satori001

Nice to make your acquaintance, Clay.

CM, I know you weren't yelling. And I know you weren't being anything like Craig Martindale. Ever hear an Amish conversation? (Forgive me if it isn't them, but this community abounds in Pennsylvania.) They use "thee," for you, and so on. "Hello CM. How art thou?" Kinda creepy, in a nice way, isn't it? When you say stuff like "the carnal mind is at enmity..." and "And as spiritual Wisdom rises, which is Christ, the fleshly, carnal, selfish thoughts begin to die," it rings a little strange, not unlike Amish conversation. I know what you mean, but instead of you speaking from experience, I'm hearing scripture being recited from memory. I want to know what you think in your own words, not in somebody else's. I want to know what your experience was in our common language, not old English. (Okay, it's not true Old English, but what else do you call it?) So this is not to offend, and I'm sorry if any has been taken. It is to ask for your indulgence. That's all.

There ya go, CM. An unsolicited opinion I'm sure you never expected. To modify your point slightly: NOT focusing on the way things are said is a good way to cause people to miss the message.

CM, you're correct. I'm only saying that we do focus on the way things are said. Don't you agree?

another banged up volvo

laleo, Metaphor? I guess I could have titled the thread, "Whose Sin IS It?" excuse me for a moment, just checking punctuation... okay. The birth, life, ministry, message, miracles, passion, death, resurrection and ascension of Mr. Jesus Christ might be our unmentioned metaphors. I suggest that my metaphors can beat up your metaphor, and send it running back home whining to its mama ("Original Sin"). Resurrection trumps retribution. Okay, okay, not in real life. You've got me there. "Christ in you, the hope of glory,... filled with power... more than conquerors..." a Christian's spiritual currency holds about as much dynamic, discernible, demonstrable, deliverable value, in the real world, as Monopoly money. That raises the question posed in my thread. Why is that? If the spirit of God dwells in the born again believer (and not just TWI'ers, but the world over), why does it appear to be dormant, or at best, latent? Is that God's intention? If so, who are we to argue? If not, shouldn't we admit we don't seem to be moving, get out, lift up the hood, roll up our sleeves, and figure out why all this potential horsepower isn't making a difference where the rubber meets the road? I love metaphors.

Uh yeah - I think it's mine-lol! I still think it's King James' own voice, and more improbably your own, one which we all only recently (years or decades, as opposed to centuries) adopted. Maybe you're so accustomed now to the lingo, you don't notice it. I do.In TWI we used KJV language as our "spiritual" vocabulary. I suspect we paid a heavy price (as "believers") for that, one which may have far outweighed the benefits. By failing to translate biblical concepts out of "old English" into our every day language, we may have been less able to integrate its message into our lives. That might account for a lot. It might even have permitted a superficial spirituality, characteristic of TWI, to permeate the ministry. It allowed the words to carry most of the weight, and took their meanings for granted. It may also have led to a "compartmentalization of consciousness." By that I mean, when we spoke in KJV-speak, we felt like believers because we associated our "believer" feelings, thoughts and images with those linguistic cues. Cues are essential to unconscious "habit patterns." When we omit thee's and thou's, etc, from normal conversation, those can cues no longer help us. If we include them, we wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone but ourselves. When we speak the contemporary English, those KJV-believer linguistic cues were replaced by our "old man" cues, and we easily fall back into old habits. So using separate vocabularies may hamper the ability to integrate the "old wine" into "new skins," our own. Just a thought. I'd still find your replies easier to digest in contemporary English. You don't have to but I suspect you'd communicate better to everyone.

laleo, the chances are good. I can't believe I'd did that. I'm so ashamed. Was there anything else?

CM, the content of your posts holds promise, but the mystical style you take on belies your sincerity. Can you shake the meta-Christian lingo and just put it into the vernacular? It would go a long way toward making your message more accessible. For instance, what do you mean by "carnal mind?" What do you mean by letting it "die?" Stuff like that. Pretend we never sat through Wierwille's McDogma class and we live in contemporary America. I'd really like to know what you're saying, but I have to "hear" it first. I haven't heard it yet. The voice you're using isn't your own. Am I right or wrong? Thanks.

