Concerning the Bible...

[T-Bone]

5 hours ago, TLC said:

So from your perspective, there's no difference... yet, perhaps you might consider that from my perspective, there is (and has been, for over 40 years.)  Long ago (before twi) I came to the realization that whatever is spiritual:  (1) is spiritual, (2) is not physical, and (3) is a reality beyond the reality that is common to all men.  Of course, not only did that stir a certain hunger to learn more, it also established an "irreducible" premise within me.  But, if that is wrong... then I suppose I might nearly well be in that category of men "most miserable" in this life.  

That said, perhaps I'm inclined to see certain things a bit differently.   For instance, although I'm not likely to ever speak out about it, within my mind I would probably not agree with someone that said, "The bible is the word of God."  Because in my mind, the word of God is something spiritual, whereas the bible is something physical.  Therefore, I would think and say, "The bible is the revealed word of God."  However, I said "probably not," as there are times when I think I understand what they are intending to say, rather than focusing on what they actually said... and there are enough times in conversations with others where I myself more simply and casually refer to the bible as being "the Word of God." Yet, in the back of my mind, it's a distinction that is never very far away or hard to make, should the need for it ever arise.  Furthermore, the relationship between "the Word of God" (which is spiritual) and God (who is spirit) is such that if we think or see God as being perfect (i.e., inerrant), then so is His word.  What remains, then, is how any of us think that which is both (1) invisible and (2) inherently perfect, is revealed to man.  Can scripture be perceived as something spiritual? Or do you say that it can only be that which is physical?

…(snip)

On the spiritual vs physical you might be right; me on the other hand - a few years ago, I did some reading on superstring theories and other dimensions – so I kind of went in a different direction; if there’s anything to that stuff – it’s possible the spiritual realm is wrapped up within our physical realm…multiple dimensions folded up on each other – some theories speculate there might be at least 10 dimensions ( the basic theory suggests there’s 3D regular space + 6D hyperspace + 1 of time) that make up the fabric of reality …so maybe the spiritual realm is right here and now -  even though in physics, the current acceptable norm is the 3 dimensions and one of time; some physicists look into a theory of everything - something all encompassing to tie every aspect of our universe together, stuff that would unify the 4 fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces) for example...all this speculating in their various models usually requires that there are other dimensions…I read some fascinating stuff by Hugh Ross – using superstring theories he speculated on the nature of our new bodies – and with the ability to manipulate one’s fundamental particles, one could walk through walls or suddenly cease to be seen…

I follow what you’re saying about God being spirit and perfect – and as you put it “What remains, then, is how any of us think that which is both (1) invisible and (2) inherently perfect, is revealed to man.” That is a lot to think about right there! Great point, TLC !

to follow up on your point I again refer to something CS Lewis said – which I had quoted in my very first post:

"The human qualities of the raw materials show through. Naivety, error, contradiction, even (as in the cursing Psalms) wickedness are not removed. The total result is not ‘The Word of God’ in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God; and we (under grace, with attention to tradition and to interpreters wiser than ourselves, and with the use of such intelligence and learning as we may have) receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone or temper and so learning its overall message…"

I’m not sure how inspiration or revelation worked in the authors – but I don’t picture them as being perfect or impartial conduits – in some trance-like state as God took over and flipped the override switch on their cognitive abilities – if he did do that, then I might expect him to correct any errors that might creep into the message as far as their current knowledge of the world is concerned - you know, as if the whole process was along the lines of taking dictation or something; but as CS Lewis suggested we don’t see that happening; they all had different experiences and backgrounds, vocabularies, writing styles, imperfections, etc. in other words they were human!

I’ll even take it a step further – the Word became flesh. How does that work? I don’t know but I’ll take a stab at it – my speculation may be way off base – but it’s just speculation, anyway ...so don't anyone have a cow over this  . What if Jesus Christ was a hybrid – being both human and divine…For kicks I once did a little Internet search on how much digital storage you would need to hold your entire mind…purely a sci-fi doodling whim – didn’t try to calculate all the memories, images, languages, routines, habits, etc. nor did I address consciousness or the soul…anyway I found some research already being done on this…I think one estimate just for our memories was at something like 2.5 petabytes (1 petabyte = 1,000 terabytes)…man, do you know how much music and movies that could hold? a lot !!! 

Now if we assume Jesus Christ’s physical body was perfect in every respect – perhaps we could up the overall capacity and “processor speed” somewhat – but I wonder – if God is infinite and all knowing – then how could the body and mind of Jesus Christ “house” all that? Again, just speculation here – maybe Luke 3:22 giving the account of the spirit descending on him like a dove might be relevant to understanding how there was a way to exceed his physical and mental limitations…After all I Corinthians 5:19 does say that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself…

...circling back to the issue – the Word became flesh – how does that work? How can that which is invisible and perfect be revealed to man? I don’t know…but if I had to guess I’d say God is never hampered by what "limited resources" (people) he has to work with – like Paul’s thorn in the flesh (whatever it was) 8 Three times I pleaded with the Lord about this, that it should leave me. 9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may rest upon me. 10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities. For when I am weak, then I am strong. II Corinthians 12: 8 – 10.

 

One way or another God managed to get his spiritual message across to our physical world; whether it was in oral or written form…or in the person of Jesus Christ.

Edited August 8, 2018 by T-Bone

[TLC]

13 hours ago, T-Bone said:

On the spiritual vs physical you might be right; me on the other hand - a few years ago, I did some reading on superstring theories and other dimensions – so I kind of went in a different direction; if there’s anything to that stuff – it’s possible the spiritual realm is wrapped up within our physical realm…multiple dimensions folded up on each other – some theories speculate there might be at least 10 dimensions ( the basic theory suggests there’s 3D regular space + 6D hyperspace + 1 of time) that make up the fabric of reality …so maybe the spiritual realm is right here and now

Okay, seems I need to clarify something.  When I spoke of a (spiritual) reality "beyond" the reality that is common to all men, I don't think (and didn't mean) that it is on some far off ethereal place in heaven or anything apart from or removed from what is common to all.  The context of the statement concerns itself with how reality (whatever it is) is perceived.  So, it's not necessarily "a different direction" that you went in... maybe just a significantly less complicated one.  For instance, I don't see or think or speak of the world around us in 3 (or 4) dimensional terms.  Generally speaking, thoughts of it in my mind are molded into "a view"... which seems to be best stated as "a picture" of what is real.  Likewise, regardless of whether "the spiritual perspective" encompasses 6, 8 or ten (pick any number you want) dimensions, it still makes sense that they would all be molded together into "a picture" of what is real.  What I don't see, is some number of other ways to bring it all together, or to see or think of it (i.e., reality.)   

