"Oriental fruitcakes," Danny? You made a funny...! :D--> :D--> :D-->
Hi Shaz,
:)-->
Now I need to do penance for that sinful "fruitcake" remark by listening to George Harrison's "Wonderwall" lp.
(the first song -according to my daughter - sounds like a buzzing mosquito - which makes her both cringe and laugh).
quote:
I do think that TWI was so caught up in the You Are Righteous Now aspect of Christianity that they threw out balancing that with fear -- fear of displeasing the One you love, fear of your works coming to naught because they weren't godly,
Well-spoken. I agree here. It's been my observation that "righteous" and "righteousness" more than often (at least in practice) translates into "self-righteousness" than the desired ideal padded around the phrase. Becoming the selfish, self-centered desire to please ourselves and not our God - hardly an approach that leads to manifestations of love. It's unfortunately common in all religious movements.
quote:
and a healthy respect for what God could have done to you, were it not for His mercy.
I do not think or believe it's in our Lord's nature or Will at all "to do" anything harmful or destructive to us,- we're quite adept of accomplishing that by our own actions, by gods of our own making, and to each other at that.
"mercy" had a different emphasis with one of the largest movements of century Christians - understood in the sense of "pity" and compassion" - not in "the withholding of kicking our sinful asses even if we deserved it". In Eznik's transmission of a Marcionite retelling of the creation myth:
"And (they say) the good God and Stranger (to the world), who was sitting in the third heaven, seeing that so many people perished and were tortured between the two deceivers, the Lord of Creation and Hyle ["matter"], took pity for those cast into the fire and tortured. He sent his son to go and save them, and to take the likeness of a servant and assume the form of a man among the sons of the God of the Law."
"The Righteous" have no need of a physician.
There's also an ancient Marcionite tale of the Spirit "Isu", upon his death on the cross, descending into Hades to liberate the souls of the Old Testament era.
When the souls of Adam, Noah, Moses, and others (located in the upscale 'Paradise' section of Hades) heard the Stranger, they neither trusted or believed Him.
They were extremely fearful of their old god, and thought he was tempting them again.
But when the souls of Cain, Balaam, the Pharoah of Egypt, and other notorious losers, creeps, false prophets and murderers (located in the ghetto part of Hades) heard the gospel, - with nothing to lose by remaining in hopeless darkness - they believed, and became liberated and ascended from Hades and into the Light of the Third heaven.
A twisted parable of Paulinism run amok? But is it really nay less than the notion of a former murderer and Christian persecutor becoming the spokesman of the God of love, the most revered Christian Saint? (lol)
quote:
Wierwille loved the "freedom in Christ" doctrine, of course, because he wanted the freedom to do a whole lot of ill without repercussions.
I think he gave much lip-service to "the freedom in Christ", as his actions especially toward the end his earthly life and those of the group he founded seem to indicate.
The "ill and repercussions" killed him, as far as I can see. He didn't escape them.
I don't exclude the possibility of phobos carrying other meanings and shades of meaning besides its most literal. Why do you insist that "fear" carry only one meaning, against Strong and Vine?
Read my posts again. Where have I "insisted" on only one meaning? It's just that I find it quite interesting that, poof, all of a sudden phobos means something totally different.
If there is an existing word in a language that accurately conveys the meaning a writer intends to convey, then why would the writer choose a different word, ascribe it a new meaning, and then expect folks to understand what he means?
Take "godly fear" for example. There are other words such "eulabeia" or "entrepo" that better convey the idea of "godly fear" than phobos. Yet you and others (including translators) choose to ascribe a different meaning to phobos, seemingly to make your theology fit. Again, why would the writer use phobos when a better word already exists in that language?
An appeal to the authority of Vine's or Strong's carries little weight here. Strong's many times simply adds a definition based upon how the King James translates a particular word. If a word is translated "green" 200 times and "red" one time, Strong's will asssign the word a second definition based upon the translation in the AV. (you should know this)
Vine's is certainly not without bias and is not the final authority on biblical definitions. (You should also know this)
Here are two verses to consider.
