First, Grateful Dead lyrics are not scripture. Like scripture, however, they can pop up and attach themselves to our thoughts for our consideration. Then we decide how much relevance they have. "His job is to shed light, not to master" is the last line (summary and conclusion??? :) of the 'Lady with a fan' part of Terrapin station. Not a 100% match to scripture. I think pfal has a TON of light in it!
I don't think VP was an evil man. I think he did evil things. I think he was part of an entire generation of men who thought women existed for their pleasure. Lot of men who were bosses who hired secretaries for something other than just stenography. Did Esther sleep her way to the top? Some would think so. I think VP really WAS called of God to teach his word. Around age 50 his farm began to host many young women at a time. He's not supposed to notice?
Interestingly, Robert Hunter, Jerry Garcia's lyricist, describes one productive songwriting day as "one great, glowing apocatastasis". He wrote lyrics to 3 Dead songs, all keepers, in one day. You might remember VP using the greek word hypokatastasis as the third degree of figures of speech which cause change (similie, metaphor, and hypocatastasis). Apocatastasis is in an English dictionary. It means 1)a restoring, and 2)a planet returning to a particular point in its orbit. Not sure which one he meant; guessing the 2nd.
I think pfal has a ton of light in it. Willing to let God take care of VP, however it plays out.
I dunno. I think the explanation is much, much simpler.
The Victoid was a vile, spoiled, self-centered child, who raged, screamed and bellowed, when he didn't get his way.. I've met others like him, they have no power over me..
A good guy who did bad things? Naw, I don't think so. Many of the things he did were downright criminal. He knew what he was doing was wrong and yet he continued to do it. That makes him criminally negligent. And, he conspired to threaten bodily harm to some who stood in his way. Maybe we just disagree on the definition of "good guy".
I remember telling my first twig leader about my literary diet-----I think he might have braced himself in case I started spewing green ooze ala The Exorcist. Well, this was prior to that particular movie's release but I think you get the gist of it.
Nietzsche, huh? I read something by him once. Beyond good and evil. Like some of his contemporaries (Dostoevsky, Freud, et al) he tosses around generic philosophical questions and concludes that mankind's existence is absurd at best. Without the spirit of God, it IS absurd. Vanity of vanities. I'll spring for the next round of beer, BTW.
I remember in pfal VP said he was "dynamically concerned" with the subject of philosophy, or something like that. He never elaborated on that, that I know of. LCM spoke live at my AC in '84; said good stuff about Thoreaux and Emerson. Perhaps they thought philosophy was a challenging way to 'discern truth from error'.
Way too long here. I apologize in advance, my keyboard's on auto or sumpin'. Brain dump follows, Clean Up Crew! back table!!
Interesting subject. Philosophy is often pitted against Christianity or Christian thought, as a "philosophical" approach to life or a specific issue would emphasize human reason and capacity to sort through to an end conclusion.
Apologetics in religion attempts to take reason and logic and support or argue conclusions and beliefs. VPW used to refer to it as "apologizing", and thought it rubbish. Likewise "defending" the truth - "truth needs no defense", only declaration.
To some extent I can go with that as a lot of apologetics ends up chasing it's tail forever, when in fact the basic conclusions are already assumed so it begs the question "why bother?" And all strains of thought in philosophy can't be reconciled with each other without some give and take on the part of each. That can work from the philosophical discipline but not from the religious platform where there are basic tenets in place at the outset.
Looking at PFAL the basic premise is much like a philosophical premise - looking at John 10:10 and the "abundant life", defining that, and then looking around at the world and attempting to reason where that is, why it doesn't appear to be in evidence and how it's be both understood and experienced. VPW makes these statements clearly in Session 1 and presents the question - why don't I see it and why do non-Christians who don't believe in Christ's words often appear to have it?
One could say then that PFAL doesn't follow a philosophical path but rather simply goes to the Bible and presents the answers to the question - however the basic premise implies that some reasoning has gone into developing the question and some assessment has been done and some basic statements for the question (argument) are established. There's both deductive and inductive reasoning and argument made.
On a very fundamental level John 10:10 without that question would simply be taken "as is" and there'd be nothing more to say about it. PFAL is about "power for abundant living" and the direction follows a series of assumptions that have been concluded as to what that generally is and from that specifics follow. Not everyone has come to the same conclusions about those verses or that question as PFAL.
An example that came to mind of how to see this, as statements:
Jesus came to give abundant life.