13 hours ago, T-Bone said:

I’m not sure how inspiration or revelation worked in the authors – but I don’t picture them as being perfect or impartial conduits – in some trance-like state as God took over and flipped the override switch on their cognitive abilities –

Nor am I sure. Nor do I believe it was through some "trance-like" state.  And while I don't picture the men themselves as being perfect, I can picture their initial revealing of it being exactly how God intended for it to be revealed (regardless of any other conditions or circumstances surrounding the man at the time.)

13 hours ago, T-Bone said:

What if Jesus Christ was a hybrid – being both human and divine…

Then what (if any) change do you think happened in (or with) his resurrection?

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by TLC
more or less the same, eh?

[T-Bone]

54 minutes ago, TLC said:

...(Snip)

Then what (if any) change do you think happened in (or with) his resurrection?

 

Oh yeah - I think there was quite a significant change - in ways that I can’t even imagine! ...please review first part of my post that got into superstring theory and our new bodies...of course - there might also be other things that changed differently for Christ just because of who he is.

Edited August 8, 2018 by T-Bone
Clarity

[TLC]

26 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Oh yeah - I think there was quite a significant change - in ways that I can’t even imagine! ...please review first part of my post that got into superstring theory and our new bodies...of course - there might also be other things that changed differently for Christ just because of who he is.

So how is going through walls any different than walking on water?  I don't really see that you're making any distinction by pointing at this superstring theory you mentioned.

Edited August 8, 2018 by TLC

[T-Bone]

I wouldn’t know since I’ve never walked through walls or on water....however if I were to hazard a guess - before Christ had his resurrected body miracles could have been accomplished in any number of miraculous ways - for instance to walk on water: change the consistency of the surface water to support his weight, change the molecular weight of his body, generate some gravity-defying force, strap on Iron Man’s repulsor-jet boots (hidden under his robe of course - and he remembers to bring an extra pair for Peter too ).

[TLC]

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

2 hours ago, TLC said:

...(Snip)

Then what (if any) change do you think happened in (or with) his resurrection?

 

Oh yeah - I think there was quite a significant change - in ways that I can’t even imagine! ...

Then why suppose any change is "significant" if you (apparently) don't know, can't guess, or can't even imagine what changed? 

(sorry to be so blunt, but certain things you said just don't fit together or make any sense, and I'm not sure of any better way to point it out to you...)

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that you probably accept (or believe in) some sort of pre-existence of Christ.  Yes?
(I'm trying to figure out how you might have arrived at this "hybrid" idea of Jesus Christ in your mind, and what that might actually mean to you ...)

[T-Bone]

your question about how he did miraculous things kind of puzzles me ; and makes me want to ask you what difference does it really make as to HOW Jesus Christ was able to do miraculous things before or after his resurrection ...he’s Jesus Christ! Just curious - Do you have an issue with that - or why is it so hard to believe he could do all that?

 

I simply imagine the changes to his physical body after the resurrection were quite significant- going on the testimony in the Gospels and what Paul said in Corinthians about the new body. I assume you are familiar with those details, no?

 

You are correct in assuming I believe in the pre-existence of Christ - as conveyed in John 1 - in the beginning was the word & etc. as far as being a hybrid - i am simply speculating what John 1:14 means by “the only begotten” the Greek is monogenes - which can mean “one of a kind” or “the one and only”. Now because it says “the word became flesh” I see a twofold entity - or hybrid - a dual nature - - Jesus Christ - who is the word - became flesh -  preexistent implied from John 1:1 - - human existence implied from verse 14.

What does that mean to me? Jesus Christ is everything to me! he is my Lord and Savior !!!

Edited August 8, 2018 by T-Bone
A lotta some more

[TLC]

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

your question about how he did miraculous things kind of puzzles me ; and makes me want to ask you what difference does it really make as to HOW Jesus Christ was able to do miraculous things before or after his resurrection ...he’s Jesus Christ! Just curious - Do you have an issue with that - or why is it so hard to believe he could do all that?

I wasn't so much interested in how he did it as I was in your thoughts on how or why it was any different from what he did after his resurrection.  Which, I supposed, would help reveal what, if any, change you think did (or didn't) occur as a result of his resurrection.  For the record, I have no issue whatsoever with believing any of the miraculous things before his resurrection.  Nor do I have any issue believing what he did after his resurrection, regardless of whether they do or don't fit into that exact same category.  The only difference (for me) that it makes, is the (rather stunning, mind numbing) change that I believe happened at his resurrection.  Mind numbing... because of how it is so easily and so often subdued, skipped over, or completely missed.

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

I simply imagine the changes to his physical body after the resurrection were quite significant- going on the testimony in the Gospels and what Paul said in Corinthians about the new body. I assume you are familiar with those details, no?

Quite familiar.  And yourself... by any chance are you as familiar with this line (and its meaning), from Acts 13:33?

 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

1 hour ago, T-Bone said:

You are correct in assuming I believe in the pre-existence of Christ - as conveyed in John 1 - in the beginning was the word & etc. as far as being a hybrid - i am simply speculating what John 1:14 means by “the only begotten” the Greek is monogenes - which can mean “one of a kind” or “the one and only”.

Well then, that's no surprise.  Like it probably doesn't surprise you that I don't... as I see his birth and life before Calgary being like (though, not exactly) that of Adam, and I relate his becoming (the only) "begotten" specifically to the day of his resurrection and his being the firstborn (and only one thus far) raised (such as he was) from the dead.  After which he most certainly is "one of a kind."  In light of that, and from this perspective, he's passed on... from what Adam may have once been, unto a new, never been before, second man (aka, "the Lord from heaven.")

Edited August 8, 2018 by TLC

[T-Bone]

Guess I should ask what you think Acts 13:33 means...I can only assume - since you have debated other points I brought up - you might think his resurrection had something to do with his Sonship - but you can clarify or correct me if I’ve got it wrong...if that is what you are getting at - that only after the resurrection did he have Sonship in the true sense - then I would disagree.

