sprawled out

i agree with groucho. most of us aren't here because we're happy about all the years we lost. (i did have SOME fun, i must admit.) i'm purty new 'round these parts, but jumping on all things way-ish is what we do here, innit? INNIT? :D

hmmm...do i jump into the fray, or just say "thanks for your thoughts?" it's tough for me, because i really have no interest in arguing about it, or trying to win anyone over to my way of thinking. ah, what the heck! i will say you told a good story, sunesis. well done. and it does seem to make sense, until you really think about it. first of all, from what i know of the bible (and i used to know a bit, back in the day), most of what you said is pieced together from here and there, really a cobbled-together theology that's been handed down, with the blanks filled in as needed. the bible doesn't really SAY half of that stuff. all that business about lucifer and the earth becoming without form--it's all just speculation. there's no way to really link one with the other. even the stuff about adam's fall is largely conjecture. NONE of what went on in his head and heart is written in genesis. none of that "how come God's holding back from me" stuff is really there. i get that it's nice and it seems to fit. but that doesn't make it true. or honest. you also say things that simply aren't accurate, much like we were taught in twi, i'm afraid. you say, for example, that there are only three beings God specifically says he created, but you (conveniently) left out the "great whales" of genesis 1:21. it's right there, same hebrew word and everything. so your "adam the mediator" argument falls to pieces. (a nice one, though. the whole thing about adam being different, special. i don't think i ever heard it that way before.) by the way, i never said anything like "God could have blown man off." you somehow read that into what i said. what i said was God would love him and forgive him. how you could translate that into "blow him off" is beyond me. but it shows that you're not really honest in your thinking. i'm not trying to be nasty in any way, sunesis. i'm just pointing out what i see. you're inventing meaning in what i wrote, just like you're accepting invented meanings for blanks in the bible. sunesis, if you believe it and it makes you happy, i'm happy for you. but it just doesn't work for me. especially when your explanation is largely not even in the bible. much of it is just made up out of whole cloth. come on, how is lucifer's will on par with God's? they couldn't possibly be equally opposing--God's has to be bigger, stronger. i think it's THAT kind of thinking that really "gives God a black eye," as bliss called it. honestly, i think that all that mumbo-jumbo gives God a black eye. what I'M saying is that God is truly big, truly loving. all this other stuff, TO ME, makes God out to be a piker. bliss--the whole business of what God could or could not "legally" do is just a bunch of hooey to me. "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? it doesn't. it sounds nice, but it's MADE UP. not even the epistles, which is the only place any of these "connections" are made, makes this "legal" argument. Romans 5 uses words like "judgment" and "condemnation," but you can't extrapolate a whole "legal system" from that. well, you can, if extrapolation is what you do. but that doesn't make it right. or true. me personally, i believe in a bigger God than you seem to. a God who loves bigger, more perfectly than i do. a God who understands we're only human. one who wouldn't require something as barbaric as a blood sacrifice for me to "get right" with him. i'm sorry, kids, i just can't get behind a God like that. if you can, good for you. but no thanks, no church for me. :D

this is where my questioning led me after i left twi. i'd like to hear your thoughts. first of all, God must be more loving and forgiving than i am. my kids have disobeyed me countless times--they're human--and i've always, always forgiven them. sometimes it took a little while, but i always knew they were just people, like me, and didn't always do what's right. so i never held it against them--certainly not for any extended period. based on that recognition, it became more and more foolish for me to believe that IF there was an adam (which honestly, i no longer believe, but anyway), and IF he sinned as described in genesis, then God, being more loving and forgiving than i am, would have been unable to forgive him. the God i choose to believe in would've written it off as what humans do, and forgiven him. right then and there. at the very least, there's no way that God would hold ME responsible for something adam did. (if he would, i really wouldn't want to have anything to do with that kind of God anyway. and if you really want to get down to it, it's bullsh!t to believe that God, creator of heaven and earth, would be small and petty enough to create a setup in the garden, obviously DESIGNED to cause adam to fail, to sin. i know the arguments; he wanted man to make the freewill choice, etc. i just don't buy them.) So...if God forgave adam, and adam's sins weren't passed down to me, there was no need for a redeemer, no need for jesus to die. and christianity dries up and blows away. what do you think? have at it.

