geisha779

Jeff, Have you ever read AW Tozer? Even John Piper has some amazing things on this topic. . . I think I know what you are saying? However, I think I can relate a bit more to what Tom is trying to say. If you are in the midst of a powerful and overwhelming storm. . . helpless to do anything against it . . . blown about and soon to be destroyed. . . you fear that storm. . . You have no recourse. Now take the same magnificent storm and you are safely tucked into a crevice or shelter. . . snug and secure. . . protected from the wrath and might of the storm. You can look and admire the power and beauty of such a force. . . the awesome nature of such might from your vantage point . . . and you are saved from destruction. I understand what you are saying too. Now, I always wonder if God is somewhat hidden, so that man will have the freewill choice to accept Him or reject Him. I don't know. . . I just wonder. People ask the rocks and mountains to fall on them and hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. Things that make you go hmmmm?

Wow, well said. . . . . why pick this paticular rule. . . . or expose' of the "truth"? I am still trying to figure out why this is the "Right" one? Lots of guys out there make similar claims to have uncovered, dug up, shoveled out, or whatever. . . the true meaning. Many by some divine revelation. They usually are in direct contradiction to the orthodox or traditional way. How come being a VPite is the right way? Why is that the proper rule for faith and practice. Why this speacial revelation and not another special revelation? I just happened to fall into this cult. . . I was probably easy prey for the moonies too.

I posted this in the basement(So to speak) the doctrinal forums. . . but wanted to ask you here as well. . . . Why VP? There are lot's of guys just like him. . . Mike, Why is it you have picked VPW's revelation of the "lost intent" of the scriptures? I wonder why you did not pick someone like Muhammad? A strict unitrian. . . claimed the bible's original intent was corrupted. . . visited by a spiritual being. . . thought Jesus was a cool prophet. . . believed the virgin birth, the miracles. . . just had another take on who Jesus was. Heck, Muhammad actually did start a whole new religion. . . a big one. Or, even Joseph Smith who's "legacy includes several religious denominations with adherents numbering in the millions, denominations that share a belief in Jesus but that vary in their acceptance of each other and of traditional Christianity. Smith's followers consider him a prophet and believe that some of his revelations are sacred texts on par with the Bible." Wikipedia Or even Charles Taze Russell "Russell taught his followers the non-existence of hell and the annihilation of unsaved people (a doctrine he picked up from the Adventists), the non-existence of the Trinity (he said only the Father, Jehovah, is God), the identification of Jesus with Michael the Archangel, the reduction of the Holy Spirit from a person to a force, the mortality (not immortality) of the soul, and the return of Jesus in 1914. Russell died in 1916 and was succeeded by "Judge" Joseph R. Rutherford. Rutherford, born in 1869, had been brought up as a Baptist and became the legal adviser to the Watch Tower. He never was a real judge, but took the title because, as an attorney, he substituted at least once for an absent judge. At one time he claimed Russell was next to Paul as an expounder of the gospel. . . " http://www.catholic.com/library/history_of...witnesesses.asp Mike, there is always the Pope? He speaks excathedra!!!!. . . No? "Papal infallibility is the dogma in Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidei, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics." Wikipedia Why Vp? What makes him stand out from all the others who have claimed to "Fix" traditional bible misunderstandings. Especially those concerning Jesus. . . I have to tell you. . . it can't be VP's upstanding moral character that attracts you to his unique gospel, or even his stellar education. . . . what makes gas on the snow pumps any more credible than an angel giving someone new revelation? These guys had more than 10 people who "Got" it???

Mike, I gotta ask you a question here? Why is it you have picked VPW's revelation of the "lost intent" of the scriptures? I wonder why you did not pick someone like Muhammad? A strict unitrian. . . claimed the bible's original intent was corrupted. . . visited by a spiritual being. . . thought Jesus was a cool prophet. . . believed the virgin birth, the miracles. . . just had another take on who Jesus was. Heck, Muhammad actually did start a whole new religion. . . a big one. Or, even Joseph Smith who's "legacy includes several religious denominations with adherents numbering in the millions, denominations that share a belief in Jesus but that vary in their acceptance of each other and of traditional Christianity. Smith's followers consider him a prophet and believe that some of his revelations are sacred texts on par with the Bible." Wikipedia Or even Charles Taze Russell "Russell taught his followers the non-existence of hell and the annihilation of unsaved people (a doctrine he picked up from the Adventists), the non-existence of the Trinity (he said only the Father, Jehovah, is God), the identification of Jesus with Michael the Archangel, the reduction of the Holy Spirit from a person to a force, the mortality (not immortality) of the soul, and the return of Jesus in 1914. Russell died in 1916 and was succeeded by "Judge" Joseph R. Rutherford. Rutherford, born in 1869, had been brought up as a Baptist and became the legal adviser to the Watch Tower. He never was a real judge, but took the title because, as an attorney, he substituted at least once for an absent judge. At one time he claimed Russell was next to Paul as an expounder of the gospel. . . " http://www.catholic.com/library/history_of...witnesesses.asp Mike, there is always the Pope? He speaks excathedra!!!!. . . No? "Papal infallibility is the dogma in Catholic theology that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error[1] when he solemnly declares or promulgates to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation. It is also taught that the Holy Spirit works in the body of the Church, as sensus fidei, to ensure that dogmatic teachings proclaimed to be infallible will be received by all Catholics." Wikipedia Why Vp? What makes him stand out from all the others who have claimed to "Fix" traditional bible misunderstandings. Especially those concerning Jesus. . . I have to tell you. . . it can't be VP's upstanding moral character that attracts you to his unique gospel, or even his stellar education. . . . what makes gas on the snow pumps any more credible than an angel giving someone new revelation? These guys had more than 10 people who "Got" it???

Abi, We just got home from a prison!! LOL An hour and a half away from us. Someday, maybe I can share with you a bit about what I do. I quickly checked in and read your answers and I gotta tell you. . . I loved them. I did find a great deal in there to relate to and would like to explore it a bit more. I think you nailed some things. So, give me a day or so. I am still working on a bit of Roman's for us all to explore from varying viewpoints. Well done Abi, you make me proud!

That is true to a degree and I do agree. On these forums I am very careful not to overly express what I have internalized. Imagine if you will. . . . look at what happened when I said I prayed for someone's health. But, I am spent. . . logic talk takes it out of you. . . so I do agree with your point. . . . to a point. Thanks. . . . I have, as usual taken up a great deal of this thread. . . . which RG started. So, I will let it be.