V33 seems to carry the idea of an already present reality being manifested for all to see...similar to Romans 1:4 - he was DECLARED (or proved) to be the son of God with power...it says declared - not made...he was the son of God from the beginning of his earthly life - as John 1:14 indicates ...and also see Isaiah 9:6  - unto us  a child is BORN, unto us a SON is given...

 

So let me know why you brought up Acts 13:33

Edited August 8, 2018 by T-Bone
The part you ordered is on the slow-boat from China

[TLC]

37 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Guess I should ask what you think Acts 13:33 means...I can only assume - since you have debated other points I brought up - you might think his resurrection had something to do with his Sonship - but you can clarify or correct me if I’ve got it wrong...

Sonship, but in what sense?  (seems you left that part off...)

The language of Acts 13:33 actually appears to be quite clear in this regard, in my opinion.   It calls to mind a specific prophecy that was written in the second psalm (Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee ) and  tells us the exactly event (i.e., in resurrection day) which fulfilled that very prophecy .  But, you obviously don't agree. 

42 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

V33 seems to carry the idea of an already present reality being manifested for all to see..

So, it appears that we have arrived at an impasse... as this, for me, is an irreducible belief.  For I have, for a long time now (and far too many years), seen the simplicity and beauty of it fit perfectly with all else that I know and understand of scripture... 

[T-Bone]

hmmmm....on Sonship i left off the part about in what sense ...???...- Well ok - whatever floats your boat.

 

Feel free to clarify in what sense you’re talking about...

Edited August 8, 2018 by T-Bone
Maybe I ordered the wrong part from the wrong company on the wrong day for the wrong customer

[TLC]

1 minute ago, T-Bone said:

hmmmm....on Sonship i left off the part about in what sense ...???...- Well ok - whatever floats your boat.

 

Feel free to clarify in what sense you’re talking about...

in the sense of "This day have I begotten thee."

Do you suppose that the life in the resurrected Christ was the very same life that was in the blood (which was poured out at Calgary)?
If so, why is there no mention of there being any blood in his new body after resurrection?
If not, what happened to that life that was in the blood? And where did the life that replaced or superseded it come from?

[T-Bone]

Ok - isn’t Acts 13:33 referring to Psalm 2...which appears to be a song celebrating the king’s victory over the enemies. The resurrection is perhaps an antitype or symbol - in that like Psalm 2 is a song celebrating the victory of the Son of God...maybe along the same lines as a reigning king who finally vanquishes all the enemies over his countrymen and to the people he has proved his mettle - he truly is their king

if you’re trying to prove Jesus wasn’t considered the Son of God until after he was resurrected - you may want to consider passages in the Gospels where a voice from heaven declared he was the Son of God.

 

As far as what was the life-force in Christ’s new body or it’s origin - - I don’t know - but feel free to share what you think...anything goes here.

Edited August 8, 2018 by T-Bone
Shoulda shopped at Amazon Prime instead

[TLC]

44 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

if you’re trying to prove Jesus wasn’t considered the Son of God until after he was resurrected - you may want to consider passages in the Gospels where a voice from heaven declared he was the Son of God.

Nope. I never said (and don't think) that.
(And any effort to move it over to that comes across as little more than setting up the ole' straw man punching bag.  Seriously? After all that I've posted in various places around here - that I'm sure you've read at least once -  you really think I'd think like that?)

52 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

As far as what was the life-force in Christ’s new body or it’s origin - - I don’t know - but feel free to share what you think...anything goes here.

Well, I've actually said or alluded to it some number of times already.

Whatever it is, it is clearly and plainly marked out as being "brand new."
Never been before.
First (and only one thus far) of its kind.
"Birthed" (or begotten) of God for the very first time on "this day" of the resurrection.
It's stunning.  So "mind numbing" that most simply pass over or miss the significance of it.

[TLC]

here's another thought for you:

that which is born of the flesh (think, in Bethlehem) is flesh; and
that which is born of the Spirit (think, resurrection day) is spirit.

[T-Bone]

19 minutes ago, TLC said:

here's another thought for you:

that which is born of the flesh (think, in Bethlehem) is flesh; and
that which is born of the Spirit (think, resurrection day) is spirit.

Yeah but then there’s Luke 1:35

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

[T-Bone]

26 minutes ago, TLC said:

Nope. I never said (and don't think) that.
(And any effort to move it over to that comes across as little more than setting up the ole' straw man punching bag.  Seriously? After all that I've posted in various places around here - that I'm sure you've read at least once -  

Well guess either you were not clear or I’m dense - probably a combination of the 2 

[T-Bone]

Just thought I’d quote a few of my posts from other threads to reflect the changes in my belief system,  the latest thing I’m into about how we form our beliefs, and other fascinating ideas…if you check back later I’m sure it will probably change. 

Oh yeah, if anyone else wants to say something about their own journey – feel free to do so…to repeat what I said in a couple of posts November 8th 2017  (  see  here  and here  ) and quoted below:

"and sorry to be repetitive and self-referencing  - but one of the last points I made in my first post was - - hopefully - - setting the spirit of this thread...perhaps inspiring others to share the reasoning for the course they have set...and if folks would think about the bigger picture...context...the common ground of Grease Spot - that being most of us here were a part of a group (The Way International) that has a fundamentalist view of the Bible...therefore - - in my thinking anyway - - there is no reason for debate or defending one's choice of path since they left TWI (assuming all who respond have left - but it could be one is still in TWI - they too are free to explain the path of their choice )

I dunno ....maybe it's wishful thinking on my part...was just shooting for a discussion that wouldn't be another hostile bashing of opposing views on anything."

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

"to all who view this thread,

Honestly there is no right or wrong answer I’m watching out for…actually I think I’m wanting a taste of the good old days of Grease Spot when some of us (and sadly some of the posters I have not seen here in a few years) would set aside our differences and “philosophize” about the journey thus far. Come to think of it – I should have said something in my first post that described the enormous influence Grease Spot has had – and even continues to have when I process certain things. maybe there's something to "no man is an island" - especially when I’m trying to figure .my way out of a convoluted hot mess...whatever that is...I appreciate the help. 