bravo, paw! and thank you.

back to the topic. my only personal experience with chris geer was a brief conversation through the mail, back in early 1987. i was earnestly, honestly, looking for answers, wondering about things he'd said in the POP. in very short order, he proved himself to be a complete d!ck. i don't need to know anything about what he teaches, how he teaches, blah, blah...his words to me made it clear that's he's an a**hole. grade A, 100%. make that 110%.

sunesis, i get it. but i'm not in the way, and i'm not talking about way-ish ways of doing things. i'm not talking about "tough love," either. just that sometimes, sometimes , when ample time has passed and you just can't seem to figure out how to get passed it (whatever "it" is), i have found it helps to make a mental adjustment: "get over it." what is "ample time?" i dunno, it depends. but eventually, the time comes when enough is enough. you acknowldge that whatever you're doing doesn't seem to be working, and you tell yourself "i'm not going to do this anymore. i'm going to take a giant step over that thing i keep tripping over and move on." IN MY EXPERIENCE, it works. for everyone? nope. every time? uh-uh. i don't know the mechanism. i can't quote you chapter and verse. i just know it works--and sometimes it's the best thing you can tell someone. and all this is predicated on the first thing iwrote about it. so here's part of my original post on the subject: folks often decide to hold on to things, when they could let them go. they think "i'm not ready," or "it's too soon," and insist that they have more wallowing to do. (i realize the word "wallowing" may offend some, but i think it's a pretty accurate word to use.) my point is, if they didn't reject the idea of getting over it, they might find they get over it sooner. yes, people are different, and some are more predisposed to letting things go than others. but there is an element of choice in these things. i'm done.

your entitled to your opinion, sunesis. i don't much care if you agree with me or not, but calling what i said insipid and pathetic was uncalled for. can't you disagree without putting down? but just to make sure i'm clear--you think my "little kick in the butt" advice is insipid and pathetic, so you thought you should give me a little kick in the butt? NOW i get it! the truth is, i think you completely misunderstood me. maybe you thought what i said sounded "innish" to you and so it colored your perception. or maybe you're just responding to the phrase "kick in the butt." i get how some might have a problem with that, but i think i explained just what i meant. i'm tempted to re-explain, but perhaps if you took a breath and re-read the two things i said you'd see. perhaps not.

nope. and i tend to remember fiery, dark-skinned new york italian girls!

cool waters, i agree with you 100%. belle, i wish i had a more definitive answer for you, but i think you're the only one who truly knows when you're over it. in general, i guess you know it when whatever "it" is doesn't kick up a huge emotional response anymore. when you can just deal with it, talk about it, whatever, in a matter-of-fact way. or at the very least, when it has less of a presence in your life--know what i mean? when it's no longer lurking in the background as you go about your day. sunesis--is there a particular reason you'd want to be so nasty? i can't see anything i said that should evoke such a response. first of all, you're wrong on all counts. i'm 51 years old, and i've been out for nearly 20 years. i'm afraid you're the one who sounds like they're still in the way. insipid? pathetic? can't see how i deserved that. i don't think i've had someone talk to me that way since i WAS still in. maybe you should know what the heck you're talking about before you go on the attack.

double yikes. before i respond, belle, please tell me--are you as angry as your last post reads, or am i reading into it? cool waters, you know as well as i do that sometimes we (all of we) get stuck in a mental or emotional ditch, and need a little push to get out. believe me, i'm not advocating giving up control of your life. but we all could use a helpful kick in the butt once in a while. the thought being "maybe you should stop what you're doing and thinking, which doesn't seem to be helping you, and just let go of it." and that's how i see "get over it."