Hbr 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear [eulabeia]:
2Cr 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear [phobos]of God.
Danny, why do you suppose that the writer used eulabeia in Hebrews and phobos in Corinthians?
Are you suggesting that the intended meaning is the same in both verses and that there is no difference in the meaning of the two Greek words?
Goey brings up some good points. (Wierwille wasn't the first one to massage definitions to try and make the bible "fit")
From its earliest beginnings Christianity was comprised of a variety of movements, each having their own theological outlook and ideas, even their own spin on certain words, which often did not "harmonize" or "fit in" with one another. And this all occurring even prior to the canonization of the NT, with all its controversies over what writings should or shouldn't be included.
Let's be honest with ourselves. There is no Christian group in existence, either ancient or modern, who hasn't resorted to the practice of interpretation and the "massaging of texts" (according to their particular theological outlook) you describe. Oh there have been some pretty impressive and sincere attempts at arriving to an amazing self-interpreting text and hopefully doctrines that would arise from such attempts, but the neutral, pie-in-the-sky "self-interpreting" theology seemingly still yearned for or expected by and large, does not exist and is next to impossible, IMOHO.
The ancient Christian group I've studied for these past few years is only group among many that viewed and filtered matters through their particular lenses.
The word "judgment" in association to their purely Good God denoted something entirely different to them than to others. Even the title "Christ" to them, which they spelled differently as "Krestus", denoted primarily to them not "the messiah" but "the Benevolent" (or "kind") one. Again, this is just one Christian group among many. And most intriguingly, the group that published and circulated the earliest known NT canon circ. 130 AD.
quote:
"Fear" is a good example. It says "fear" (or the Greek or Hebrew equivalent) - but no, it can't mean fear, because of what some other verse says.
It's only one of many such examples. But the more urgent reason a Christian group such as the one I mentioned earlier might not construe it to a slavish literalness of words is due to their theological outlook and perception, that something doesn't fit in with the actual character of their God as they perceive Him. They are no more or less dishonest than other interpreters, either ancient or modern.
If there is an existing word in a language that accurately conveys the meaning a writer intends to convey, then why would the writer choose a different word, ascribe it a new meaning, and then expect folks to understand what he means?
If you or I lived 2,000 years ago, and were part of that writer's particular group, we would no doubt have had a better understanding of what he or she orginally intended.
Unfortunately, perhaps over half the intended "interpretation" perished with the writers themselves, and we are left with a framework of bones upon which they attached meanings, about which we debate and speculate. So we duke it out with our respective theological-biased dictionaries and concordances (is there a one out there that is not?).
quote:
Take "godly fear" for example. There are other words such "eulabeia" or "entrepo" that better convey the idea of "godly fear" than phobos. Yet you and others (including translators) choose to ascribe a different meaning to phobos, seemingly to make your theology fit.
Most definately to make our theology "fit" to our mind's eye!
Sure I do this. And you don't? Perhaps you sincerely believe that you don't... :D-->
quote:
Here are two verses to consider.
Hbr 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear [eulabeia]:
2Cr 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear [phobos]of God.
Danny, why do you suppose that the writer used eulabeia in Hebrews and phobos in Corinthians?
You'll need to rethink your query in view of
the scholarly proposals (both ancient and modern), namely concerning the questionable authorship behind "Hebrews".
We are concerned with at least two different writers between 2nd Corinthians and Hebrews.
"The identity of the author of Hebrews is not known...there are adequate reasons for rejecting Paul as its author. First, the writer's writing style is different from Paul's..."(Oxford Companion to the Bible, p.275).
If both these writings did not originate from the same hand, wouldn't an approach or attempt to concordantly "harmonize" or homogenize the vocabulary in the writings of two different writers be fundamentally and intristically flawed?
And I won't even get into at this time the problems which exist for the section of chapters 6-7 in Second Corinthians, with which I trust you are already well-informed.