Yes, we can be a hypercritical and argumentative bunch – and probably more so than any other “think tank”  …and that probably has a lot to do with many of us being young and naïve when we were involved with a certain controlling organization…and in my opinion, it’s only natural that we bounce back with a vengeance…release the hounds of critical thinking 

I won’t say much more about what I’m personally looking for on this thread – as I said there is no right or wrong answer – I don’t get into judging one person’s approach as superior or inferior – intellectually or emotionally - from someone else's approach…perhaps if folks need a little more direction on what to say - - I would suggest consider what I did in my first post – I gave a few details on things I’ve read, my criteria – or preferences for reading material – and the core elements of my belief system during this journey…honestly I could be wrong on any and all of this (the core elements of my beliefs) – so I’m not fishing for validation.”
 

= = = = = = = = ===  = == =

 

 

 

 

On 7/28/2021 at 4:30 PM, T-Bone said:

 

Twinky, sorry to disappoint – while I do find anything about how our minds work so fascinating – I don't see what the big deal is...I happen to agree with Raf's points: people can and do change their minds all the time. It's a simple fact of life. 

Even from a biblical point of view – there's tons of passages that address the fickleness...changeability...irregularity...shortcomings of the mind...as well as prompts to  develop our cognitive skills... we see people convert...sin...repent......vacillate...abandon their faith...modify their faith...their love in the faith grows cold...So people can and do change their minds  – that's obvious.   How   that happens tends to be a little more complicated.

The phenomenon of changing minds is one of the least examined and – I would claim – least understood of familiar human experiences…from Howard Gardner in Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our Own Minds and Other People’s Minds 

Maybe some folks who have issues with this stuff might still be harboring the false assumptions, logical fallacies and absolutism of wierwille: “...now you know,  that you know , that you know...” now I know that's a whole lot of hogwash. 

 

** ** ** ** 

DVD bonus feature – the following is an excerpt from an article “What actually is a belief? And why is it so hard to change?”:

"...Beliefs as energy-saving shortcuts in modeling and predicting the environment. Beliefs are our brain’s way of making sense of and navigating our complex world. They are mental representations of the ways our brains expect things in our environment to behave, and how things should be related to each other—the patterns our brain expects the world to conform to. Beliefs are templates for efficient learning and are often essential for survival...

...These shortcuts to interpreting and predicting our world often involve connecting dots and filling in gaps, making extrapolations and assumptions based on incomplete information and based on similarity to previously recognized patterns. In jumping to conclusions, our brains have a preference for familiar conclusions over unfamiliar ones. Thus, our brains are prone to error, sometimes seeing patterns where there are none. This may or may not be subsequently identified and corrected by error-detection mechanisms. It’s a trade-off between efficiency and accuracy...

...In its need for economy and efficiency of energy consumption, the default tendency of the brain is to fit new information into its existing framework for understanding the world, rather than repeatedly reconstructing that framework from scratch...

...Radically restructuring our belief system and creating a new worldview engages parts of the brain involved in higher reasoning processes and computation, and is consequently more effortful, time- and energy-consuming. The brain often cannot afford such an investment. This would explain why, when we experience cognitive dissonance, it is easier to resolve this discomfort by doubling down on our existing belief system—ignoring or explaining away the challenging, contradictory information....

...Science values the changing of minds through disproving previously held beliefs and challenging received authority with new evidence. This is in sharp contrast to faith (not just religious faith). Faith is far more natural and intuitive to the human brain than is science. Science requires training. It is a disciplined method that tries to systematically overcome or bypass our intuitions and cognitive biases and follow the evidence regardless of our prior beliefs, expectations, preferences or personal investment.

...The increasing application of the scientific method in the last four centuries ushered in unprecedented, accelerating progress in humanity’s quest to understand the nature of reality and vast improvements in quality of life. Discovering just how mistaken we collectively were about so many things has been the key to sensational societal progress...

...Faith is based on belief without evidence, whereas science is based on evidence without belief.  "

from:   Psychology Today: what is a belief? why is it hard to change?

 

if you have the time - read the whole article - a lot of interesting stuff in there!

 

On 8/3/2021 at 12:12 PM, T-Bone said:

 

 

 

I think there may have been some confusion over defining a “true believer”; here's one definition I found: 

1. Definition of true believer. 1 : a person who professes absolute belief in something. 2 : a zealous supporter of a particular cause. 
From:   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/true believer

and here's another

2. What makes someone a true believer?
What marks a true believer is something that happens in the heart, because a true believer has been born again, regenerated, transformed, gone through a complete metamorphosis. And if we ask the question: what marks that transformation? Then we're getting to the reality of who is a true believer.
From: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/43-70/traits-of-a-true-believer-part-1#

 
and here's yet a third
3. What does it mean to be a believer?
Believer (noun) one who believes; one who is persuaded of the truth or reality of some doctrine, person, or thing. Believer (noun) one who gives credit to the truth of the Scriptures, as a revelation from God; a Christian; -- in a more restricted sense, one who receives Christ as his Savior, and accepts the way of salvation unfolded in the gospel.
From: https://www.definitions.net/definition/believer#

There's more definitions on the internet – just wanted to post a few samples and say that my viewpoint has been addressing the question using definition #1.

And in light of the first definition being my reference point, I tend to look at the question “Can a true believer truly change his mind and truly become an unbeliever”  in more of a physical way rather than a spiritual way (which would be more along the lines of definition #2). And in thinking of this in a physical way, I think in terms of a hardware versus software analogy of how a person functions.

Modern medicine has come a long way in understanding how our bodies work (hardware) – and they keep making incredible advances on how to help, heal and maintain our health... and furthermore it's commonly accepted that the health of the mind (software) affects the health of the body (hardware). Mind-body medicine works with practices that can improve health, such as relaxation, meditation, yoga, etc. - I recently shared on another thread how    transcranial magnetic stimulation      has helped my daughter manage clinical depression and relieve catatonia.

