Stop the Shootings

[spectrum49]

3 hours ago, T-Bone said:

I don’t think you’re trying to be deceitful or manipulative …and maybe it’s just me but I feel like someone is NOT listening to what I’m saying when they say something like “for the most part we’re in agreement” ...

I say “whoa whoa whoa back up a minute – for the most part? What part is that? Please be specific!”

My statement "As for the rest of my post (which you didn't comment upon) I feel that for the most part, we're in (basic) agreement…” had ONLY to do with the rest of my post from Friday @ 5:43pm...nothing more.

Actually, I meant that as a compliment, since you said "you got it" concerning the fallacy of studying confusion. And the rest of my post concerned how I supposed you "had also gotten" what I said about light, darkness and balance, to be brief. (Sorry if I had somehow sounded ambiguous.)

What I meant was that I see you as "very strong on the light side", because of your seeming ability to perceive so much concerning "the dark side". (It had nothing to do with our possible diverging views on certain topics, or of your "state of flux", etc.)

Do you suppose you might try to be a little more blunt with me? I promise I won't become angry. I'm certainly not dense, but a more direct approach would make it easier for me to perceive what you're not saying --- in an effort to appear most kind. (I can take it, brother.)

Wow -- You have become more direct! (I was commenting in order and just now arrived at your comments concerning God working in you, so to speak.)

Let me convey all of that in different words: "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps." I understand (as you said) our responsibility to use our God-given talents. 

Truly, what I said had nothing to do with things that don't work out (as though one might blame God later on if things hadn't turned out right, etc). And that's precisely why I had used the phrase your great ideas...the ones that ended up working.

(And I apologize for giving the impression that God's always doing it...as though the man is totally out of the loop, merely being some kind of puppet on a string.)

One decides what he wants to do; and uses all his talents, personality, skills, etc, to pursue it. And often (while looking back, in prospective) he might see how God's hand was in it (through some of the details which brought his plan to fruition). But until then (as far as he might know) it's HIMSELF doing it...because he wanted to...and because it seemed interesting to him.

You said: "So is it no surprise then to stand back in wonder when looking at all the amazing advances in the fields of technology, medicine, the sciences, etc. that showcase our godlike talents of critical and creative thinking."

As with you, I'm in awe of much of man's technology; and I enjoy watching The Science Channel, and some others. As for being creative; I see nothing wrong with that. I read that it endears God to see his children emulating him. And even Jesus "considered it not robbery to be equal with God". (hmmm...)

Finally, you said: "I even think when we use our talents in benevolence toward our fellowman that is a glory to God – you are fulfilling the purpose for which you were designed."

That reminded me of Gal 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Helping our fellowman as we're able seems a most worthy endeavor indeed!

Peace, bro! 

[spectrum49]

Yes, TLC: In my eyes, you're being most fair to me. (And outline is a fair description.) And in the interim (as you put it), I don't mind our "making a few generalizations" concerning our different vantage points; and (in some brief sense, for the time being) why we're prone to suppose so.

It does bless me that you want to look at my book in detail. God knows I really don't mind so much if I have to explain even deeper here, answering questions about "whatever of the seven times" you pick; although we can both envision how bouncing around, back and forth could become somewhat confusing. (However, we're both fairly intelligent; so I see no real harm in that, during the interim.)

A "more straight-lined" discussion may follow when you're "basically up to speed" with my reasoning, per the book; and I'm confident that (then) a more orderly approach will be much easier to follow and build upon (from the beginning, to see how it progresses through time).

To be honest: Overall, I'm not 100% sure of my findings. Although I believe the logic behind them to be somewhat convincing, that's not the final proof. (For all I know, I could be dead wrong about all of this!) But at least in time, you'll be able to perceive more precisely why it seems to make so much sense to me.

(And if there's something you wish to add later on, understanding my perspective will make it much easier for you to help me unravel things here and there, if need be...or perhaps to even reinforce in some places where we agree.) Now, back to your comments in particular:

Concerning "time 2", I believe I see your perspective about "the times of ignorance"...which might indeed "span a hell of lot more time" than merely the time of the flood, to be brief. I also see your mention of "the covenant". (We might just explore that avenue at a later time.)