I've enjoyed the excellent points you raised, and will continue to contemplate.
Your point about the theological bias of Strong and Vine especially, which intrigues me the more I consider it. I wonder, what is it in particular that compelled these men as well as others to assign a 'softer' meaning to "phobos", as you have well noted and asked?
If they're not doing so from a pure academic standpoint (quite possible), are they being mislead, or misleading themselves (perhaps via traces of the old Marcionism inherent in the combined body of Christian ideas and documents passed down to us).
In any event, it's fascinating (and even a little strange) to observe the direction toward which some of these ideas go, and contemplate the possible reasons why they gravitate in those directions. God help me, I wish I understood better some of the reasons.
Momentus is still alive and well and is not necessarily connected with CES or John Lynn. The ministry is called Christian Character Development and the trainings they offer are really quite good (if you are willing to look at what you say you stand for and/or what you are actually giving off to others). there is a training called Discovery and another called Breakthrough. They have a marriage training called One Accord and one for teens called (I think) the Gap. I took the Momentus training called Breakthrough last Winter in MI. As far as I knew there were no other ex-Way folks there and that suited me just fine! Speaking as a practicing therapist (mental health), it was a great experience and very healthy. As an ex-Way person I would caution most to stay away as most ex-Way I have encountered really don't understand soul life and how it differs from their spiritual life. It has the possibility to change one from victim orientation to victor but you have to be prepared for change and willing to "put yourself out there" more than most are used to. I would recommend it for all who would like the opportunity to think differently about themselves and break free from self defeating ruts.
As an ex-Way person I would caution most to stay away as most ex-Way I have encountered really don't understand soul life and how it differs from their spiritual life.
Would be interesting to hear a little bit of your take on "soul life".
I'm personally intrigued by the fact that early Christians do appear to have placed great emphasis upon the "salvation" of the "soul", something that wasn't really underscored in the Way, as I recall.
quote:
It has the possibility to change one from victim orientation to victor but you have to be prepared for change and willing to "put yourself out there" more than most are used to. I would recommend it for all who would like the opportunity to think differently about themselves and break free from self defeating ruts.
I've never really thought myself as a "victim" though I understand the same cannot be said for others who really did become victimized by the organization.
Momentus has garnered mixed reviews here.
Some find it healing; others have been seemingly traumatized by it.
I recall a few years ago, while on CES' mailing list, recieving an invitation and some forms from some stranger in New York, which didn't particularly inspire me either way at the time.
There are some, what I would call, "telling references" that God, Himself makes. That is IF one gets with the "God Breathed Word" concept. We're all familiar with one in particular. Something to the effect of,
"Would a father, if his son asked him for bread, would he give hime a stone? ... Or if the son asked... would he give him a serpent?"
I'm thinking that the guy who would give his hungry son a stone, or a serpent when the son came to him in need - - is somone to be feared.... as in PRIMARILY, in general... Yes. "Be afraid, be VERY afraid." I'm thinking that God was making a bottom line statement there as to how we should think of Him in general terms - - as an eternally LOVING father. NOT a figure of something to be feared.
Doesn't the scenario referenced there speak to a most acute point in the relationship? When the obviously inferior, and specifically needy dependant one approaches his LORD. The FATHER meets the child's need, rather than BETRAY him with a non nourishing stone or betray the specifically dependant trust by giving the child something that would harm him.
That is LOVE. That is How God wants us to view Him - - in general.
HOWEVER. There are definite aspects of God which certainly are to be feared, as in BEYOND respect. (Perhaps as we mature with God the "fear" aspect ripens to a healthy, reverent respect.) My children are scared to death of me - - at certian times. Like when they are out of line and they know that I KNOW about it. At those times they are not so much afraid of ME, their Dad as they are afraid of what consequence for their actions I will bring down upon them.
They still love me with all their hearts at that time too, as they have no doubt - no not one - that I LOVE THEM, even then. Even though they also know with the SAME lack of doubt that their loving Dad is about to bust loose the fires from DAD on their butt.