yikes. "get over it" may not be the best words to use, but the sentiment can actually be very useful. in my experience, you have to decide to get over it before you can actually get over it. sometimes, a big reason people DON'T get over something is because they've decided not to. they may not think of it that way, but folks often decide to hold on to things, when they could let them go. they think "i'm not ready," or "it's too soon," and insist that they have more wallowing to do. (i realize the word "wallowing" may offend some, but i think it's a pretty accurate word to use.) my point is, if they didn't reject the idea of getting over it, they might find they get over it sooner. whatever "it" is. yes, people are different, and some are more predisposed to letting things go than others. but there is an element of choice in these things. of course, that's just my experience. but i've had lots of it.

thanks, raf!

hey, al--could you be a little more vague?

ok, i'll bite. what's THE thread?

alive, breathing and sprawled out!

the only reason anyone would ever even consider this matter up for discussion is because you've allowed yourself to be talked out of common human decency. and common sense, to boot. give me a break. you don't need reams of scripture to tell you that you should apologize when you've wronged someone.

with all the buzzing going on here recently, i'm guessing you just might find yourself here, craig old boy. if you do, how about standing up like a man and apologizing to us all? the truth is, many of us have done just that--face-to-face with the people we'd been dis-serving. and we were, for the most part, just the messengers. so how about it, mr. president? i can't imagine a better place to start clearing your conscience than Grease Spot. after all, it was named with you in mind.

interesting approach, ex10! "i disagree, here's what i think, but i'm not gonna argue with you." :huh: oh yeah? well, me too, neither!

that's the age-old question, isn't it? maybe god really isn't a micromanager, and doesn't concern himself with every detail of every person's life.

or maybe, just maybe, the bible's wrong. you know--contradictory, inaccurate. like that.

real or not? i don't know. but i DO know that it would drive me crazy with interpretation and prophecy that everyone used that almost king jamesy brand of english. i guess that's how we thought god talked. i used to try to get people to speak naturally (remember, "i hollered and i hollered?")--but if you ever heard someone REALLY speak in their own vernacular, you'd think "well, that can't be right."

i think if you're honest you gotta agree with groucho. peepee was damaged goods from the start. he wanted to be somebody so badly, he'd do just about anything to get there. the whole thing began with lies (snow and more snow), and was built on plagarism (from the very first book). he realized early on that he wasn't going to make a name for himself spouting mainstream christian doctrine, so he went for the "splashy" and "iconoclastic." (which i believe are his own words--from the intro of JC is not God?) and THAT became his standard for truth. i think it was most important to him that what he taught was different, shocking--he didn't care so much about it being right. or accurate. or original, obviously. it turned out to be a pretty shrewd idea--because thousands and thousands of us bought into it. it had a certain appeal. i think probably a huge chunk of us dug thinking that we knew something special--which meant there must be something special about US, to recognize that what most christians believed was wrong. i don't mean to say that we weren't honest in our quest for the truth. just that there was something about peepee's particular brand of bs that resonated with us: "we're right, and the whole rest of the world is wrong." it's just a textbook example of a cult mentality, i guess.

rhino--as far as my calling this joint insular, i can't really explain it or point to this and that. it's just the way it FEELS to me. :o and for me, FOR ME, that's enough.

NOW we're talkin'!

yes, everyone's different. (where exactly did you get the impression i was saying otherwise?) and yes, it can help to talk with people who understand what you're going through. but my underlying point is don't trade one group mind for another. learn to think for yourself. draw your own conclusions. make your own decisions. THAT'S how you find the real you. otherwise, all you'll ever find is someone else's version. let's face it. when you get out of a situation like the way, you're vulnerable as hell. open to suggestion. looking (consciously or not) for something to fill the void. so MY suggestion ("look into my eyes...") would be to resist the urge! let it fill back up, in its own time, with YOUR thoughts, YOUR ideas, YOUR aspirations, YOUR dreams. but you're right, rascal, to do that you have to know what you think and why. and i understand why you like doing it here. but here's MY perspective, having just recently stepped in here after almost 20 years out (of "the ministry"): this place is insular and biased. i'm sorry, but it is. so trying to find your true self in the confines of this forum is going to taint you, influence you. couldn't you accomplish much the same thing--without anyone else's input or influence--by just writing your thoughts down for yourself? i guess it depends on what you really want.