The field of psychology studies the mind - and often gets into "software issues"...Now me – I'm a hardware guy myself – if you've ever read my thread in computer questions you'll find out I'm pretty good at fixing equipment but not so good at understanding or fixing computers. Because machines, components, wiring and such are easier to troubleshoot – because you're not having to think in the abstract - Abstract thinking is the ability to think about things that are not actually present. People who think in an abstract way look at the broader significance of ideas and information rather than the concrete details. ..So as a technician I use my observation skills – for example – this pump motor doesn't work...Is the pump getting power? Is there power present at the outlet? Is there something funky about this electrical cord to the pump? A volt/ohm meter will diagnose the issue quickly...aha! There's power at the outlet. How about the electrical cord to the pump? Maybe there's either a short, open or ground on one or more of the wires of the cord... investigate...isolate...eliminate...problem solved...

but software? Aye yi yi !!!!  3 days ago, Windows 10 started acting glitchy after I just installed the latest iTunes update to backup my iPhone to my PC... I didn't have a clue! I spent over an hour on the phone with Apple support to find out how to sync and use other features and had to  change a few option settings. Tech support lady told me they've gotten a lot of calls after the latest rollout...by the way, iTunes still not working 100%  – why do these IT engineers  constantly change layout and functionality?!?! and oh yeah, after I'm done with “fixing” iTunes, my laptop gives me an alert to run scandisk to fix errors...Did that – took 4 hours and at least Windows 10 is back to “normal”....I'm to the point I find all my computer and device problems kinda funny...the Apple tech support lady was putting me on hold a few times...then she says she's reading through some tech support notes she has on the latest update...we're dealing with the invisible here !!!!!   - you can't run it through an x-ray machine and see that my computer swallowed a dog whistle or something (I don't know if that's even possible).    ... ..the moral of the story.? Use tin cups and string for communication and learn to enjoy vinyl records played on a turntable... just kidding ...I mean how this ties in to this thread is that talking about beliefs and the mind  gets into a very elusive and intangible subject – something we usually have to speculate about – how the mind works.

From what I’ve read online,  some experts think our beliefs are somewhat like a software program always running in the background as we take in information and examine its source – checking for compatibility or conflicts with our existing beliefs. Our beliefs help form and/or modify a mental model for understanding the world, our self and others. ..As Rocky was saying “a change in values and beliefs would, imo, require changing more than a thought. Rather, changing how one interprets or gives meaning to a series of thoughts. “  The Psychology Today reference in my first post likens our beliefs to being a shortcut – a template. The parameters of the template or framework is something we use regularly...sometimes adjust or change.

My two-bit psychological imagination sees our belief system as an open architecture program.  “Open architecture is a type of computer architecture or software architecture intended to make adding, upgrading, and swapping components with other computers easy”    
from;     Wikipedia open architecture

So however you want to look at it – if the brain (hardware) was created this way – or it just evolved this way – or however our brains came to be – for instance another option is presented in      Prometheus 2012 film    - a movie I thoroughly really enjoyed --- - but I was annoyed at one promo line “all your questions will be answered” - nope ! The movie triggered a ton of other questions about “the engineers” – maybe they'll get answered in the sequel...hmmmm that's how they got me hooked in PFAL     ….but anyway – to clarify I love the movie Prometheus...and no longer love PFAL...

the flexibility...adaptability...creativity...exhibited in how we use our minds may indicate that even though some features and functionality is hardwired or has “default programming”, there are a lot of mysterious attributes and activities that enable us to change...adapt...grow...what's amazing is just the supposedly simple process of self-reflection – we observe and analyze ourselves – the convergence of hardware and software...      “Metacognition is an awareness of one's own thought processes and an understanding of the patterns behind them.”
from:   Wikipedia - metacognition

This awareness and understanding affords us options like being analytical, corrective, adaptive and even creative. 
 

 

 

On 8/4/2021 at 4:27 PM, T-Bone said:

and if I may add some more positive stuff ...if it wasn't for all the atheists, agnostics, as well as any other viewpoint that is different from TWI – I would probably still harbor a  fundamentalism/spiritualism/Gnosticism mindset – even though I was out of TWI and didn't get involved with another ministry or church. I would be a burnt-out-believer-without-a-Twig – and probably would never have gotten into reevaluating TWI-doctrine....or going on to checking out philosophy of religion.

My hat goes off to all the atheists and agnostics that I have debated with for keeping it real – which inspired me to try and be more honest and open...helping me unravel the nature of a belief system...and many times forcing me to stay grounded in the plain and simple interpretation of Scripture...another thing I really admire is their bare-bones approach to life...to appreciate life right now and those you know and love and to do things just because it's the right thing to do and not because you're going to get some eternal reward...Sometimes I've said to my daughter you won't have down syndrome when you're in heaven – and though I continue to hope in a heaven, there is a part of me that doubts - and I think that's what really fuels my desire to see to it that she experiences as full a life as possible. And when I have thoughts like that which take God and heaven out of the picture – it's actually not as scary as I used to imagine while in TWI – there's often some sense of urgency to appreciate what I have right now.

in my weird sense of humor I sometimes wonder if there just might be some higher power that I am as yet unfamiliar with – who had the wisdom and benevolence to synchronize me with Grease Spot.
 

 

On 8/10/2021 at 10:24 PM, T-Bone said:

This might be an interesting tangent – going from discussing CAN a true believer truly change their mind to HOW that is accomplished.

recent mention of the unconscious (or subconscious) and the collective unconscious brings to mind some of the ways people study  HOW   we change our minds...but first a few visual aids - I found these by Googling images of the mental iceberg - check out  the various conceptions of how the conscious, subconscious and unconscious are to be understood:

 

 

 

 

(note: if you stare at each of the bottom three icebergs long enough - they start looking like the rear view of a skull x-ray...  from the movie Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the Crystal Skull )

 

When it comes to unraveling a cultic mindset, I'm more comfortable and most familiar with stuff at the tip of the iceberg - the stuff above the waterline - at the conscious level...I believe it's more productive to work at engaging the different levels of thinking that are more easily accessible –  recalling information and experiences, analysis, evaluation, synthesis, creation, application, etc. I think it's referred to as meta-cognition  - which is an awareness of one's own thought processes and an understanding of the patterns behind them...I'm not a psychologist so probing the subconscious and analyzing dreams seems like a lot of guesswork to me – only because I have no academic training in such things. 