I have learned much, at least I THINK I have, about how God loves us and how HE wants us to view Him by how much I love my children and how I want them to see ME. I want SOOOOO badly for them all to be ALL the BEST that they can be, ALL the time. At times, I allow them to endure, what for them seems to be, great and unendurable pain. I will also rain down the pain on any of them, benevolently, for their ultimate benefit. They surely don't see my punishment, especially at the time, as beneficial to them. Ultimately I make sure that they at least hear it from me that what they viewed as a horrible experience, I put them through it, hopefully to grow them and make them stronger, better, etc. When I do that it PAINS me, but I do it with confident expectations that "it will be good for them."
My oldest son, gets into more trouble than any two of the others. Without fail, he will fall into my arms, hug me and tell me he loves me immediately after he's gone through even the worst and most intense "attitude adjustment" session. He's absolutely CONVINCED that I LOVE him. Then he gives his BEST effort to altering HIS behavior to avoid "the wrath of Dad" next time.
I think that's what God wants for us. I think He wants us to be afraid of "getting wrong." I think He wants us to be afraid of what He will allow or bring down on us when WE rebel or "get wrong," with Him, doing things outside of what we should do. All the while we're in full confidence that He will not KILL or DESTROY us while he's "spanking our rear."
While we're pulling out scriptures on the fear God concept... we should pull out the ones about tribulation and all of the good things that enduring it does for us. I was afraid of my Dad too. That fear inspired me to NEVER cross him. I made different, better decisions BECAUSE I was afraid of that man whom I knew loved me with everything he had. I think that fearing God in the same way inspires us to make better decisions regarding our "walk" with Him on this planet. "Count it all joy..."
Ultimately, we'd better be afraid of going to hell in the SAME way we fear crossing a busy highway blindfolded. It is the wrath of GOD that fuels the eternal flames of hell, just as the same loving God would allow your body to be splattered like a bug on the front of a speeding semi-truck should we cross in front of it while it moved at 80mph. I have a healthy reverence and respect for moving semi trucks but I'm flat out scared to DEATH to step in front of one on the highway.
All at the same time.
That's just what I think. Or at least what I think I think.
I would recommend it for all who would like the opportunity to think differently about themselves and break free from self defeating ruts
Not to be real critical or anything, but quite a few of the "new" ruts can be every bit as confining and self-defeating as the one you're in to start with..
I'll change my rut when I find a better one than the one I'm in.
I made different, better decisions BECAUSE I was afraid of that man whom I knew loved me with everything he had. I think that fearing God in the same way inspires us to make better decisions regarding our "walk" with Him on this planet.
And I'm with Dan -- I also (bullinger) am curious on your take on soul life. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts about how it differs from our spiritual life. Since you are a mental health therapist, you must have avenues of thought that we (I) have not thought of before.
Yeah Dana... I'd like to hear what you have to say on this too. :-) Don't pull any punches, we can take it! At least you know I can.
Thanks for the complement Dave. Every now & then I squeeze off a decent thought....
Hey! Is it just me, or does it seem like some Christians are afraid of the concept of being afraid of God? To me its pretty darn simple. I'm afraid to fall off a roof, so when I go up on one, I'm veddy veddy careful near the edge.... The stinkin' roof doesn't HATE me cause I'm afraid.
I don't think God hates us either.
AND. I'm definately not BELIEVING to fall off. I'm afraid TO fall off. I like my body much better when its not broken, bruised or DEAD.
Mr. Hamma. Don't race car drivers call the ruts they drive in "the groove?"
Going back to school, but its on the slow track. mainly because I have to work full time all day.
Working out at least three times a week at the local community center.
And I'm still poor. At least financially- I'm paying my own way through school, with less than ideal employment..
Yes, I still read the bible.
My "results" are coming, but it is sooooo S-L-O-W....
I'm a little wary of shortcuts.. instant results, instant gratification. But if it works for someone, I don't have anything really bad to say about it.
But three weeks of concentrated "the word like it aint been known since forever" did little but to put me in a real rut, for over twenty years..