Bob has abundant life.
Jesus gave Bob abundant life.
In PFAL that isn't the answer to the argument made in, the fist session of the teaching and based on the first session you wouldn't come to that conclusion. The teaching defines abundant life as "zoe", "life in all it's manifestations" but non-Christians have it or some of it and Christians appear to struggle without it or part of it.
The question would be better presented as - "what is real abundance" and what is the life that Jesus came to give? PFAL actually goes in that direction but the early pieces fragment the teaching IMO. This has less to do with "the law of believing" and all of that and more with setting a solid foundation to go forward from.
Reading the gospels though we can see that what Jesus said throughout didn't occur in a vacuum, it occurred in the context of humanity, the entire purpose of Jesus Christ would be to "save" - mankind, preach a true message and bring true godly thought into human reasoning. The context is God reaching out to man.
Jesus Christ's use of metaphors (and throughout the Bible) alone presents a philosophical kind of stance - if God is spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth then what do metaphors serve? Metaphor = something in common between things that aren't alike. Simile, "this is like" that. Analogy....use of these show an attempt to understand something that might not be understood as well without them or not at all. God seemed to promote this kind of rendering by all appearances as a means to knowing Himself and coming to a true "knowledge of the truth", ie it's "integrity" as an outcome.
If there's no context there's no way to define what's being said, asked or answered. Truth may "be" and that's enough however once it's perceived the process of working with it and "living" it begins. I'd take the position that human existence is largely a process that' puts the realities of God into application and forms a collection of moving parts - "truth in operation", where the nature of the participants - people - requires logic and reasoning to bring the ultimate outcome to pass. We are part of it by definition and given that we are required to participate. Those who take a stance of "don't think only believe" aren't participating fully IMO.
It's not a truly philosophical approach by definition I know and that's not my own personal goal but I do think human reasoning and logic are facilities that are required to fully come to "know" the truth and be "set free" as Jesus described. I do think on a personal level many Christians realize that and do that but socially denigrate the process they're involved in to appear more "full of faith". It's not a terrible thing but it can muddy the water for clear, honest communication.Others admittedly don't and basically listen and believe what they're told. That's not terrible either but it can have gaps if you're pressed outside what you've been told and someone ends up completely reliant on someone else giving them "answers" and having no personal realizations of what they "believe".
Likewise "defending" the truth - "truth needs no defense", only declaration.
Try this on for size. Truth doesn't need any defense, any declaration, ... only to be scrutinized and proven. ... Why I even have a scripture that supports that premise. "Prove (some versions say 'test') all things; hold fast to that which is true."
The statements are just an off the cuff example - the first two present the question that's stated in session 1, PFAL in fact it's given as one of the driving forces behind the teaching "power for abundant living".
The Bob has "more of an abundant life" than many of the Christians, looking round about, etc. If Jesus Christ gives it in whole, how does The Bob get some of it, if he doesn't get it from Jesus? So - the assumption would be, Jesus gave it to him.
Apply the same thing to anything else - I come that you might have desert. Ham has desert. Ham got it from socks.
Or did he....? If what you have is in fact a desert item, and I and only I have deserts to give the answer's clear. Enjoy the deserts which I give.
What if you didn't get it from me? Counterfeit deserts!!??! Say it isn't so. Scratch Ham AND The Bob out of Deserts for Abundant Meals, session one!! Recalibrate the flanges Sally!
This is where "abundant life" has to be defined otherwise the foundation can't support the conclusion. If the abundant life is a menu of items, some of which can be had without Jesus, then we need to know that, upfront.
John 10:10a might then read: I am come that you might have life and have it more abundant. Some of that life you already may have but I give all of it and only from me can you get all of it.
Or: I am come to give that part of the abundant life that you don't already have and give it more abundant.
Or maybe: you think you have abundant life but you don't. Check this out....
But if Jesus is the means by which abundant life is given, ya gotta get it from Jesus.
Further on in PFAL there's taught "the Giver and the Gift".......................................................................................................
Sessions 1 and 2 amplify the basic foundation of John 10:10a and ff as to how to understand this - positive affirmative believing versus negative destructive fear. Fear is sand in the machinery of life, etc. etc. People live in fear all their lives, guilt, shame, feelings and thoughts that prevent them from ever receiving what God has available.