But analyzing what is apparent I can handle...come to think of it – examining HOW we change our minds is a recurring theme on Grease Spot – especially in About the Way forum...in a group setting Grease Spot amplifies the process of analysis through    Socratic questioning      which is “a form of disciplined questioning that can be used to pursue thought in many directions and for many purposes, including: to explore complex ideas, to get to the truth of things, to open up issues and problems, to uncover assumptions, to analyze concepts, to distinguish what we know from what we do not know, to follow out logical consequences of thought or to control discussions” 
from    Wikipedia - Socratic questioning

... From reading online about Socratic questioning I've found it''s often used in teaching and counseling situations to expose and unravel deeply held values and beliefs that frame and support what we think and say...using focused yet open questions that allow for differences of opinion, we  “unpack” our beliefs and those of others. 

Howard Gardner says in his book    Changing Minds     that his focus is on changes of the mind that occur CONSCIOUSLY  as a result of forces that can be IDENTIFIED    - note his    7 factors for changing minds    which is what the book is all about.

...He does not address how the mind can be changed through subtle manipulation,  deception, brainwashing, etc.  But as an ex-cult follower I found his book helpful in understanding the basic circumstances surrounding a typical change of mind. Professional leaders and sales personnel also get into using Gardner's 7 factors to change minds – and that also makes me think of Dale Carnegie's principles in “how to win friends and influence people” - which also brings to mind the unscrupulous way deceptive and controlling cults like TWI can warp ideas to their advantage. For instance Gardner's first factor reason. Gardner says “Especially among those who deem themselves to be educated, the use of reason figures heavily in matters of belief”.  wierwille's abundant use of logical fallacies in the guise of thoughtful arguments for his point of view changed the minds of a lot of unsuspecting students in the PFAL class. And what's ironic is wierwille jacking up the hype in PFAL saying stuff like most people think that they think - don't remember exactly what he said anymore - but he said it to insinuate most people don't know how to think until they take PFAL. Wow isn't that a good one !

What I have found in my journey of unraveling the TWI belief system is what a house of cards it turned out to be. 
 

 

On 3/15/2021 at 11:08 PM, T-Bone said:

First off thanks to Rocky for recommending “Love Wins” and also to everyone who commented on this thread – there’s a lot of good stuff!…I have to say I have not read such a thought-provoking book in a long time. And the oddly surprising thing about it was that I’m very familiar with the passages Bell gets into and I’ve even speculated along the lines of a few things he brought up. I’m just a casual Bible student and not in the same league as Bell being a deep-thinking and articulate pastor and author – so there’s something definitely uncanny when I come across someone who much more fluently and coherently expresses some things that have crossed my mind.

 

One of the biggest things to hit me from the book was how relatable God is as our loving heavenly father. As a loving parent I would never give up on my kids – no matter what. Even if they became the most notorious criminals in the world – of course I would want them to pay their debt to society and hope for their rehabilitation while in prison – but regardless they’re still my kids – there’s something of me in them – I will always love them and care about their well-being. Bell’s book got me asking myself “Is God any less than that?”… It seems pretty clear to me from chapter 3 on Hell that with all the Old Testament passages, God’s intention has always been redemption, healing and restoration.

 

The thing that really blew my mind was in chapter 4, when Bell points out    Revelation 21:25          which says the gates to the eternal city will never be closed. People are free to come and go. That does not address the question will everybody be saved? But it does suggest God’s unfathomable love in designing a new world of freedom. God is love – and that is something you can’t demand from another – because true love gives freedom – so even in the next life we are free to choose whatever we want. The gates always remain open. If someone wants in - they can come in. If someone wants out - they can leave. If someone doesn’t want in - they can stay out. And to be realistic about freedom - as cool as heaven might sound – it stands to reason that some folks who willfully choose to live in a personal hell of their own design in this life may very well desire more of the same in the next. Maybe that’s what  Revelation 22: 14 & 15    is talking about – of those outside the city  – I don’t know – just speculating here.

 

Another chapter that really excited was chapter 6 – There Are Rocks Everywhere. It made me think there is some kind of  permeant quality about Jesus Christ – that he has penetrated every cultural, even if the Gospel has not reached there yet. Bell talks about missionaries who have traveled to the farthest reaches of the globe and people there hearing of Jesus for the first time. They respond “That’s his name? We’ve been talking about him for years.”

Bell references   John 14  - where Jesus said “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”  I was flabbergasted to read Bell’s comments on that: “What he doesn’t say is how, or why, or in what manner the mechanism functions that gets people to God through him. He doesn’t even state that those coming to the Father through him will even know that they are coming exclusively through him. He simply claims that whatever God is doing in the world to know and redeem and love and restore the world is happening through him.” That makes me want to rethink what I know of other religions and cultures.

It kinda makes sense to me that if God is so loving and wants to give everyone a chance, then he wouldn’t set up some exclusive venue with limited access.   Romans 2    does seem to suggest that the requirements of the law are written on everyone’s heart, our consciences providing testimony and God will judge everyone through Jesus Christ. “Everyone” means everyone. Over the years my wife and I have had many discussions to try and expand our horizons beyond some of the narrow concepts we’ve been taught –  she'll probably read “Love Wins” too, since I've talked about some of the book with her.

 

 

And lastly, I’ve mentioned on a few other threads my fascination with  superstring theory    and extra dimensions. Bell uses it as a springboard to suggest Jesus’ talk of the kingdom of God as being an all-pervasive dimension of being, that was here, at hand, right now. Basically that was Jesus’ answer when the Pharisees asked him when the kingdom was coming - see  Luke 17: 20 & 21   . Something like this always makes me wonder about the nature of the spiritual realm. I usually think of it as something distinctly not me…really another dimension and perhaps a place far away from me. But in superstring theory multidimensional particles could be compacted and folded up inside each other – and as far as we know nonexistent compared to our experience of only 3 dimensions and the passage of time…

…And I guess if one could control how multidimensional particles are compressed and rolled up – then it would be possible to change the properties or characteristics of something. Makes me think of the city bending scene in the dream sequences of the movie  Inception   and the manipulation of reality scene in the movie    Dr. Strange  ...And probably the movie that comes closest to describing a world within a world is the scene of a futuristic city popping up in the middle of an open field in the movie Midnight Special  (happens at about 2:15 minutes into the You Tube clip).