I'm thinking about doing the similar. It just dawned on me at age 46 that it would be well for me to have an advanced degree like a masters or a docturate.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
16
21
21
Popular Days
Sep 15
30
Sep 20
24
Sep 6
22
Sep 12
18
Top Posters In This Topic
TheEvan 15 posts
GarthP2000 16 posts
HCW 21 posts
Ham 21 posts
Popular Days
Sep 15 2005
30 posts
Sep 20 2005
24 posts
Sep 6 2005
22 posts
Sep 12 2005
18 posts
TheInvisibleDan
Hi Shaz,
Now I need to do penance for that sinful "fruitcake" remark by listening to George Harrison's "Wonderwall" lp.
(the first song -according to my daughter - sounds like a buzzing mosquito - which makes her both cringe and laugh).
Well-spoken. I agree here. It's been my observation that "righteous" and "righteousness" more than often (at least in practice) translates into "self-righteousness" than the desired ideal padded around the phrase. Becoming the selfish, self-centered desire to please ourselves and not our God - hardly an approach that leads to manifestations of love. It's unfortunately common in all religious movements.
I do not think or believe it's in our Lord's nature or Will at all "to do" anything harmful or destructive to us,- we're quite adept of accomplishing that by our own actions, by gods of our own making, and to each other at that.
"mercy" had a different emphasis with one of the largest movements of century Christians - understood in the sense of "pity" and compassion" - not in "the withholding of kicking our sinful asses even if we deserved it". In Eznik's transmission of a Marcionite retelling of the creation myth:
"And (they say) the good God and Stranger (to the world), who was sitting in the third heaven, seeing that so many people perished and were tortured between the two deceivers, the Lord of Creation and Hyle ["matter"], took pity for those cast into the fire and tortured. He sent his son to go and save them, and to take the likeness of a servant and assume the form of a man among the sons of the God of the Law."
"The Righteous" have no need of a physician.
There's also an ancient Marcionite tale of the Spirit "Isu", upon his death on the cross, descending into Hades to liberate the souls of the Old Testament era.
When the souls of Adam, Noah, Moses, and others (located in the upscale 'Paradise' section of Hades) heard the Stranger, they neither trusted or believed Him.
They were extremely fearful of their old god, and thought he was tempting them again.
But when the souls of Cain, Balaam, the Pharoah of Egypt, and other notorious losers, creeps, false prophets and murderers (located in the ghetto part of Hades) heard the gospel, - with nothing to lose by remaining in hopeless darkness - they believed, and became liberated and ascended from Hades and into the Light of the Third heaven.
A twisted parable of Paulinism run amok? But is it really nay less than the notion of a former murderer and Christian persecutor becoming the spokesman of the God of love, the most revered Christian Saint? (lol)
I think he gave much lip-service to "the freedom in Christ", as his actions especially toward the end his earthly life and those of the group he founded seem to indicate.
The "ill and repercussions" killed him, as far as I can see. He didn't escape them.
May God's pity rescue his soul, despite himself.
I don't wish eternal darkness on even my worst
enemies.
Thank you for your enjoyable post, Shaz.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
The world has been turned upside down.
Hell has been frozen over, and we're skating triple axle luxes (or whatever they're called) on it.
Let us be mocked and laughed at for wearing about our loins the frilly, silly tutus of God's grace, and doing some weird Disney hippo dance.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Hahahaha Danny....what a mind picture!
Hmmm, where'd I put my ballet shoes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
If there is an existing word in a language that accurately conveys the meaning a writer intends to convey, then why would the writer choose a different word, ascribe it a new meaning, and then expect folks to understand what he means?
Take "godly fear" for example. There are other words such "eulabeia" or "entrepo" that better convey the idea of "godly fear" than phobos. Yet you and others (including translators) choose to ascribe a different meaning to phobos, seemingly to make your theology fit. Again, why would the writer use phobos when a better word already exists in that language?