So what about The Bob? Bob's life is no doubt rife with as much sand as anyone else and he doesn't believe in Jesus. Yet................if you think about it for a minute you can see where I'm going, a wonderful happy place where the breezes in the treeses are soft and cool and the pork is in the pit.
Well, it's soon to be another day come and gone. Hasta la vista, babeee! Have a good one.
I must befriend this Bob fella, perhaps over pie . . . with ice cream . . . could learn from this unbeliever's believing . . . works for saint and sinner alike . . . only the latter doesn't owe class fees and ABS etc. . . . Perhaps it's not what Bob knows but what he doesn't bother to know that he knows . .
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
12
11
6
Popular Days
Jan 12
18
Jan 9
15
Jan 13
9
Jan 20
6
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 5 posts
Ham 12 posts
waysider 11 posts
Broken Arrow 6 posts
Popular Days
Jan 12 2011
18 posts
Jan 9 2011
15 posts
Jan 13 2011
9 posts
Jan 20 2011
6 posts
johniam
First, Grateful Dead lyrics are not scripture. Like scripture, however, they can pop up and attach themselves to our thoughts for our consideration. Then we decide how much relevance they have. "His job is to shed light, not to master" is the last line (summary and conclusion??? :) of the 'Lady with a fan' part of Terrapin station. Not a 100% match to scripture. I think pfal has a TON of light in it!
I don't think VP was an evil man. I think he did evil things. I think he was part of an entire generation of men who thought women existed for their pleasure. Lot of men who were bosses who hired secretaries for something other than just stenography. Did Esther sleep her way to the top? Some would think so. I think VP really WAS called of God to teach his word. Around age 50 his farm began to host many young women at a time. He's not supposed to notice?
Interestingly, Robert Hunter, Jerry Garcia's lyricist, describes one productive songwriting day as "one great, glowing apocatastasis". He wrote lyrics to 3 Dead songs, all keepers, in one day. You might remember VP using the greek word hypokatastasis as the third degree of figures of speech which cause change (similie, metaphor, and hypocatastasis). Apocatastasis is in an English dictionary. It means 1)a restoring, and 2)a planet returning to a particular point in its orbit. Not sure which one he meant; guessing the 2nd.
I think pfal has a ton of light in it. Willing to let God take care of VP, however it plays out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. I think the explanation is much, much simpler.
The Victoid was a vile, spoiled, self-centered child, who raged, screamed and bellowed, when he didn't get his way.. I've met others like him, they have no power over me..
charismatic? Of course. When he had to be..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yeah, I saw it once. And I held the question "in abeyance" (cough, excuse the wayism)..
what entity would clothe a spoiled, ungrateful, unsatisfiable creature, with LIGHT..
Honest to God.. this observation was in 1978.
light is good and all..
so where do we go from here..
Don't pray for enlightenment, if you don't want the consequences..
well.. as far as consequences, I didn't care. Nor do I now..
what if you woke up tomorrow morning, and found EVERYTHING you believed was for lack of better words.. just plain WRONG..
a very wonderful friend asked me that question once..
yep.. one wakes up..
and the world isn't exactly the ordered.. what is the description..
perfection? No, that's not it.. give me a moment..
the world does not exactly, or even closely align itself with ones beliefs..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
A good guy who did bad things? Naw, I don't think so. Many of the things he did were downright criminal. He knew what he was doing was wrong and yet he continued to do it. That makes him criminally negligent. And, he conspired to threaten bodily harm to some who stood in his way. Maybe we just disagree on the definition of "good guy".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
sorry if it takes me 30 years to figure it out.. or not..
how many years has it taken you..
at least I have peace here.
always have..
now I'm just older..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I still haven't figured it all out. I've gotten a few pieces of the puzzle assembled, though. Maybe that's more than some folks can ever hope for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
a good guy who did bad things.. how do I address this to myself.
no.. he was a spoiled, unsatisfiable infant..
I won't say the offspring of who..
sorry.. talking to myself. Hope it makes sense to somebody though..
No. He was a spoiled, unsatisfied toddler..
in the *great* scheme of things..
maybe that is the whole point here..
we *lowly* animals can come to The cave.. and realize we are all the same..
its an old story I heard somewhere..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
"cave" and "cafe" are almost the same thing, aren't they?
well.. as long as it is a clean, well-lighted place..
The Customer ends up paying here, unless he is too drunk..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Are you, perhaps, thinking of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None.?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I looked at your reference friend..
how is it, you can reference ancient.. s*it.. that I'm thinking..
maybe it all is just human nature..
maybe I'm far too far late here..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Nothing quite so mystic, I'm afraid.