Indeed some passages like  II Peter 3:10   and  Revelation 6: 12 - 17       that talk about the heavens disappearing with a roar, the elements destroyed by fire and the sky being split apart like a scroll when it is rolled up fires my imagination of what might happen on a cosmic scale…

...The majority of books I’ve read and scripture that I’ve studied have always reminded me of a transcendent God. Bell’s book got me to think about the   immanence    of God     in the comprehensive and eternal work of Jesus Christ in all people in all situations. Something Bell said about God’s love near the end of the book seemed to circle back to superstring theory (the “stuff” of extra-dimensions curled up into a compact space) – but His love is not static or diminutive in any way – “the indestructible love of God is an unfolding, dynamic reality and that every single one of us is endlessly being invited to trust, accept, believe, embrace, and experience it.”

 

On 9/13/2021 at 4:32 PM, T-Bone said:

Hey OldSkool, I swear I’m not trying to monopolize this thread     (note: I stink at Monopoly anyway…might be from bad experiences of playing it as a kid with my best friend – he would always have to be the banker –  and let’s just say there was always some embezzling and cooking the books going on…but he was older and bigger than me so I never complained….and now in 2021 we’re some 58 years passed the statute of limitations for me to bring legal action over Monopoly Money malfeasance      )  (additional note: it’s possible my previous parenthetical statements are in fact a monopolizing attempt – in which case I’m providing a literary example of hypocrisy    )  

takes a big breath in to continue

I was reading your article again – which triggered something I remembered from a book and then I got sidetracked - or maybe I’ll call it backtracking on magical thinking mentioned earlier…soooooooo below are some excerpts I hope you and other Grease Spotters might find informative.

First, quoting from page 10 of your article:

"Mark 11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

This verse is situated in between Jesus cursing a fig tree and it dying from the roots up. There is much significance in Jesus cursing this fig tree that is beyond the scope of this discussion, however, he used this event as an illustration that begins with “Have faith in God.” Then he moves on to say doubt not the things you say because God will back you up when you have faith in God! If it sounds like I am contradicting myself, I am not. Let’s consider Jesus Christ for a moment. If ANYONE would have taught The Law of Believing it would have been Jesus Christ. Yet let’s see what Jesus said of himself as recorded in John.

John 5:30 - I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

Our Lord Jesus Christ plainly said he couldn’t do anything by himself. The context of John 5:30 is Jesus healed a man who couldn’t walk and the Jewish religious leaders wanted to kill him for it because he healed on the Sabbath day. Jesus plainly stated that he couldn’t do anything by himself. If The Law of Believing were truly interwoven throughout scripture wouldn’t he have said so at times like these? Itis only by having faith in God that Jesus was able to do the powerful works he performed during his ministry to Israel. As we bring this work to a close remember John 14:12

John 14:12 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. Keep your faith focused on God! Trust him to do the things he says he will. It’s the relationship of a father with his children. That's the same relationship we have because of what Christ accomplished as our Lord and redeemer."

= = = = = = = = =

That is such a big point you make in your article ! That even Jesus recognized the limitations of human beings – and he included himself…other than your article I don’t recall coming across that particular idea except in one book that pokes holes in the law of believing by saying if that were true then Jesus would be one of the most pessimistic-doom-that-came-into-the-room-fatalistic-cynical-defeatist persons you’d ever want to meet. This book came out about the same time I left TWI – back then I had such a voracious appetite to read anything that challenged me to think outside TWI’s theological box… anyway…the book is  Beyond Seduction: A Return to Biblical Christianity by Dave Hunt    and like your article mentions E.W. Kenyon founder of the Word of Faith/positive confession movement and the ridiculous idea of Jesus bringing setbacks and catastrophes on himself and others. From page 33, under the section, What About the “Negative Confessions” of God and Christ? : 

“Foundational to the Positive Confession movement is the belief that there is a power inherent within words which causes whatever one says to come to pass, and that one must therefore be extremely careful only to make positive statements. E.W. Kenyon, who is the founder of this movement, taught that Jesus “was always positive in His message.” One need not read very far in the New Testament to prove that statement false. In fact, if it is true that we create what we speak, then we must charge Jesus with bringing disaster not only upon Himself but upon others as well. His numerous “negative confessions,” such as “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20), must have been the cause of the poverty that plagued Him and His disciples. And the same must be said of His frequent statements to His followers that He was going to be crucified, even insisting upon this fact when Peter attempted to urge upon Him a more “positive” attitude (Matthew 16:21 - 23).

If “you get what you say,” then Christ’s numerous “negative confessions” not only brought upon Himself poverty, suffering, and death but brought it upon the entire world as well. Was not His prophecy of the coming destruction of Jerusalem a “negative confession” that caused this very tragedy in 70 A.D.? And are not the prophecies of Jesus and His apostles concerning the great tribulation, the rule of Antichrist, and the coming Battle of Armageddon “negative confessions” that will bring these horrible events upon the world? And what about Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the many other Old Testament prophets who made repeated “negative confessions” of judgement upon Israel and many other nations?”

= = = = = = = =
On magical thinking, I found this interesting article in Psychology Today – I like some of the probing challenges it brings up – like, trying to pin down a plausible link of causation…anyway here’s some excerpts and if you’re interested in reading the whole article, there is a link following my excerpts:

 
“One of my patients suffers from chronic constipation due to irritable bowel syndrome. During the literally 20 years since she was first diagnosed, her symptom pattern has remained remarkably consistent: She has perhaps 1-2 bowel movements per week, occasionally accompanied by some mild cramping. Even she admits the symptoms are more a bother than a worry.

And yet, every time I prescribe a new medicine for one of her other ailments, within a day or two she calls me up complaining that it's causing her to become constipated. When I ask if she means that while on the new medicine she has fewer bowel movements or more abdominal pain, her answer is always no.

And yet she adamantly refuses to continue with the new medication, insisting it's the cause of a symptom complex she's had for two decades. And no matter how cogently I argue that the new medicine can't be to blame (and I'm always careful to pick medicines not known to cause or exacerbate constipation), she refuses to continue with it.

Though certainly she could be right about 1 or even 2 pills exacerbating her constipation, the likelihood that all 16 pills I've given her have caused the same exact symptom in the context of the symptom already existing is just too far-fetched. A much more likely explanation is that she's indulging in magical thinking.

Magical thinking is defined as believing that one event happens as a result of another without a plausible link of causation. For example: "I got up on the left side of the bed today; therefore it will rain."