Sirguessalot, I am happy to speak with you, but you may find the answers to questions in the post to Abi. I do have to say this. I read in your first post that you are looking forward to the next school of thought. I think that you don't have to wait, you are leading the charge to usher it in. :) If you do not exemplify postmodernism. . . . no one on this forum does. But, you are growing on me. Abi Pragmatic I would go with. Postmodern I don't know. I am not sure I understand what that means. ah, okay you are explaining it below. I will read on. Okay, I think I have just been insulted - less rational, really? No, never would I insult you with words or deeds Abi. Never intentionally and never with malice.. . . let me see if I can explain. Words have specific meaning and when I used the descriptive word rationally, it was within the bounds of a philosophical discussion. Not a personal slight. I would not claim that having a comprehensive worldview is a pretext for dominating others. I think it CAN be used that way, but it doesn't HAVE to be used that way. Do I think it is arrogant? hmmmm sometimes, perhaps, but not always. I guess I would say it isn't the notion I find arrogant so much as it is what people sometimes do with it? Okay, let's really look at this statement here. . . :) One of the reasons I really like what you post here is your honesty. Another, is your moral code. It appears to me that you will say what you think is right over what you think others want to hear. That takes some conviction to your ethics and courage. I have read out some of the drama here. I have even rolled in the mud. . . . It can be intense. But, when I first started posting here, you and I had specific conversations. What was it I had to convince you of concerning my world view? I understand that you may not remember, but it was that I was not a religious elitist. That was your choice of wording. Your first assumption about me was that given my world view. . . I was an elitist. You and I have worked backwards from that perspective. In fact, I can refer to your post on this forum to RainbowsGirl only a page or so back. What was it you were trying to tell her? She is certainly not trying to dominate the forums with her statements concerning her faith. She simply started a thread based on an article I sent her once. Her worldview and yours collide on the very basis we are discussing. Your reaction was to tell her, albeit in a gentle way. . . she sounded arrogant. You may or may not have been posting the majority opinion, but what you surmised was based on what you hold as your worldview. If what you say is you don't find the notion arrogant, but what people do with it the problem. Then what was it RG did that was so problemtic? She is making a statement based on her understanding of Christian doctrine. . . it is a widely held conviction based on scripture in the NT. . . she has not cobbled this out of thin air, but bases it on a rational view of scripture. In other words. . . she adapts her beliefs to fit with those of the bible. When it collides with what you hold as conviction. . . it sounds arrogant? I always wondered if it is not more about self in that respect than conviction. RG's worldview does not validate yours or others. You have sized her up on this basis and found her statements lacking. It is unavoidable. She does the same to you, but does it based on scripture, that she believes to be authoritative. I have to tell you, I don't beleive the "cluster or cobbling together of ideas is less rational. Rather, it is MORE rational. It makes sense to think through ideas and keep the ones that work, while disgarding those that don't. It seems to me less rational to simply accept a cluster of ideas, merely because they are lumped together. Well, you may be VERY right when it comes to baking, or car mechanics, or something like child rearing. Granted. But, when we come to issues concerning faith. . . we run into a problem there. The reason we have a problem is faith claims something outside itself as the authoritative source. Take the bible for example. It claims within itself to be inspired by God. It claims within itself to be true. It is a narrative concerning God's interaction with mankind. To take what you believe to be true and discard the rest. . . to deconstruct it. . . attempts to render it unathoritative. Scripture claims to be an objectively true revelation from God. . . . authoritative on whatever it speaks, not only on the things that we like. See the problem? When we cherry pick our faith. . . we are saying that no text has authority or single meaning that corresponds with a reality. Classic postmodern thinking. You become the arbiter of truth. Also, nailed in the bible. But, I have to ask you something in all sincerity. . . . consider, if God is a reality. . . meaning, He is and futhermore. . . He is AS He is. . . . meaning a reality of characteristics . . . . and in one book He says. . . I am like this. . . my name is. . . I want you to obey me and do this. . . I change not. . . there is only ONE way to me. . . . and in another God is portrayed in a contradictory manner. . . my name is this. . . any way to get to me is okay. . . obey me this other opposing way. . . .and each book claims to be all true. . . what happens when we pick what we like and leave the rest? Have we not just designed a God to suit our liking? Have we not just discarded something that claims to be true in favor of something we like better? Moreover, what reality does our truth correspond to? Are we believing in something whole and real outside of ourselves. . . or believing in our own selves? Logically it is an either or proposition. You can't get around it. . . unless you design your own God. The bible prohibits this. It is called idolatry. It is specifically addressed and forbidden. Quite frankly, I question the logic of a designer God. . . one who refects our own selves. . . I am looking for the object who matches the reality, not creating one. As a woman of faith, I put my finite self into the hands of an infinite God. He proclaims Himself in the bible, but never defends Himself. Have you ever wondered about that? Well, no it isn't actually my thought process. I may do that, but it isn't some conscious process. However, when you get to describing reality as a whole, well I do believe reality as a whole is largely subjective. Put a 1/2 a glass of water in front of a group of kids and ask them if it is half empy or half full. Some will tell you half empty and that is their reality. Others will tell you half full and that truly is their reality. A few really good thinkers will tell you it is both half empty and half full and thus you have your pluralism. Abi, that is a wonderful illustration for a bunch of kids and glass of water. . . . but we are talking about a specific reality, a being, who has made specific revelations about Himself. In other words He has told us the reality of the glass being half full. It has been defined for us. I have blue eyes. . . I can slap some green contacts on, but I still have blue eyes. That reality does not change. If something is round. . . it is not square at the same time? I may not like round, but it is round. Defined, descriptive and understood as the reality. T he bible says it is inspired by God. . . a revelation of Himself to man. . . if true. . . it's specifics concerning who He is are true. . . No? How can it possibly be that if it is true. . . it is not true for everyone? What we understand or choose to believe does not reality make. I can choose to believe I am 5' 10" and chronologically 21 years old. Not the reality. I like the idea better. . . but I am 5' 5" and older than 21 :) . Moreover, the bible states that God does not change. In it He states. . . I am that I am. He does not state, I am what you want me to be. The bible clearly covers man's rebellion towards God's authority. . . over and over again--ad nauseum in fact. What does one rebell against? Authority right? Rebellion can have many faces. . . it is still rebellion. Could you not call redefining something clearly defined as rebellion? It isn't reactionary, Geisha. If anything, it has far more to do with my upbringing and the core of who I am, than my experience with TWI. A non-practicing Jewish father who labels himself athiest and views all religion as a crutch. A non-practicing Jewish mother who most definitely believed in God, but didn't follow any particular relgious beliefs and rarely discussed the subject with me. A small Christian community where I was the outsider