I was just a big fan of anything esoteric or existential, back in the day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
maybe never late than never..
"exoteric"..
I've always been floating around here..
forever.. well.. a couple of times..
its part of the deal..
Now, if I could have a few beers with you at the end of the day.. that would seal perfection here..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I remember telling my first twig leader about my literary diet-----I think he might have braced himself in case I started spewing green ooze ala The Exorcist. Well, this was prior to that particular movie's release but I think you get the gist of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
so.. we look light square in the face.. and we's "possessed"..
n't
well.. better the company of a few devils..
sorry. the Squirrel is now drunk.
but dont worry about the tab.
count up your damned saucers.. and take the fifty out of the wallet.. give yourself a generous tip..
It's worth it.. the place was well-lighted..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Nietzsche, huh? I read something by him once. Beyond good and evil. Like some of his contemporaries (Dostoevsky, Freud, et al) he tosses around generic philosophical questions and concludes that mankind's existence is absurd at best. Without the spirit of God, it IS absurd. Vanity of vanities. I'll spring for the next round of beer, BTW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yes, that's the party line that was pushed in Dealing With The Adversary and subsequently parroted throughout "The Ministry".
It certainly doesn't reflect my personal experiences, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I remember in pfal VP said he was "dynamically concerned" with the subject of philosophy, or something like that. He never elaborated on that, that I know of. LCM spoke live at my AC in '84; said good stuff about Thoreaux and Emerson. Perhaps they thought philosophy was a challenging way to 'discern truth from error'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Way too long here. I apologize in advance, my keyboard's on auto or sumpin'. Brain dump follows, Clean Up Crew! back table!!
Interesting subject. Philosophy is often pitted against Christianity or Christian thought, as a "philosophical" approach to life or a specific issue would emphasize human reason and capacity to sort through to an end conclusion.
Apologetics in religion attempts to take reason and logic and support or argue conclusions and beliefs. VPW used to refer to it as "apologizing", and thought it rubbish. Likewise "defending" the truth - "truth needs no defense", only declaration.
To some extent I can go with that as a lot of apologetics ends up chasing it's tail forever, when in fact the basic conclusions are already assumed so it begs the question "why bother?" And all strains of thought in philosophy can't be reconciled with each other without some give and take on the part of each. That can work from the philosophical discipline but not from the religious platform where there are basic tenets in place at the outset.
Looking at PFAL the basic premise is much like a philosophical premise - looking at John 10:10 and the "abundant life", defining that, and then looking around at the world and attempting to reason where that is, why it doesn't appear to be in evidence and how it's be both understood and experienced. VPW makes these statements clearly in Session 1 and presents the question - why don't I see it and why do non-Christians who don't believe in Christ's words often appear to have it?
One could say then that PFAL doesn't follow a philosophical path but rather simply goes to the Bible and presents the answers to the question - however the basic premise implies that some reasoning has gone into developing the question and some assessment has been done and some basic statements for the question (argument) are established. There's both deductive and inductive reasoning and argument made.
On a very fundamental level John 10:10 without that question would simply be taken "as is" and there'd be nothing more to say about it. PFAL is about "power for abundant living" and the direction follows a series of assumptions that have been concluded as to what that generally is and from that specifics follow. Not everyone has come to the same conclusions about those verses or that question as PFAL.
An example that came to mind of how to see this, as statements:
Jesus came to give abundant life.
Bob has abundant life.
Jesus gave Bob abundant life.
In PFAL that isn't the answer to the argument made in, the fist session of the teaching and based on the first session you wouldn't come to that conclusion. The teaching defines abundant life as "zoe", "life in all it's manifestations" but non-Christians have it or some of it and Christians appear to struggle without it or part of it.
The question would be better presented as - "what is real abundance" and what is the life that Jesus came to give? PFAL actually goes in that direction but the early pieces fragment the teaching IMO. This has less to do with "the law of believing" and all of that and more with setting a solid foundation to go forward from.
Reading the gospels though we can see that what Jesus said throughout didn't occur in a vacuum, it occurred in the context of humanity, the entire purpose of Jesus Christ would be to "save" - mankind, preach a true message and bring true godly thought into human reasoning. The context is God reaching out to man.