The problem with this definition, however, is that exactly what constitutes "a plausible link of causation" can be difficult to pin down. If we were to take this phrase to its logical extreme, we'd have to consider a belief in anything that hasn't been scientifically proven to represent magical thinking. On the other hand, rejecting the use of any and all criteria with which to judge cause and effect leaves us vulnerable to believing that anything can cause anything—or even worse, that an effect can occur without a cause at all.

Perhaps, then, a more nuanced definition of magical thinking would be believing in things more strongly than either evidence or experience justifies. Though I can't prove the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, because it has every day since I've been alive, such a belief couldn't then be said to represent magical thinking. But because every person who's ever jumped off a building or a bridge has gone down and not up, believing that flapping my arms hard enough would enable me to float into the sky certainly would.

Problems with this definition remain, however. For one thing, simply in order to live we have to believe things without proof. If we refused to believe what our doctors, plumbers, electricians, barbers, or nannies told us without first being shown incontrovertible evidence, our lives would come to a grinding halt. For another thing, some questions we burn to answer aren't necessarily provable or disprovable…”

…How can we stop thinking magically?
Magical thinking remains a subtle obstacle to making good decisions. But the more we observe ourselves, the more we can reduce our tendency to indulge in it:

1. Consciously identify your desires and biases. Write them down. Try to identify their cause. Work to free yourself from them to the best of your ability.

2. Demand proof when proof seems demonstrable. Try to remain intellectually "agnostic" toward what hasn't been proven or isn't provable, even if you find yourself emotionally inclined to believe it. Try to regard your belief as just that—an inclination—so that you're not tempted to act with more confidence in your belief than is justified.

3. Beware the tendency to let others think for you. This is as insidious as it is widespread. A journalist presents a position about a topic of the day and has his or her opinion accepted as fact. One friend makes a statement about another and everyone accepts it as true without bothering to investigate themselves. Though I don't agree with many of the principles espoused by Ayn Rand in her book, The Fountainhead, the point she makes about how so many of us subjugate our judgment to others is worth taking to heart (a great read, by the way, which I highly recommend).

We all tend to cling not only to the things we believe but the reasoning that leads us to believe them. Despite all my efforts, I've not yet been able to break through my patient's magical thinking about the cause of her constipation. So I continue to do what I've done: chant to manifest the wisdom to somehow find a way to succeed, having proven to myself many times over that chanting has the power to yield wisdom I didn't know I had—a power, however, that can only ever be proven by someone to themselves.”
From:   Psychology Today - magical thinking 

 

 

20 hours ago, T-Bone said:

 

 

OldSkool, I believe I share a similar sentiment as far as anything being a final wrap, end of discussion, the last word, definitive or conclusive….And I believe we may both have the same “selfish” reason for putting our thoughts out there for discussion – I’ve said many times on Grease Spot that my beliefs are in a constant state of flux. Well, what is that? From   Quora   “in a (constant) state of flux means a state of uncertainty about what should be done (usually following some important event) preceding the establishment of a new direction of action.” For me,  important events are things like intense realizations of all the lies I bought into by con artists like wierwille… important events are things like being hit right between the eyes by the logic and perspective from someone who has a completely different viewpoint than me… I talked about that wonderfully enlightening experience on another thread:

And as that definition of being in a constant state of flux says – from those type of important events I’ve mentioned, I’m usually uncertain about what should be done or how to proceed from there…and believe it or not – this feels great…even luxurious! What’s the rush?!?! There's no deadline to meet. The delay won't hurt the sale of my new book "Oh The $hit  I   Don't  Know  Would  Blow  Your  Mind".

Geez Louise - when I was in TWI, I remember so many times being swept up by the galvanizing words of wierwille or LCM – a call to go WOW…go in the way corps…or whatever it was – and I’d feel sort of guilty if I wasn’t chomping at the bit to do whatever they were promoting…Makes me think of the instructions you get before you undergo surgery or some procedure and have to be given a sedative or anesthesia – they tell you that afterwards you shouldn’t be signing any legal documents, making big purchases, etc. cuz you’ll probably still be under the influence of a drug…that’s one bit of advice you never get after you join a harmful and controlling cult and you’re about to guzzle down the Kool-Aid. You’re NEVER   going to hear from a WOW or way corps recruiter “Now that you drank the Kool-Aid, you should wait awhile before you decide on anything. Live life and see how things work out without us always blowing smoke up your  a$$."
 

About that faith and reason stuff you mention – I hear you on that one too. That’s probably one of the most basic issues I face a lot of the time – how to relate faith to reason. Faith deals with revelation – or some supernatural disclosure which could not be discovered by the unaided powers of human reason. Now reason is the natural ability of the human mind to discover truth. With science, truth is determined by verification – as in the scientific method – which is a lot of observation and experimentation. Flying a plane, launching a rocket into space are doable because scientists found out the truth about gravity – like there are ways to work around it. Science is practical – if it works, it’s true. 

Scientific truth gives us no criteria for metaphysical or theological truth. So I think we’re looking for another definition of truth for the metaphysical or theological realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s called     the correspondence theory of truth      -  from      Wikipedia :  “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.”  So basically, truth consists in some form of connection…correlation…resemblance…agreement between a belief and a fact. For me, this gets into how I look at the Bible – and there’s a lot of ways to look at the Bible – even as a Christian.

I believe the Bible is metaphysical truth (metaphysical = in a transcendent sense or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses) – that it is a revelation from God – written by people inspired of God. Taking into account that people are not perfect, have worldviews shaped by their times and culture, I think the Bible is best understood as metaphysical truth and not as scientific truth. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” – if I use the correspondence theory of truth, I can reason that the big bang theory  might agree with   Genesis 1:1  . excuse all my gobbledygook - but that's how I usually get my faith and reason to work together. 

I’ve grown comfortable in this groove of uncertainty – it leaves me a lot of wiggle room – keeps rigor mortis from setting in…I think exploring my faith is a lot of fun…my belief system is never a done deal. I’m still mulling over a lot of things I read in a thought-provoking book Rocky recommended  Love Wins     .   just see my initial thoughts about it   -  here  -    To reinforce what Rocky said – knowledge puffeth up – and that’s what I succumbed to when I was in TWI – thinking I had all the answers filled me with pride…nowadays the more I study the Bible, the more I philosophize, the more I talk with Grease Spotters, the more I realize how little I know…At least I don’t get bored…exploring is fun!
 

 

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by T-Bone
concerning the editor...oh that's moi