because I was Jewish (yet during the brief time I attended Catechism I was always well studied and prepared to answer the questions). One side of the family who viewed Judasim as more of a political movement than a religous one, very socialistic and liberal. Another side of the family who wouldn't eat pork or say the word God (he was always "the man upstairs" or "the big guy."). One side of the family wealthy, upperclass (and ironically they were the liberal socialists). The other side, lower class and more conservative. In sum, I was raised with contradiction and contrast in almost every way. I have always believed in God for as far back as I can remeber. I have also always questioned what religious groups taught. With the exception of my years in TWI, if it didn't seem logical and/or loving to me, I rejected it regardless of who taught it. Abi, I can relate on many levels to your journey. I don't judge it. But, I have to ask you. . . what God do you believe in? The one who acts and behaves in a manner you consider loving? As a finite being, could it not be, we don't always understand what the true loving thing is? That God's ways are above our ways? That there is a greater, higher purpose at work? Stands to reason, that if we are not omtipotent, and He is. . . He might have an edge. If you tell your child they can't play in the street, they could be hurt, but they think it is okay. . . are you being unloving? Or are you being more loving? It also stands to reason that we can surely believe that God exists. . . without believing in Him. When one decides what is or is not loving. . . that is a declaration of what God should be. . . not the other way around. That is fine. But, when the bible says that God willingly sacrificed His Son. . . for us. . .and one rejects this based on what they consider loving or tolerable. . . it is based on a feeling. All authority of scripture is discarded for our own way. No? If the bible says A, B, and C are all true and we don't like A or B, but C is okay with us, so it is true for us. . . how reliable is B? Not very. Logic I understand quite well, Geisha. Logically is simply the mathmatics of words. I have studied logic. I have also studied religion, psychology and a bit of philosophy I was really a geeky kid. I used to read my mother's college psych books when I was in junior high, while other kids were out doing whatever it is kids did in junior high back then. I was less studious I am afraid. However, logic is more than simply the mathematics of words. . . . There are laws to logic. Identity, P is P--noncontradiction--P is not non P--excluded middle either P or non P. If I say it is snowing. . . you know what that means. It is a true statement (if it IS snowing). It is a statement applied to the reality? No? Everything is itself and not something else. . . snowing is identified. If I say "It is snowing". . . that cannot be true and untrue. . . it may not be snowing where you are, but that does not mean it can snow and not snow in the same place at the same time. It is snowing. . . . is a statement that is true or false. These are fundemental laws governing reality. Can't get around them without creating your own reality. If you really consider, to deny them is self-refuting. They are what is assumed in scripture. As I said earlier, logic is the mathmatic of words. Words are used to communicate ideas. Ideas, however, are not so concrete, neither is perception (glass half empty or half full ). So yes, I do believe something can be true for you and not for me. No, I don't see that as illogical. It is true that I like really hot, spicy food. That is true for me. It is also true that other people do not. Much of reality is based on perception and perception is extremely subjective. Is God a reality or an idea? I think you are wrong, Geisha, as I explained above. Now certainly, some facts match up to a reality for everyone. Truth, on the other hand, is very much subjective. Here's an extreme example, but I think it communicates well. My older son has sensory processing issues. Particularly when he was younger, some of the sensory signals to his brain would get jumbled. So, if you touched him softly he was likely to turn around and attack you because he perceived that he was being attacked (he really loved firm touch, though). The fact was, he was only being tapped softy on the shoulder by another student. The truth as he perceived it, however, was that the other student attacked him first. You have about the cutest kids I have seen. Truly. . you are a lovely family. Is it the truth that changes with our perception. . . was your son actually attacked? The law of identity defines an attack as specific. We know what an attack is. Right? Was the person who gently touched him attacking? As defined. . . as we know the reality of an attack? No, Do you see at all, the logical fallacy here. . . . His perception did not make the reality of the gentle touch an attack. . . He percieved it as such, it was his reality. But, an attack is specific. . . a gentle touch is specific. . . The law of non contradiction Abi. . . it is not an attack and a gentle touch at the same time. . . they are two different things. Geisha, have you ever considered that if you had been born in a different country or to different parents, you would probably completely reject the notion that the Bible is God's Word? I don't believe the Bible is black and white, either/or. I don't believe God is either. I think God will use any name, any tool that is available, to communicate with us. He is YWHW, right? He will become what He will become? Classic postmodern argument . . . . text book. Truth as defined in a cultural --social and linguistic construction. It serves a specific purpose. I get it. No objective reality beyond our cultural boundries. Reality described differently. But, what if there IS a God's eye view and an objective reality? This understanding of cultural truth. . . it is what scripture opposes. Scripture claims to be an objectively true revelation from God. Social customs or personal opinions. . . do not create truth. When the bible says Jesus is Lord. . .you perceive that as a Christian tradition and cultural language. . . . I get that. . . . the bible. . . . claims it as truth about an objective reality. Truth with a corresponding object. Which is why. . . when someone comes on these forums. . . and expresses Jesus is the only way to God. . . they are expressing an objective reality. Not that they are better. . . . NO. . . they are saying. . . there actually is no other way to God. No other path will get you there. . . He is the only way to the Father. Not that it is the elite way. . . or their favorite way. . . or the fun way. . . or even the pretty way. . . Why? How can we do that? Because the bible proclaims itself to be true, and to be authoritative. If it is. . . people have a problem. . . . if not, I am just a misguided jerk and it is all good. When we cherry pick what we like. . . we lose any universal standard or objective reality. We create our own. . . I am banking on the revelation of God revealed in scripture. . . whether I like it or not. My reality conforms to something outside myself. . . which claims the authority of reality. . . not my own idea of it. . . .and. . . it is not like I have not examined the evidence or other faiths. The bible is unique in its continuity, circulation, translation, teaching, influence and survivability. One of the strongest testaments to the God of the bible. . . is the Jewish people. A great nation out of Abraham. YEP. A dispersed people. I am a historian by nature and education. . . in each place the Jews have been. . . they have been driven out. Usually because they prospered. Wandering for 1900 years. Persecuted, from everywhere. Look at the Holocaust. But, what is utterly amazing is . . . Israel. . . reborn on May 14, 1948. Through all of this. . . they have neither perished. . . or lost their national identity. 5 generations is about as far as people get before they disappear without a home. Unique and special people. Why am I not Jewish? Because I am one of the gentiles the bible speaks of. . . who was grafted in. . . you know the rest. :) Abi, I appreciate the time and the honesty. . . I anticipated your responses. . . in truth, I could have written them for you. As you may have gathered. . . I have thought these things out once or twice. It is not like I do not understand your perspective. . . I just cannot embrace it. Doesn't mean I can't embrace you though. . . . :) It never means that.

