bible-believer to do that would amount to subjecting yourself to "vain imaginations," at best--or at worst, the devil's own whisperings. while for me to do so would be a repeat of what i consider to be one of the biggest mistakes i ever made. (rather than repeat it, it's post #35 in this thread.) which i guess makes it an exercise in futility. (a new yorker, eh? hey, me too!)

you got it, t. though i love the bible, and think it's a wonderful book, i don't believe it's the word of God, inerrant, etc etc.

bliss, you said maybe i should've said, "So bliss, where in the word does it say..." well, i DID say: "legal" means there's a law somewhere. perhaps a whole set of them. show me. where are these laws that God made himself subject to? where did it say--BEFORE ALL THIS HAPPENED--that IF man fell, God would have to send a redeemer?" "show me" "where are these laws?" "where did it say?" could i have been any clearer? come on!

what's to discuss? jeez. you could have explained to me how you make the connection between lucifer's fall and the earth's becoming without form and void. or why you left out the "great whales" in your "God only created..." rap. or addressed my problem with the "two opposing wills" thing. that's just three things i can think of off the top of my head. i can't for the life of me understand why you didn't do that when i first responded. not that i really care to deal with you on it at this point, anyway. but you could've. you just chose not to. and somehow I'M the problem? there were no veiled insults, sunesis. no veiled anythings. i think i was pretty straightforward. but you're right about one thing. well, half right. i'm not a typical christian. in fact, i'm not a christian at all. that was the obvious conclusion of my initial post, don't you think? i don't see there being any need for jesus christ. though i think he likely did exist, and may have actually said some of the most wonderful things ever said. but i don't--i WON'T--believe that God did what genesis says he did, or that he would require a man to suffer and die for my redemption. but i've already shared my heart with you on the subject, and it's clear that you couldn't care less.

i'm sorry this has become a personal, rather than a doctrinal, thing here. i really never meant it to be. but here we are. you don't know me, so you couldn't possibly know that i've been wrestling with whether or not i've given due consideration to what you (specifically sunesis and bliss) have said. that's my nature, to think that maybe i jumped the gun and didn't give another's viewpoint a fair shake. but the truth is that i DID. and i did it even though what you said wasn't new to me, for the most part. i had, in fact, considered most of those things before. but since it's been nearly 20 years since i drew my conclusions, i didn't think it was a bad idea to take another look. which was really at the heart of why i began this thread. sunesis, i acknowledged that you put a lot into your initial response. you didn't like the way i put it, perhaps. but to me that's all it is, a good story. it wasn't meant to be an insult. what followed was my honest response, the problems i have with what you said. you say there was "no discussion," but to me, we were just at the beginning of one. i addressed very specific points, and thought you'd respond in kind. but you didn't. not one word, except to complain that i didn't appreciate what a lovely job you did. yet you accuse ME of dismissing your point of view. heck, i thought i crafted a very thoughtful response. and you didn't say one nice thing about it. ;) it's the same for you, bliss. i told you i didn't see a case for the "legal" argument. it was hardly what i'd call "swinging and stomping." and i still haven't heard one word of explanation from you on it. i'm afraid it really is typical of christians and the like. they love to tell other people what they think, but have no real interest in hearing what others think. i've been there; i remember. and the proof is right in this thread. maybe you don't see yourselves that way. sunesis, maybe you haven't always been that way. you say you've learned and changed over the years. but it appears you are that way now, if what you've said in this thread is characteristic of you. i really don't think i was contentious--unless you define contentious as "not agreeable." i was straightforward. i voiced my problems with your responses. maybe i didn't couch it in the softest possible terms. you may have taken it as contentious, but believe me, i could've been much more dismissive. it seems to me that you took my disagreement personally and have been more contentious than i've been. until now. as much as it's been a pain in my a**, this back-and-forth really has helped me. it's reinforced for me that i could never be true to myself and be "bible-believing." that i'd rather have unanswered questions than answers that only seem to hold together if i don't engage my mind. but that's just me.

sunesis: i honestly don't need anyone to validate my opinion. but i was honestly looking for responses/reactions. and though i don't consider myself to be at the beginning of my search, i haven't "dismissed" the things that were said here. it seems to me that it's all-too-typical of christians--or any brand of "believer," for that matter--to write people off rather quickly. i wonder if it's that old "sheep-and-goats" mentality. i mean, you've "dismissed" everything I'VE said, yet i'm still willing to discuss it with you. what's up with that?

whoa, t-bone--somehow i missed the last two paragraphs of your last post. but i'm still not 100% sure what you're driving at. is it that our intellect is corrupted? if that's it, i understand what you're saying. but with that premise, how can we know anything? or trust anything we think we know? how corrupted is it? is it all corrupted, or just here and there? i don't expect answers to these questions. but i think that if you believe your intellect is corrupted, doesn't that make everything you learn suspect? i don't know how you deal with that. if your point was "do we first need to determine a reference point?" i guess my answer would be "i don't." i spent so much time in the way trying to bury my own instincts, feelings, reactions, inescapable conclusions, etc. that i just can't play that way anymore. the field is wide open, as far as i'm concerned. in this case, i'm looking at the first few chapters of genesis and deciding, FOR MYSELF, whether i want to--or am able to--believe them. my reference point is "what do i think?" i realize that may be a horrible thing to some people, but after all those years of denying what i think, it's really the only honest way for me to proceed.