Do forgive me for the following, but sometimes I laugh to myself about God's covenant in the bow to Noah: Basically, he promised that "the waters wouldn't destroy all flesh again". What seems funny to me is what I imagine God might say, sometime later on: "Hey, I never said anything then about fire and brimstone and 100-pound hailstones...that was just about the water...Ha! Ha! Ha!" (My wife thinks my humor is rather sick at times.) 

You said:

Jesus Christ (and his followers) all lived by and under the law of Moses. Furthermore, I see no notable differences between how anyone can or would be saved during that time, and the times going all the way back to Moses and the giving of the law. (see Luke 10:25-26.) Consequently, I see no real indications, reason or purpose for a separate or distinct "Christ Administration."

Salvation seems deep, and varied. Although being "born again" seems most wonderful, I can't imagine some faithful OT believers having something lesser, merely because JC hadn't yet died and rose again. I imagine God has taken that into account, because they believed in those things...looking forward. (And as a result, what they receive might be at least on par with what "today's believers" have.)

As for John's baptism, I see that as another kind of salvation for those who couldn't yet become "born again". It must count for something! But then (if The Law extended from Jesus back to Moses, as you said) I wonder why there was no water baptism prior to John? (It was just a thought.)

As for a "separate Christ admin", you'll see about that later. I can almost promise you that my perspective (whether it's correct or not) will be plain to see. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by spectrum49
punctuation

[Bolshevik]

2 hours ago, Rocky said:

Huh? I don't see how that proves any such thing.

. . .

Because the man had a knowledge of God.

He wasn't listening to CCN, FOX et al. 

[T-Bone]

12 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

 Because the man had a knowledge of God.

He wasn't listening to CCN, FOX et al. 

Hmmmmmm....same set up as Adam had in the Garden of Eden...look how that turned out....there seems to be a pattern here.

Edited November 1, 2017 by T-Bone
the Director's Cut

[T-Bone]

13 hours ago, spectrum49 said:

(SNIP)...

Wow -- You have become more direct! (I was commenting in order and just now arrived at your comments concerning God working in you, so to speak.)

Let me convey all of that in different words: "A man's heart deviseth his way: but the Lord directeth his steps." I understand (as you said) our responsibility to use our God-given talents. 

Truly, what I said had nothing to do with things that don't work out (as though one might blame God later on if things hadn't turned out right, etc). And that's precisely why I had used the phrase your great ideas...the ones that ended up working.

(And I apologize for giving the impression that God's always doing it...as though the man is totally out of the loop, merely being some kind of puppet on a string.)

One decides what he wants to do; and uses all his talents, personality, skills, etc, to pursue it. And often (while looking back, in prospective) he might see how God's hand was in it (through some of the details which brought his plan to fruition). But until then (as far as he might know) it's HIMSELF doing it...because he wanted to...and because it seemed interesting to him.

You said: "So is it no surprise then to stand back in wonder when looking at all the amazing advances in the fields of technology, medicine, the sciences, etc. that showcase our godlike talents of critical and creative thinking."

As with you, I'm in awe of much of man's technology; and I enjoy watching The Science Channel, and some others. As for being creative; I see nothing wrong with that. I read that it endears God to see his children emulating him. And even Jesus "considered it not robbery to be equal with God". (hmmm...)

Finally, you said: "I even think when we use our talents in benevolence toward our fellowman that is a glory to God – you are fulfilling the purpose for which you were designed."

That reminded me of Gal 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Helping our fellowman as we're able seems a most worthy endeavor indeed!

Peace, bro! 

apology accepted........just kidding...no need to apologize...

it's just part of the clarification process in cyberspace

 

and maybe some of that "iron sharpens iron" a la Proverbs 27:17 thrown in si-mo-tane-e-us-lee while happening at the same time (how's that for the more redundant life?)

Edited November 1, 2017 by T-Bone
something thrown in for good measure

[spectrum49]

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

it's just part of the clarification process in cyberspace

Welcome to the club, friend! Cyberspace does indeed have it's limitations. But with enough patience, all can work out eventually! Ironically though...I was nearly finished with something for TLC (which relates) --- but you posted first! (I'll post that in just a minute.)

and maybe some of that "iron sharpens iron" a la Proverbs 27:17 thrown in si-mo-tane-e-us-lee while happening at the same time (how's that for the more redundant life?) [Ha! Ha! Ha!]