I guess I would be asking different questions. I would ask myself why is a human life so precious and the shedding of innocent blood so dear? I would also ask myself why God would consider the unwilling innocent life sacrificed to idols. . . . an abomination. Then I would wonder why. . . He would do this Himself. . . with a willing heart and willing sacrifice. . . as the ultimate and final sacrifice forever. What was the meaning behind it. . . I would consider what that is in relation to scripture. A source we do have and can look at for meaning. The book of Hebrews discusses much of this very thing.

Garth, I have never made this personal. If you feel that way I am sorry. It is a discussion about the Christian doctrine of eternal punishment according to scripture. I make no judgements on you or your life. I imagine you to be a nice man. I certainly do not have all the answers. . . I have never claimed to. It is just a discussion. . . Abi, And this brings us back to pluralism, perhaps. If I say I have a relationship with God and you say you have a relationship with Jesus, is it not possible we both have a relationship with the same being, but simply assign different names? If Oakspear or Bramble have relationships with several gods, is it not possible they actually have a relationship with one and the same God, but for whatever reason, they view the different aspects of God as different dieties? I used to have a tag line that said something to the effect of "all the gods are but one god." It was a paraphrase from a line in one of my favorite novels. It goes back to labels and rituals, which are but forms and fashions to help our human minds understand that which we otherwise cannot understand. I think God is much bigger than the human labels, forms, and rituals we assign, but He understands our human frailty and "winks" at it, so to speak. You are a very pragmatic thinker Abi, I say this with a little bit of confidence given your worldview. Very much a postmodern philosophy. Would you agree? I don't want to assume anything and can only go by what you tell me. Would you say that you reject the idea of a comprehensive or authoritative worldview being within reach? You are a bright woman so I assume you understand what postmodernism is. . . a less rational worldview that opts for a cluster or cobbling together of ideas. Postmodernists often believe that to claim a comprehensive worldview is a pretext for dominating others. That it is arrogant. Narratives used to describe reality as a whole. . . the bible for instance. . . have to be deconstructed? Broken down until they have no authoritative meaning? Meaning they become subjective? Does any of this sound like your thought process? Or am I wrong? Wouldn't be the first time. The reason I ask is that it is evident in your answers to me. It is a paticular philosophy that one could describe . . . as reactionary to another thought process. It never surprizes me on these forums. It makes perfect sense to me in terms of faith. . . .given our shared history. Most movements in history are reactions to something. I really do respect your intellect so. . . I wanted to ask you a few things. If you want to answer. . . I would love it. . . if not, I get it. Do you consider logic as something which is arbitrary? Correct reasoning not attainable? I bet you know that logic. . . is approached with basic laws. . . not unlike our laws in society. A kind of set of rules to follow. . . If want to get somewhere and you go in the opposite direction, logically you are not going to make it to your destination. . . right? Your above post makes me think of the law of noncontradiction. P is not nonP Can something be true for me and not for you? Or is it true and not true at the same time? Or is it true and we don't believe it? Does truth change with the person or is truth a reality that is unchangeable with perception? What do you think? Can you believe that blue is a color and not a color at the same time? Is the moon made of cheese because I believe it is? Truth has to be a match up to a reality Abi. It is by its nature not subjective. Do you agree with this? Or, am I wrong? I have been waiting for months for someone to bring up the blind men and the elephant. :) So, how can there be so many truths? The very idea contradicts what the bible states. That leaves it an either or proposition. Either we conform our beliefs to the reality of God in the bible. . . or we do as it states and cobble our own belief system from many paths and parts. Now, here is the problem with that. What is the reality? Where does the actual object i.e, God, intersect. Still with me? Relativism and postmodernism is much too selective for logic. It leaves behind the reality of objective truth. How does human wisdom become sufficent enough to attain a spiritual knowledge of God? All that a belief in all paths lead to God does. . . is negate any path as true. Even the relativist believes that those who don't agree with them are . . . . . wrong or put more politely "Misguided". Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, He claimed He was the only way to the Father. . . . anybody who says this is either a liar or telling the truth. There is no excluded middle. Any attempt is a weak argument. . .

Abi, Still have my mind in the hell thread!! But, here is something that may provoke thought or debate here. I am still working on pluralism, but truly this is an important issue. I do understand the Jewish perspective on this. So, maybe this will help a wee bit. I also understand that Jewish people do not believe that one man can atone for the sins of another, that Jesus, being a man, did nothing more than offer a human death. . . and God being eternal cannot die. Geeze. . . . Who was this guy Jesus anyway? :) This is from a post I found with a search. Honestly, I couldn't find it again, but I will try. . . . I used to sell Geisha Girl China. . . a collectible, and I would do the auction circuit. I became friendly with this woman who was very religious, Jewish. She even brought her rabbi to meet me one night. He and I became frenemies. . . all on his part. . . I liked him. He didn't want me to discuss my faith with my new friend. I respected that. . . but he and I went around and around. . . he even tried to get me to go to a Kabutz(SP). This is the issue. . . we never made it around. Maybe Romans will help us a bit. . . who knows.. . . either way it is interesting. Yes, God hates human sacrifice which the nations practiced and Israel sometimes copied. But to compare the sacrificing of a child against their will, to Jesus willingly laying down His life so that we could have eternal life, is a gross misunderstanding. I’m really not sure why you have a problem with this. Read again the following quote… Your own Rabbis didn’t used to see this as a problem. They understood this because they knew that God was far to holy to simply approach on the basis of our own good works. They knew that it was God who demanded a blood sacrifice. For example, consider the following Rabbinic quote concerning Zech 12:10 Rabbi Moshe Alshekh on the Messianic implication of Zech 12:10 “I will do yet a thing, and that is, that ‘they shall look unto me for they shall lift up their eyes unto me in perfect repentance, when they see Him whom they have pierced’, that is Messiah, the son of Joseph; for our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have said that He will take upon Himself all the guilt of Israel, and shall then be slain in the war to make atonement in such manner that it shall be accounted as if Israel had pierced Him, for on account of their sin He has died; and therefore, in order that it may be reckoned to them as a perfect atonement, they will repent and look to the blessed One, saying, that there is none beside Him to forgive those that mourn on account of Him who died for their sin: this is the meaning of ‘they shall look upon me.’” Rabbi R. Elyyah de Vidas on Isaiah 53 “The meaning of ‘he was wounded for our transgressions, ... bruised for our iniquities’ is, that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whoever will not admit that the Messiah suffers for our iniquities must endure and suffer for themselves.” Now, you may say that Gnostics made up Jesus out of thin air and simply copied other pagan thoughts but you would have to be an idiot not to see that Jesus did exactly what these Rabbi’s said the Messiah would do. No, not a copy of pagan thought, but a fulfillment of what the Rabbi’s said that the Messiah would do taken straight from the Old Testament. Nothing Pagan ‘bout that!. Let’s just state a few of the things that these Rabbis said the Messiah would do: Be the Son of Joseph (and therefore, like Joseph, be rejected by his brothers) Make atonement through his death by taking the guilt of Israel upon Himself Be pierced on account of their sin Die for their sin Bear Israel iniquities According to this Rabbi, “anyone who doesn’t acknowledge that Messiah suffers for our iniquities must endure and suffer for themselves.” I went to Rabbi Singer’s website and he had an article stating that one man could not make atonement for others sins (in an effort to discredit Jesus). Singer wrote “The prophets never instruct the Jews to worship any crucified messiah or demigod; nor does scripture ever tell us that an innocent man can die as an atonement for the sins of the wicked. Such a message is utterly antithetical to the teachings of the Jewish scriptures.” That the Messiah would die to make atonement for sins may be utterly antithetical to the teachings of Singer himself, but they are in perfect agreement with what Judaism used to believe – based on those same Jewish scriptures. Rabbi Moshe Alshekh above states that the very reason the Messiah would die is to “make atonement”, and that He bears their sin “in order that it may be reckoned to them as a perfect atonement.” This is exactly the message that I preach concerning Jesus. This I understand because it lines up perfectly with the Old Testament blood sacrifices and prophetic scriptures and history records it as having happened. Also. . . . 4 Macc 6:26-28: "When he was now burned to his very bones and about to expire, he lifted up his eyes to God and said, 27 "You know, O God, that though I might have saved myself, I am dying in burning torments for the sake of the law. 28 Be merciful to your people, and let our punishment suffice for them. 29 Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs." 4 Macc 17.20-22: "These, then, who have been consecrated for the sake of God, are honored, not only with this honor, but also by the fact that because of them our enemies did not rule over our nation, 21 the tyrant was punished, and the homeland purified-they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. 22 And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice, divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated."