Jesus Christ's use of metaphors (and throughout the Bible) alone presents a philosophical kind of stance - if God is spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth then what do metaphors serve? Metaphor = something in common between things that aren't alike. Simile, "this is like" that. Analogy....use of these show an attempt to understand something that might not be understood as well without them or not at all. God seemed to promote this kind of rendering by all appearances as a means to knowing Himself and coming to a true "knowledge of the truth", ie it's "integrity" as an outcome.
If there's no context there's no way to define what's being said, asked or answered. Truth may "be" and that's enough however once it's perceived the process of working with it and "living" it begins. I'd take the position that human existence is largely a process that' puts the realities of God into application and forms a collection of moving parts - "truth in operation", where the nature of the participants - people - requires logic and reasoning to bring the ultimate outcome to pass. We are part of it by definition and given that we are required to participate. Those who take a stance of "don't think only believe" aren't participating fully IMO.
It's not a truly philosophical approach by definition I know and that's not my own personal goal but I do think human reasoning and logic are facilities that are required to fully come to "know" the truth and be "set free" as Jesus described. I do think on a personal level many Christians realize that and do that but socially denigrate the process they're involved in to appear more "full of faith". It's not a terrible thing but it can muddy the water for clear, honest communication.Others admittedly don't and basically listen and believe what they're told. That's not terrible either but it can have gaps if you're pressed outside what you've been told and someone ends up completely reliant on someone else giving them "answers" and having no personal realizations of what they "believe".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
but that violates later present "truth".
You know.. anybody outside of da walls of da WAY with anything "abundant" just has to be due to possession by debils or something..
You know. Jesus has to beg rosie's permission to "bless" anybody..
and that.. in my honest humble opinion, describes religion at da way..
Jesus isn't Lord.. he's an understudy..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Try this on for size. Truth doesn't need any defense, any declaration, ... only to be scrutinized and proven. ... Why I even have a scripture that supports that premise. "Prove (some versions say 'test') all things; hold fast to that which is true."
Sounds like a winner to me. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Yeah, well.
The statements are just an off the cuff example - the first two present the question that's stated in session 1, PFAL in fact it's given as one of the driving forces behind the teaching "power for abundant living".
The Bob has "more of an abundant life" than many of the Christians, looking round about, etc. If Jesus Christ gives it in whole, how does The Bob get some of it, if he doesn't get it from Jesus? So - the assumption would be, Jesus gave it to him.
Apply the same thing to anything else - I come that you might have desert. Ham has desert. Ham got it from socks.
Or did he....? If what you have is in fact a desert item, and I and only I have deserts to give the answer's clear. Enjoy the deserts which I give.
What if you didn't get it from me? Counterfeit deserts!!??! Say it isn't so. Scratch Ham AND The Bob out of Deserts for Abundant Meals, session one!! Recalibrate the flanges Sally!
This is where "abundant life" has to be defined otherwise the foundation can't support the conclusion. If the abundant life is a menu of items, some of which can be had without Jesus, then we need to know that, upfront.
John 10:10a might then read: I am come that you might have life and have it more abundant. Some of that life you already may have but I give all of it and only from me can you get all of it.
Or: I am come to give that part of the abundant life that you don't already have and give it more abundant.
Or maybe: you think you have abundant life but you don't. Check this out....
But if Jesus is the means by which abundant life is given, ya gotta get it from Jesus.
Further on in PFAL there's taught "the Giver and the Gift".......................................................................................................
Sessions 1 and 2 amplify the basic foundation of John 10:10a and ff as to how to understand this - positive affirmative believing versus negative destructive fear. Fear is sand in the machinery of life, etc. etc. People live in fear all their lives, guilt, shame, feelings and thoughts that prevent them from ever receiving what God has available.
So what about The Bob? Bob's life is no doubt rife with as much sand as anyone else and he doesn't believe in Jesus. Yet................if you think about it for a minute you can see where I'm going, a wonderful happy place where the breezes in the treeses are soft and cool and the pork is in the pit.
Well, it's soon to be another day come and gone. Hasta la vista, babeee! Have a good one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
heh.. I think we were saying the same thing friend. I may have been just a TAD bit more sarcastic here..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I must befriend this Bob fella, perhaps over pie . . . with ice cream . . . could learn from this unbeliever's believing . . . works for saint and sinner alike . . . only the latter doesn't owe class fees and ABS etc. . . . Perhaps it's not what Bob knows but what he doesn't bother to know that he knows . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I think we need to have an additional session added on to PFAL called "What About Bob?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.