That quote (somehow) led me to this thought --- fresh off the press! (And I hope it makes you laugh!) "While iron is sharpening iron, it remains that someone has to wield the hammer while the other lays on the anvil!"  

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by spectrum49
Edited for "sh**ts and giggles"

[spectrum49]

TLC:

Just a note for clarification: This is NOT to pick at how you worded things, but to explain why I responded to you the way I did as a result. (I "get it now"; but at first, I didn't.) You said:

"If Eden (as you've referred to it) is counted as the first, after the fall would be the second, after the flood (c. Noah) the third, the law (i.e., Moses) was the fourth, the gospel of grace (i.e., Paul - not Pentecost) the fifth, after the gathering the sixth, the return of Christ the seventh, and the new heavens and earth the eighth. At least, that's currently how I see it ..."

At first, I supposed you were summarizing what you supposed my perspective was to that point (ie: currently). But later on, I realized you had actually presented your own take on the admins! Therefore, it had seemed curious to me why you supposed that my 4th one would be The Law, (when I actually see it as 3rd) and that my take wouldn't include a Christ Admin, etc.

To be perfectly clear, let me project "my false assumption" into your statement:

"If Eden (as you've referred to it) is counted as the first, [then the following is how I suppose your take on admins would play out] ==> after the fall would be the second, after the flood (c. Noah) the third...At least, that's currently how I see it ..."

SO: That's why my next response to you was the outline, as you correctly called it --- so you would more clearly understand my overall perspective.

How silly of me!   Nonetheless, we do have each other's general take on the 7 admins, which is good for now. 

[T-Bone]

19 minutes ago, spectrum49 said:

and maybe some of that "iron sharpens iron" a la Proverbs 27:17 thrown in si-mo-tane-e-us-lee while happening at the same time (how's that for the more redundant life?) [Ha! Ha! Ha!]

That quote (somehow) led me to this thought --- fresh off the press! (And I hope it makes you laugh!) "While iron is sharpening iron, it remains that someone has to wield the hammer while the other lays on the anvil!"  

 

hmmmm...ain't no two ways about it, my friend...we're both gonna take a beatin' 

ah yes...that takes me back to the good ol' daze before I got involved in "the proper church lifestyle" - I used to get hammered with my friends

Edited November 1, 2017 by T-Bone
typos

[spectrum49]

31 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

hmmmm...ain'y no two ways about it, my friend...we're both gonna take a beatin'   (Ain't it the truth! Well then...so much for my "wonderful expectations" at the bema!) 

ah yes...that takes me back to the good ol' daze before I got involved in "the church" - I used to get hammered with my friends  (Real funny, T-Bone!)

Such seems the "story of my life": Because of misunderstandings, I have (over the years) become tempted to "over clarify"... just to make damned sure people knew where I was coming from.

However, (many times) the additional wording not only fueled the confusion, but also added a hint that (perhaps) I was being condescending as well! (Like: "Gee whiz, Mel...did you really think I was that stupid?") Man oh man --- such a paradox!

My father used to say: "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard was not what I meant!" 

And perhaps this may be the reason why the following is one of my "old favorites": 

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by spectrum49
for clarification --- not that it helps any! (LOL)

[Twinky]

There is some interesting material in this thread that doesn't relate at all to the topic title, all the stuff about administrations etc.  Would be great if that could be split off so that that interesting trail of thought(s) doesn't get lost.  There's a lot of other material on the thread title outside of the "admins" stuff that bears consideration on its own merits.

Mods???

[spectrum49]

On 11/1/2017 at 2:53 PM, Twinky said:

There is some interesting material in this thread that doesn't relate at all to the topic title, all the stuff about administrations etc.  Would be great if that could be split off so that that interesting trail of thought(s) doesn't get lost.  There's a lot of other material on the thread title outside of the "admins" stuff that bears consideration on its own merits.

Mods???

You're absolutely correct, Twinky. Discussing Biblical admins here is definitely "off topic". (And I rather alluded to that myself much earlier in this thread.) It does belong elsewhere. And there should be no reason for "mod intervention", as I'll politely discontinue further remarks on this thread.

If robbs wants to continue trying to make some point here, that's fine. And (since his last post was on Oct 23rd, 10 days ago) it appears he just might be finished here himself anyway. Peace! 