But who was Jesus speaking to? Was he speaking to the sinner, the atheist, the pagan? Or was he speaking to those who would oppress others out of their greed for power, money, lust? You got it. You nailed it!! He was speaking to those who did this in His name. Here is the thing though. . . . those who do this have followers. What is explained about these people in scripture is that they are lead astray. Remember the verse in 2 Timothy that tells us. . . . "always learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth". The context is men and women, jumping from one false teaching or cult to another. Without ever coming to a real understanding of God's saving truth in Jesus Christ. It is their outward form of Christianity and morality that makes them all the more dangerous. People become easy prey for these deceitful false teachers. They are weak in knowledge and weighed down with emotional and spiritual guilt of their sins. Settling for all the false signs and wonders does not touch the heart or make them whole as Jesus did with the woman at the well. Yet, do they appear as Christian? These false teachers are SO good at it. . . . the outward appearance. . . they even get into the church. They have Mega Churches!! People follow their ways. They never come to know the truth, they stop and accept. Which is why Jesus will say on that day. . . . depart I never knew you. Conversely, in the OT God says do this, do that, concerning sacrifices, but He also told them to prepare their hearts to worship. Seems they could NEVER get this together for very long. . . fair enough?? You asked why God would require human sacrifice? There was never any remission of sins without blood. . . was there? Didn't God give Adam and Eve animal skins to cover them? Wasn't the whole plan for a perfect and complete sacrifice? This is what is revealed in the OT? Jews understand the purpose of sacrifice and atonement. Jesus was not only a sacrifice, but a willing sacrifice. Why would God do this? For God so loved the world. . . . God made the perfect and willing sacrifice with the heart of love behind it. He not only showed us how. . . but He did it Himself. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are sanctified. . . . . He offered one perfect sacrifice for sins for all time. Something He truly loved. . . the main thing He loved. . . this is my beloved Son. . . what does the word sacrifice mean? What does atone mean? Why Jesus? It was a worthy sacrifice which is able to atone for sin forever. God did this out of a heart of love for us. It took God Himself to make the sacrifice. . . the effective sacrifice that does not just cover sin. . . it effectively removes it. It is a gift from a loving God. . . also the reason WE can't boast! LOL Great is the mystery of Godliness revealed in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up into glory. . . . I do have a point here. . . it is coming. . . now when I ask you something, you may understand more where I am coming from.

The interesting thing is that the path you NOW walk is quite familiar to ME. I had plenty of the same thoughts that are expressed here at GreaseSpot during the years 1985 to ’98, as well as some in even earlier years. Many of those thoughts were kicked off by a personal visit to San Diego by DWBH in 1987. The meeting he conducted was like a live version of GreaseSpot. Then ten later annual visits by John Lynn maintained the momentum of that verbal thought that is common here now typed out. I simply came BACK to believing in PFAL’s Godly inspiration by carefully noting the written version. I noticed you cited being very familiar with the spoken version, as we all have. It was a close study of the written material that re-won my heart in 1998, having discovered that it was far richer than my earlier, more casual examinations had revealed. We should talk again sometime. Maybe if Steve were willing to chaperone we could do it in PMs. Mike, I tend to doubt, albeit in a gentle way, that you are familar with the path I now walk. What leads me to that conclusion is really quite simple. Jesus. We have a much differing understanding of Jesus. I could never go back to PFAL or any TWI teaching, as I truly believe it is built on a faulty foundation. An aberrant understanding of Jesus. For the record, and humor, I would not let JAL within 100 yards of me unless I carried wolfbane, garlic or pepper spray. Mike, I really do believe that VP was what the bible refers to as a false teacher. Not only is it evidenced in his behavior and lifestyle, but it is exposed with no room for doubt, in his teachings. Before you talk to me about accusations and folly concerning his behavior, I would just kindly tell you I had my own run in with him. Nothing as catastrophic as the accounts I have read here. . . . but enough to convince me they are true. It was not a fatherly chat he was after from me. We read the same verse and see different things. This was brought home to me recently during a conversation I had with an ex-way person. It was nearly impossible to communicate an a more orthodox understanding, as there was a real curtain there that precluded this person from seeing anything other than what they already had learned in PFAL. It is not a few blatant errors here or there. It is an entire perspective that kicks in as we read the most simple of revelations concerning God. An over all wrong understanding. If I could encourage you in anything. . . it would be to find a kind , bible believing church, with a pastor, minister, or priest, who is patient. That is a good sound piece of advice. Search out a ministry that deals with Christian ex-cult people. Off the top of my head I am hard pressed to think of any. . . :) but even a group that embraces apologetics would be good. They are ready to give a defense of traditional Christianity. . . what we rejected in TWI. . . maybe hear them out? Their understanding of Jesus and the actions and behavior in their lives that results from this.