Song, I truly appreciate what must have been a valiant effort to be brief. But consider how many readers you might have lost by tackling the entire initial post in one bite. I will try to undo the "Gordian knot," by answering specific comments one at a time, as I get to them. Meanwhile a topic like this, it seems to me, is more palatable served in small portions. I don't want this thread to become a heroic but improbable quest into paradox and enigma for a few die-hards in a joust of epic-sized posts. It will sink like a rock if that happens. How about a conversation instead? Be as brief as you can. Write your post as if it were to everyone, not just me. Yeah, I break my own rules. But I'm working on that. Thanks.

-->

CM, is this what you believe, or are you speaking from experience?

Do you grasp what you're saying, CM?If not, how do you know it's true? If so, what can you tell us about it? Uh, briefly! How does it relate to "believing," and to miraculous results?

Yeah, but it does concern me. Every post is important but I want to bring each into the thread's larger context.If one doesn't make a contribution, one risks becoming an example. I hope that's okay. If not, there's always "private topics," but I'd rather have you continue posting. There's nothing I like more than an intelligent skeptic.

There is no "we."

I would say just the opposite, but with one caveat.

I guess so. Does it matter? What does matter for now is the topic. Usually the conversation stops when the ego comes up because, in our culture, it's all we know of ourselves. It's a dead end, a brick wall, a do-not-pass-go. We're just so used to it. It's as familiar to you as your own face, or the sensation of breathing. And we haven't got a clue how it got there, or how to manage it. But we guard the ego, sometimes with our lives, and quite often with our health and happiness. Don't we? Now isn't that cause enough to ask "why?" But we usually don't ask. I wonder why not. "Ego-management." We don't hear much about it. It usually connotes containing one's pride, but pride is only one of the ego's expressions. One of many. Suppose you had an "ego-ectomy." Who, or what, do you think would remain? Would anything familiar to "you" survive? Did Jesus have an "ego?" If so, where did the "christ" (spirit) end and his "ego" begin? Another way of asking is, What are the ego's boundaries? It's a finite thing. It must have boundaries. Where does the "projection" end and the "projector" begin? Do we even differentiate? Probably not. Should we? Does it matter? Anyone venture a guess?

The ego is an effect, an image projected by our nervous and limbic systems upon the "screen of consciousness," which are themselves effects. The ego cannot but "believe" otherwise.

Originally posted by Mr. Hammeroni: Well, that leaves a lot fewer options.. It leaves no options. Maybe WE do not effect the cause that we think we do. We don't.

No, by definition, [the law of] cause and effect always applies.

It's clear that MoveOn.org is hiding its real motives behind a very big bird, which is the very same thing they are giving to the public with this ridiculous pretense. Doesn't it bother you, My3Senses, that MoveOn is disingenuous about a so-called campaign to save "Sesame Street, Reading Rainbow, and other children's shows?" Why are they so shady about their true agenda? Here's my answer: They know the public wouldn't be so ready to "save" (underwrite) their unethical, political exploitation of public TV & radio with taxpayer funds. You have more integrity than MoveOn's hacks, don't you? Embedding their political messages in public TV & radio is not much different from Muslim terrorists who hide and fight in "holy" Mosques. Only the tactics differ. How sanctimonious they become when their sacred patch of real estate draws return fire. "Great Satan, great Satan! How dare they firing bullets at the house of Allah!!" "Those evil Republicans want to cancel Sesame Street!" By the way. Who mentioned "the devil?" Is that your own allusion to some connection with the religious right? Didn't see it on MoveOn's website, but I didn't read too much of it either.

You don't know how profound a question this is.

A buffon? Don't know about buffons.This is an unprofitable derail, Mr. H. Running out of profitable things to say? You may want to retire "heh heh" for a while. Used now and then, or now and again, it may transmit a writer's wit. Repeating itself with rhythmic persistence, like a facial tick, it may transmit the writer's lack thereof.

Originally posted by Long Gone: You seem to be confusing your thoughts, Happens all the time. to which I was not replying in that post, Hmm, okay, you were NOT replying to my thoughts! with House's non-hypothetical statement, Could've been, but I read it differently. It was singularly ambiguous. to which I was replying. Such as you have. In which case, I am also confused by your thoughts.

I gladly concede that my interpretation of "miraculous" characteristics of events could be entirely wrong. In that respect, I guess I don't "believe" in them. Luke 2:19 says, "But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart." Keep is to remember or commit to memory. Ponder is to consider deeply. That's the best attitude, I think, for things of apparent significance which cannot be explained.