[Bolshevik]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/nyregion/police-shooting-lower-manhattan.html

So this last attack didn't involve real guns.  Eight innocent people died anyway.

Although the attacker got shot.

So are terrorists really part of society?  Would they be the exception to the Law rule here?  We're talking quality of life of a society and stopping shootings.  How's this all work?  

 

[Bolshevik]

On 11/1/2017 at 8:14 AM, T-Bone said:

Hmmmmmm....same set up as Adam had in the Garden of Eden...look how that turned out....there seems to be a pattern here.

You're saying if I consider your post I might change my thinking? 

[T-Bone]

1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:

You're saying if I consider your post I might change my thinking? 

not at all...I merely made an observation of similarities and mentioned just one possible inference

 

Edited November 3, 2017 by T-Bone
word choice

[T-Bone]

1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/nyregion/police-shooting-lower-manhattan.html

So this last attack didn't involve real guns.  Eight innocent people died anyway.

Although the attacker got shot.

So are terrorists really part of society?  Would they be the exception to the Law rule here?  We're talking quality of life of a society and stopping shootings.  How's this all work?  

 

I'm assuming you're asking rhetorical questions.

but to answer anyway - - if the perpetrator of such an act is a citizen of our country then they are a part of our society - like it or not - and still subject to the laws of the land...but if not a citizen of our country - though committing such an act in our country - then they are still subject to the laws of the land.

[Bolshevik]

9 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

I'm assuming you're asking rhetorical questions.

but to answer anyway - - if the perpetrator of such an act is a citizen of our country then they are a part of our society - like it or not - and still subject to the laws of the land...but if not a citizen of our country - though committing such an act in our country - then they are still subject to the laws of the land.

Law as in Law of Believing.  With its 64,000 caveats and exceptions when applied to the real world, and counting.  

Mainly directed at Rrobs.

You've got gun control, mental imbalances, and then there's terrorists.  Where do they fit?  They don't even need guns or to be crazy.

 

[Bolshevik]

20 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

not at all...I merely made an observation of similarities and mentioned just one possible inference

 

Right, I was going with TWI's discouragement of thinking of alternatives.  Because, you know, new ideas are dangerous for some reason.

You could also make a point with a billboard.  Or shoot up the town.  Either way.

[T-Bone]

1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:

Law as in Law of Believing.  With its 64,000 caveats and exceptions when applied to the real world, and counting.  

Mainly directed at Rrobs.

You've got gun control, mental imbalances, and then there's terrorists.  Where do they fit?  They don't even need guns or to be crazy.

 

 

1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:

Right, I was going with TWI's discouragement of thinking of alternatives.  Because, you know, new ideas are dangerous for some reason.

You could also make a point with a billboard.  Or shoot up the town.  Either way.

Understood- I figured all that - but just as an aside to all who follow Grease Spot, I always have in mind the wider audience when I craft a reply - it’s usually not just “addressed “ to the person I quote.

 

And so.... replying to what you said on the frustration and futility of trying to apply TWI’s solutions to real-world problems- - I agree; just from my 2-bit analysis of the typical TWI mindset I tend to think - - other than someone’s proclivity to promote TWI doctrine, which may certainly be the case here too -  - that frame of thought has failed to identify the cause of the problem.

Ya know, many religions try to answer the problem of evil, why bad things happen to good people, why people do bad things, etc. - - but to suggest the law of believing (i.e. someone’s lack of believing or fear of something) or that focusing on bible verses or this thing called “The Word”  will prevent negative things from happening is nothing but fantasy or setting one’s hope on magic. 

And I think if one has a tendency to hide their head in the sand to ignore the news - there’s probably a good chance they’ll get trampled underfoot by some beach bum not looking where they’re going.

Edited November 3, 2017 by T-Bone
Clarity

[T-Bone]

watched this discussion and liked the variety of panelists and viewpoints - thought some might find this interesting to go along with this thread topic

Third Rail PBS...Is violence in America's DNA ?

 

[Rocky]

17 hours ago, T-Bone said:

watched this discussion and liked the variety of panelists and viewpoints - thought some might find this interesting to go along with this thread topic

Third Rail PBS...Is violence in America's DNA ?

 

Most certainly yes.