If faith is truly a gift to be received only from God and rests completely in God's ability, than certainly we cannot lay blame at the feet of those who are lacking in faith, can we? Would not their lack of faith then be God's fault, if it can only come from Him? Or am I misunderstanding you here? No, you are not misunderstanding me much at all LOL! It is not my place to run around proclaiming judgement or blame on ANYONE! I don't hold that power. Back to faith. Yes faith is a gift. A free gift. I can't earn anything, my plate is completely empty when I approach to sit at the table. Even the lure of hunger to feast comes from God. And, there is a wooing process that takes place. . . a stirring of the hunger to know Him.. Much like you have so eloquently spoken of previously. When that is there, and I believe it is in all of us created beings. . . and it is stirred, we start to ask. We start to wonder. We start to look. And Abi, at some point, we all come to a conclusion about God. . . Consider, if we genuinely desire to know Him, will He not reveal Himself to us? Is this not the entire purpose of the sacrifice? Reconcilliation? Although the bible clearly speaks of a God who is hidden, and that we must seek Him, will He not give us the faith to see and believe on Him when we search? We can simply ask. In our search, we can simply humble ourselves and ask for the faith to believe. This is hardly ever done with those exact words either. It is a matter of heart. . . . as you have said. Now, for a quick look at vessels of destruction. . . . since I do believe this has been mentioned. This is rom GTY. "Notice, there are vessels of wrath, at the end of verse 22, fitted to destruction. In verse 23, vessels of mercy which He had prepared to glory. Now in the Greek you have two serious distinctions here in the Greek tense and you must recognize them. I should say in the Greek voice which is similar to English. You realize the difference between active and passive? In active, the subject does the acting and in passive the subject receives the action. Now notice, verse 22 is a passive, vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. God is not the subject. The verb is passive. Verse 23, vessels of mercy which He had prepared to glory. God, there, is the subject and the verb is active. God says I prepare vessels for glory, but vessels are prepared for destruction. And what is happening there in the Greek tense, is God is taking one step away from the responsibility of preparing a person from His creative act for hell. God doesn't take that responsibility. He says there are vessels that have been prepared for destruction. And if you study the Bible very carefully you will see that every where in Scripture the responsibility for such preparation lies right in the very heart of the man who goes to hell. Is that right? Jesus said, "You will not come to me, that you might have life." At the end of the Book of Revelation He says, "Come, and let him that is athirst come." And so God says, I fit for glory, but vessels are fitted for destruction. Judas was not created by God to occupy hell. Another reason I know that is that hell was never even made for human beings. It was made for the devil and his angels. Judas went there because Judas chose to betray Christ, chose to reject the truth, chose to pay a sad, sad price. " I am trying to break this up a bit.. . . lol I am so long winded, but I think it is important to really understand a Christian's heart in relationship to this topic, and towards others." My questions are obviously about pluralism, but again, you deserve an honest answer. Your questions are pointed and probing. . . . good for you!

Perspective, Geisha. What it means to follow Jesus truly is a subjective matter of perspective. I believe I do follow Jesus (though I don't label myself Christian) in many ways, though certainly not perfectly. First off Abi, I do believe that you are a person who strives for peace and to love your neighbor. Blessed are the peacemakers. . . right? My understanding goes something like this, I obey out of love for God. It does speak in the gospels about obeying God if we love Him. In the whole NT in fact. What motivates me is not my own goodness, or even moral character, I sadly lack in these qualities. What motivates me and keeps me going is my desire to love Him. I pretty much fail left to my inclinations as they are usually focused on ME!! :) So, Jesus is my example, but to really understand how He operates, I need to know Him. There is actually nothing subjective in that, if you consider His ways. They are revealed to us in scripture. It is so filled with the most amazing wisdom about life and love. His ways are so much better than my own notions. Perfect really. What Jesus did here on earth, was nothing short of mindblowing, yet so simple. He always brought everything back to the human condition, which He so understands. Consider if you will, the woman at the well. She was about as outcast as you can get. As someone I know likes to say, Vegas would have run her out of town. Yet, Jesus, who should have been NOwhere near her. . . had a drink with her. Seeing through her outer hardness into her heart, He offered HER of all people, what she truly needed most to become whole. Not only forgivness, but everlasting life. He did not point her to external conformity to religious rituals, but showed her the proper heart attitude. He also did not just ignore her sins, but He exposed them and lovingly showed her how to get past it and become whole. This should have been impossible given her situation. He understood the human condition. It is an incredibly tender account. She in turn, recognized who He is. He had such an impact on her that she was eager to share Him with the towns people, who she had been avoiding because of her reputation. Her witness and honesty about her own life impressed them so much that they had to come see Jesus for themselves. He did this again and again. . . consider the woman caught in adultery. . . they were fixin to kill her! So, although we can emulate Jesus, we must have a way to give that makes one whole. This gift of forgiveness and eternal life is imparted from Him and Him alone. We don't hold the keys to heaven. . . God does. And this is where I begin to get lost and become unsure of what you are asking. I think you are asking either a) how I can reject Christianity after being one or b) how I can reject the notion that there are false believers within Christianity. I'll start with a) how could I reject it after claiming it: First, you have to understand I was not raised Christian. My parents were non practicing Jews. I did pick up on bits and pieces of Christianity while growing up, because our small community was largely composed of Christians. I even when to catechism (sp) for a time as a child, because I was curious and interested. Outside of that, my only real exposure to Christianity was with Jehovah Witnesses (I never became one but I did study with some for a time) and TWI. I think by your definition of Christianity, then, I may never have truly been a Christian? I also went to a number of churches off and on both before and after my time with TWI. What they taught just never sat right with me. Truly, even when I look back on my time with TWI, I had issues with things that were taught, though some of it I did believe and some of it I desperately wanted to believe and some of it I wanted to reject and some of it I wished I could reject. After leaving TWI, I spent quite a few years studying a variety or religions. I eventually realized that what I was really looking for was that "connection to God" that I felt I had as a child. TWI gave me head knowledge, but in gaining that head knowledge I lost any sense of a true connection with God that I once had. Eventually, I decided to return to my roots and study the relgion of my heritage. There I found the peace that I had been searching for, for nearly my entire life. There I have at least begun to find that connection with God that I had lost for so many years. That said, while I don't label myself a Christian, I don't reject Jesus either. (and because of that I am sure there are plenty within Judaism, though certainly not all, who would reject me!). I very much believe in what Jesus taught and I do believe he was sent by God to teach, as were many of the great men and woman of the O.T. So, while I label myself Jewish, there are those who would not. While I don't label myself a Christian, there are those who probably would, if they fully understood what I do and do not believe. Which sort of brings me full circle to part b) how I can reject the notion that there are false believers within Christianity: For this, I think I would need to understand your perspective of false believers within Christianity. From my perspective, it does not matter what label you assign to your religious beliefs. In the end, Christian, Jew, Pagan, you will have some of it right and some of it wrong. What does matter, at least to God IMO, is that you are learning and growing. That your heart is with Him. I hope somewhere in all of that I have answered your question. If I haven't, then please be patient with me and try to re-state it your question so I can try again. Well you did answer my question, and I thank-you. The most telling for me was the part about your heart being with Him. I loved that. Again, the woman at the well, she was up front about her religious identity crisis. . . and as her own religion had rejected her. . . she still had a bad taste in her mouth . . . her thing was. . . what difference does it really make?. . . you go here, they go there. . . your fathers and ours say this and that. Jesus was actually pointing her to the Father. She said, I know Messiah is coming and when He does He will explain all this to us. But, then she finally put it all together, He had so penetrated the hardness and hurt in her heart. . . she got it. This was He who would show the way. That is why He could say. . . come unto to ME all ye that labor and are heavy laden. . . . and I will give you rest. A perfect illustration of Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. Maybe you can begin to see what attracts me so to Him. My questions are in the next post. Figure I would break it up a bit! :) Your post is a very worthy of a thoughtful and honest reply.