t-bone, i'm not sure if there's a question in there. if there is, could you restate it for me? but critical thinking is definitely what i'm talking about. that, and being true to yourself, i guess. i came to the place where i had to believe that if it couldn't stand up to my puny scrutiny, it couldn't be true. eventually, it brought me to the conclusions i stated at the beginning of this thing. but i try to leave the door open for possibilities i haven't considered, which is why i started this thread. and while what's been said has given me stuff to think about, and reason to re-evaluate what i think, it's ultimately served to reinforce what i believe. so far, anyway.

CM, i guess it's just me. i just don't understand you. Bliss, i am interested in what others think, that's why i started this. but that doesn't mean i'm just going to agree. i thought what you and sunesis originally wrote was very interesting, and i gave it some thought. after giving it a day or so, i responded honestly. and expected a response. if that's what you mean by "debate back and forth," then yes, that's what i want. what's wrong with that? would it only meet with your approval if i just listened and agreed? otherwise, it's "useless banter?" i'm sorry, i can't agree with that. i can see that it's very difficult to really communicate across the gulf between our two positions. perhaps you, like CM, think you're communicating by quoting scripture verses. but it doesn't communicate to me. i see what you're trying to say, but it doesn't reach me. know what i mean? and while i think i'm being quite clear, you see things that i don't mean at all. for example, you think i'm bitter. but i'm not bitter at all. because i don't believe that God did any of those things. i believe that God is loving and forgiving, and would never set us up for failure. that doesn't mean i want to wipe my butt with scripture, just that i don't want to wash my brain with it.

CM, i know nothing about you. but you're giving me good reason to think you're not interested in communication at all. maybe you don't realize it, but you're coming off as a complete weasel. if you really want to communicate your thoughts to me, take the time to construct a reasoned explanation. don't just throw off a line you think sounds clever or wise or cryptic, or drop a couple of verses you think are revelant, without any explanation. as it stand right now, you're not giving me any reason to consider a word you say. is that your intent? or are you truly interested in communicating? if you are, then do so. if not, why not just keep your mouth shut?

bliss, i'm glad you finally replied. well, sort of replied. i'm sorry, but from where i stand, it feels like you're unwilling to really engage in the discussion. one of those "don't go there" kind of things. i could never understand why we were always so afraid of challenges to our belief system--if it really was GOD'S TRUTH, surely it could stand up to examination. but somehow we were always terrified it'd be overcome by "evil." and that NEVER made any sense to me. i'm sorry, bliss, but your response makes me think that your bliss might be proof of the old adage. and CM, please don't answer my question with a question. i'd appreciate it if you'd respond to me without trying to manipulate the conversation. but to answer your question, i think the first few chapters of genesis are a wonderful study in human nature. but i don't think any of it happened. and if it did, i want nothing to do with that sneaky, tricky god.

"I think free will was exactly what God was counting on" CM, do you care to clarify? because all i get from that statement is exactly what belle was talking about--a set up. God was counting on them to sin, so he could put his jesus plan into action? so then the garden wasn't perfect, wasn't God's ultimate plan. and it really was all an elaborate sting operation (as dmiller so aptly put it)! my problem with all of this is that it's just so silly. the only reason ANYONE believes it is because they WANT to. it certainly isn't because it's rational or logical. i'm sorry, but it's true. it's funny, i think it was in the way that i first heard the saying "people don't think; they just think they think." and it was the truth, especially in christianity. i wrote about this somewhere in one of my first posts here. the only way i could ever come around to the way's way was to CONSCIOUSLY shut off part of my brain. the part where honest, critical thinking is done. i remember the decision. i remember reading I Corinthians 2:14 in one of the pfal books and telling myself "you can't know this stuff with your mind." and then CLICK, off it went. of course, over the years, i had to RE-shut it, over and over again, as things came up. so it wasn't until i left in 1987 that i was able to truly examine all the things i'd stuck in the "DO NOT THINK ABOUT" closet. one by one, until i was finally faced with the BIG ONE, basically the question i posed as the subject of this thread. and once i gave up making excuses for the real big problems and massive holes in the story, and was willing to challenge even the most sacred cows, the answer was pretty obvious. but religion doesn't typically allow for that "nothing's sacred" kind of thinking. in fact, it discourages it. it has to.

hey! isn't that what marge simpson joined? and then they turned out to be bank robbers or something.

hopeful, i don't know if you're looking for a response, but maybe now's the time for you to be your own person. stand on your own two feet. (if you think what your therapist said is true.) you might find you like it.

i might like to see what it's like, just out of curiousity, but never to "go back." been there, stopped doing that. are they going to publicly apologize? give me retroactive pay? cut me in on the tapes they sold with my music on them? refund the abundant sharing they coerced out of me? i'd welcome a chance to get that!