Mike, Thanks for the reply. I am sorry about my message box, I will get to it this weekend. Raf and others. . . . . SIT can be faked. . . a statement of fact and no real debate there. But, everyone faking it? Those who had a genuine experience yet lived lives that did not produce the good things of God. . . . Love, Joy, Peace, longsuffering, peace, goodness, meekness, faith , temperance, and so on. . . . or even a faith that produced an intimate relationship with Jesus. . .could be looked at in a different way. We all know them. . . . Could it be? Honest thought here. . . if there is such a thing as a true believer in Christ. . . that there are by default. . .opposing false belivers? There might be other considerations. VP actually did give us a take on the gospel that was different than traditional understanding concerning Jesus. He gave us a version of Jesus rejected by the Church as a whole. You don't have to dig very hard to understand this. If changing an element of Jesus. . . changes the gospel message as it is traditionally understood. . . could it not follow . . . we actually missed the greatness of what was done on the cross? The true gospel message? JUST A THOUGHT!! Not taking one side over the other, one could still consider the verses in 1 Corinthians 11 with objectivity and come up with another explanation for the SIT phenomenon in TWI. Word Wolf. . . . bear with me here Please. . . I have a point to make. . . . If there is such a thing as another Jesus and another gospel. . . . the logic follows. . . another spirit? With fruit that is born from the operation of it? Ungodly, morally perverted, deny Christ, defile the flesh, rebellious, dreamers, ignorant, self -destructive, fault finders, self-seeking, ARROGANT, mockers, worldly minded, without the spirit, self-willed, unreasoning animals, stains and blemishes, having a heart trained in greed???? If you ever read much about what other Christians write concerning TWI followers. . . one word that comes up continually is arrogant. Proud of our knowledge of the scriptures, but something was surely lacking there. . . These fruits line up much more clearly with what many of us were or became in TWI. . . Not to say we were not sincere in our belief in Christ as we were taught Him and also NOT to say that people did not have an earnest heart to seek Him. Just a thought. Not a personal affront to anyone!!! Steve L, The LAST person on these forums ANYONE is going to convince PFAL is the revealed gospel or whatever to. . . is ME. LOL. . . . but, I can tell you pretty much verbatim what the class says. . . or I used to be able to. . . been awhile. Remember, we used to have to be ready at anytime to step in should the equipment break down! I was a good wayfer. . . I took them seriously. Wasted youth. I still remember believing like Mike. I do empathize with him and since I was there and walked the same path. . . I relate! :)

Abi, Just a quick thanks for your reply and to tell you I will start our thread this weekend. I am looking forward to hearing your perspective. I really mean that. No hurry, I know what a time crunch is like. In fact, I so want to respond to your last post, it has brought up more questions for me. Honest questions, not meant to convert, but to help me understand. Just gonna take me a day or two. Mr P-Moshses post actuallty did enlighten me a bit concerning a few issues. I nearly dropped my jaw when I saw one thing in there that was helpful in understanding where some who no longer believe in God are coming from. I will have some time soon. For the record, these arguments concerning the existence of God being negated by the existence of evil?? They are so often used. . . . they are named. They are actually named depending on the angle one approaches the question. As you can tell, better thinkers than I deal with them more effectively. I had to use the words of Dr. Zacharias! :) If you get a chance to check in here on the weekend, I will ask my silly but sincere questions about a few things you explained. Fair warning! LOL As for Georges question about doesn't it always boil down to a feeling about the Lord showing you this or that. The answer is actually an emphatic NO it does not. Christianity is a reasonable faith. . . one where people have to consider many things and then make a choice on what to believe. Some do consider it with less mind and more feeling to be sure, but then they are sometimes painfully unaware of what they believe, . . . . . and one could argue. . . they do not truly believe it. . . . . . . . don't we use that same process of chosing to believe in so many areas of our lives? Consider the evidence and then believe or not? Geisha

Mike, Appreciate the reply. I don't want to derail Mark's thread. . . . but, I wanted to tell you something. Forgive me Mark, I will not make this a seperate conversation after this. :) Mike, although it may seems really personal here, and I know it can, it is not so much personal towards you as towards your theology. There is a palpatable frustration with your worldview and much of it is because we all shared it and many have rejected it. That frustration can manifest itself with seemingly personal affronts. . . and sometimes they are, but not all who disagree make it a personal crusade to persecute you. In fact, it seems many have spent great time and effort to try and work through some things here with you and with each other. We all takes some hits here. We are grown-ups. . . we can take it. . . right? If you have something you think is the revealed word of God. . . . you should be ready to give a defense of it. You should be ready to share it. God tells us to love Him with all our mind. We as Christians defend the gospel. You have a somewhat revelatory claim of a new gospel, one not known for centuries. I think people are just asking to honestly discuss it. As for the true Jesus being found in the collaterals? I disagree. He is where He said He would be. . . . with those who believe on Him. He IS in churches where Christians gather to worship in His name. He is where they fellowship, study, pray,baptize, and take communion. . . . He does live in the hearts of those who know Him. He is not hidden from their sight. He is revealed to us through scripture. I see the results in the lives of those who love Him. . . .they are busy helping others, forgving and praying for the lost. He never left His people. We never lost Him to so much error He could not find His own. The real Jesus? He is with His people. I hope you chat with Mark. I don't agree with his theology at ALL, he knows I don't. . . but, I can see past alot of that to the intent of His posts and I never mind discussing something with him. . . I don't think he is out to hold a kangaroo court at all. . . . really. . . .what fun is that? I have been called "Misguided" on here more times than not. More often by atheists, pagans, witches, and those of other faiths, along with the unitarians. . . . It is not like going to a like-minded church here. I usually stop and consider what they say. . . why they would think that. . . if I am wrong. . . I change. . . if not, so what? I defend it. It is still good to be able to defend, with logic, reason, love and scripture, what you say and claim. If it is right it will hold up. . . if not. . . why keep it?

Mr P-Mosh, I DO understand your POV and do disagree, and through rational and thoughful debate could further reason this out with you. . . . but, I will allow my first post to stand. . . . with these added thoughts. Although you found my stereo type offensive. . . . you went on to give an explanation which defends it! If you were genuinely offeded, why did you give it creedence? Liking your neighbors house better than your own is hardly a covetous thought. . . in any honest discussion it is so important for the participants to understand words in the manner in which they are used. Thank you for illustrating what that paticularly means. Albeit, I assume unintentionally. I am left wondering about your point of reference for the distinction between good and bad. . . . . as common sense still allows the marriage of a 13 to a 40 year old in some cultures. Have they not evolved to your point of reference yet? :) THANK YOU for your response! These debates between Christians and atheists go on all the time. They are interesting to say the least. . . . I had lunch with Frank Turek once and it was so fascinating to talk about his experiences doing this very thing. It is quite easy to discount someone's POV or understanding as lacking. . . but honest debate requires much more. This question is deeply pondered, but hardly "easily" dismissed. Me, I sometimes think atheism is itself a faith. I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist. . . :) Appreciate the time!

Hi Abi, I will start a thread soon and maybe we can look at Romans. . . . seems a good place to take a peek from a Jewish perspective. Thanks for your answer and hope when you get a chance you can look at what I said about what it means to follow Jesus. I am hardly perfect or an expert at it. . . but I keep on trying.I I have ALWAYS wanted to ask something here, but vitriolic responses have often precluded me from posing this, but, since I have your ear for a moment, and know you to be willing to honestly consider.. . . . . . When one turns to another faith after claiming Christianity as their faith for sometimes as long as 20 years. . . . how, can one say, with real intellectual honesty, that they reject the concept of true and opposing false believers within Christianity? Especially as the bible has specific verses exclaiming Christ ability to keep us? That no one is able to snatch us from His hand. . . . even us. The bible tells us Jesus will leave the 99 sheep of His own flock to find and carry back on His shoulders the one who has wandered away? One of the places where God is portrayed as a woman through a parable is where the woman who goes through every inch of her house to find the smallest coin while not regarding the riches she already posseses. Our faith in reality rest completely in His ability. Faith is a gift and if it is truly from God, it is a perfect gift. It would be one that is able to acomplish that which is its purpose. The bible exclaims the abilty of God to accomplish His purpose. Jesus own words. . . . depart----I never knew you. . . to cries of Lord, Lord,. . . did I not. . . in your name. Give us a glimpse of the opposing true and false believer. . . . don't they? Yet, I have read and seen a pluralistic or relativist debate ensue about Christianity as a faith in the most voracious manner. This, by the very same people who faked it for years. Debating, while being a living illustration of the opposing viewpoint just strikes me as ironic, does it not strike you that way? I have always wondered here on these forums. . . . about this very thing. It would also not be a stretch to surmise that there are specific things which make one a Christian. If, there are. . . . we may not have had them in TWI. Most have gone their own way, haven't we? As a person claiming Christianity as a one time faith, but now having moved on to something else. . . one could deduce that the element missing to allow this. . . could be a relationship with Jesus and knowing Him enough to hear His voice and causing Him to come collect us. . . . should we stray. No? Garth, One can accuse Dr. Zacharias of many things. . . ignorance is not one of them. I appreciate your response and also the thoughtfulness behind it. . . . but these issues of morality and God have spawned Nietzche's uberman. . . a frustrated comment by Dawkins to the effect. . . . We must deny the existence of evil to win this argument. . . . quickly danced around while backtracking. . . . and Bertrand Russell saying in a debate with Fredrick Copplestone that he chose good and bad based on a "feeling". I think his comments were based on debates and study. . . . experience with atheists. Many atheists are very honest that this paticular point is a difficult one while denying the existence of God. To me it is not a lame argument, but a probing and thought provoking question. . . .

That first video is just so darn sad. Are they kidding? Please tell me it is a parody.

Thanks, and just for the record. . . I like your sense of justice and morality. . . it peers out from your politics!! LOL

Mike, I honestly don't think that Mark's motivation or any one else for that matter . . . is to harm or to show anyone up. The bible is not a weapon. It is sharper than any two edge sword. . . . but that is God's work. . . a roadmap if you will. . . into the human heart. Often the bible reads us instead of the other way around. Seems people were a bit surprized by your revelation, and if you really stop and think about it. . . it is quite a statement. . . . PFAL being the revealed word of God. Forgive the paraphrase. Having a conversation with someone who is also working through the fog can often be beneficial. . . . who else understands? I believe there is real empathy for your position and a real heart to offer another side to the coin. Out of adages, but I choose to assume there is more than a bible gotcha game proposed here. I for one am curious to hear more. . . . I already read that other thread. . . that was good!

Mr P-Mosh, :) the minute you acknowledge something as being “better”, you are committing yourself to an objective point of reference. If you have a moment to read this, I would be interested in what you think? I know you are a thinker, one I respect. ". . . emptiness that results from the loss of the transcendent is stark and devastating, philosophically and existentially. Indeed, the denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results ultimately in the denial of evil itself. In an attempt to escape what they call the contradiction between a good God and a world of evil, atheists try to dance around the reality of a moral law (and hence, a moral law giver) by introducing terms like “evolutionary ethics”. The one who raises the question against God in effect plays God while denying He exists. Now one may wonder: why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued. And that person can only be God. Our inability to alter what is actual frustrates our grandiose delusions of being sovereign over everything. Yet the truth is we cannot escape the existential rub by running from a moral law. Objective moral values exist only if God exists. Is it all right, for example, to mutilate babies for entertainment? Every reasonable person will say “no.” We know that objective moral values do exist. Therefore, God must exist. Examining those premises and their validity presents a very strong argument. The prophet Jeremiah noted, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9, ESV). Similarly, the apostle James said, “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does” (James 1:22-25). " Posted with permission.

Mike said: "I see a lot of assumptions that I don't make. But most of all, I see a profound lack of understand and awareness of what is actually in those writings. Most people shoot from the hip and don't even have the books from which to work their theories of PFAL errors, and even fewer have the magazine articles." Mike, Some of us can pretty much quote that class to you. . . . nearly verbatim. . . and it has been alot of years since I had to sleep through it. Did you know you can sleep with your eyes open? Here let me start. . . . "In this first session of this biblical research class I would like for you to take your bibles and turn to the gospel of John. . . John chapter 10. . . and in verse 10 the latter half of verse 10 it says the following. . . . this is Jesus speaking now. . . I am come that might have life and they might have it more abundantly. . . .so I began to wonder. . . . if Jesus promises a MORE than abundant life why is it that most Christians do not even enjoy an abundant life.. . . ." BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!! Well, what are we ? 30 seconds in and already he started down the path of error. What is an abundant life?. . . . what did Jesus offer here?. . . it wasn't red drapes . . . fire engine red drapes. The whole premise from word one was faulty. The abundant life He offers is Himself. . . . full, rich, meaningful, and eternal. These verses are a proverbial way of insisting that a belief IN Jesus as the Messiah and Son of God is the only way of being saved from sin and recieving eternal life. . . . what is the verse before this? Context. . . . He is the door. . . the one basis for spiritual security. . . Context. . . entering by the door??? It is about Jesus calling people. He was still in the presence of the Pharisees and the man who was born blind. . . He was speaking of the blindness of the pharisees and how they EXCLUDED people and Jesus was inviting them. Who has the power of the door? The pharisees were asking Him if they were blind too. . . the pharisees thought they were the door. . . . Jesus further explained that the only way it was going to happen was if He laid down His life. . . . not set up a bunch of rules to follow. . . . they called Him a DEMON and said He was insane. . . . It was deconstruction. . . to reconstruction. . . He was tearing down the whole system to reconstruct it. Far from talking about red drapes. . . He concludes it by saying I and the father are one. . . . while they had stones in their hands!!

Jessie Lee Peterson. . . I have listened to him once or twice. . . having the radio on, but not really paying attention. Kinda a nut. OHHHHH breaking news!! LOL Too funny. On the other hand the Bible Answer Man has some good stuff on this topic. . . . some concerning TWI and their unique take on Jesus. Hank Hannegraf is a really nice man and somewhat accessible (With a little determination) and can answer any questions one might have.