An appeal to the authority of Vine's or Strong's carries little weight here. Strong's many times simply adds a definition based upon how the King James translates a particular word. If a word is translated "green" 200 times and "red" one time, Strong's will asssign the word a second definition based upon the translation in the AV. (you should know this)
Vine's is certainly not without bias and is not the final authority on biblical definitions. (You should also know this)
Here are two verses to consider.
Hbr 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear [eulabeia]:
2Cr 7:1 Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear [phobos]of God.
Danny, why do you suppose that the writer used eulabeia in Hebrews and phobos in Corinthians?
Are you suggesting that the intended meaning is the same in both verses and that there is no difference in the meaning of the two Greek words?
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Goey brings up some good points. (Wierwille wasn't the first one to massage definitions to try and make the bible "fit")
"Fear" is a good example. It says "fear" (or the Greek or Hebrew equivalent) - but no, it can't mean fear, because of what some other verse says.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
From its earliest beginnings Christianity was comprised of a variety of movements, each having their own theological outlook and ideas, even their own spin on certain words, which often did not "harmonize" or "fit in" with one another. And this all occurring even prior to the canonization of the NT, with all its controversies over what writings should or shouldn't be included.
Let's be honest with ourselves. There is no Christian group in existence, either ancient or modern, who hasn't resorted to the practice of interpretation and the "massaging of texts" (according to their particular theological outlook) you describe. Oh there have been some pretty impressive and sincere attempts at arriving to an amazing self-interpreting text and hopefully doctrines that would arise from such attempts, but the neutral, pie-in-the-sky "self-interpreting" theology seemingly still yearned for or expected by and large, does not exist and is next to impossible, IMOHO.
The ancient Christian group I've studied for these past few years is only group among many that viewed and filtered matters through their particular lenses.
The word "judgment" in association to their purely Good God denoted something entirely different to them than to others. Even the title "Christ" to them, which they spelled differently as "Krestus", denoted primarily to them not "the messiah" but "the Benevolent" (or "kind") one. Again, this is just one Christian group among many. And most intriguingly, the group that published and circulated the earliest known NT canon circ. 130 AD.
It's only one of many such examples. But the more urgent reason a Christian group such as the one I mentioned earlier might not construe it to a slavish literalness of words is due to their theological outlook and perception, that something doesn't fit in with the actual character of their God as they perceive Him. They are no more or less dishonest than other interpreters, either ancient or modern.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Danny,
Very good.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Goey,
You are very good as well, my friend.
I've enjoyed the excellent points you raised, and will continue to contemplate.
Your point about the theological bias of Strong and Vine especially, which intrigues me the more I consider it. I wonder, what is it in particular that compelled these men as well as others to assign a 'softer' meaning to "phobos", as you have well noted and asked?
If they're not doing so from a pure academic standpoint (quite possible), are they being mislead, or misleading themselves (perhaps via traces of the old Marcionism inherent in the combined body of Christian ideas and documents passed down to us).
In any event, it's fascinating (and even a little strange) to observe the direction toward which some of these ideas go, and contemplate the possible reasons why they gravitate in those directions. God help me, I wish I understood better some of the reasons.
thank you.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Those are lutzes, Dan. Good Scrabble word. Funny image.
Regards,
Dancing hippo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dana R
Momentus is still alive and well and is not necessarily connected with CES or John Lynn. The ministry is called Christian Character Development and the trainings they offer are really quite good (if you are willing to look at what you say you stand for and/or what you are actually giving off to others). there is a training called Discovery and another called Breakthrough. They have a marriage training called One Accord and one for teens called (I think) the Gap. I took the Momentus training called Breakthrough last Winter in MI. As far as I knew there were no other ex-Way folks there and that suited me just fine! Speaking as a practicing therapist (mental health), it was a great experience and very healthy. As an ex-Way person I would caution most to stay away as most ex-Way I have encountered really don't understand soul life and how it differs from their spiritual life. It has the possibility to change one from victim orientation to victor but you have to be prepared for change and willing to "put yourself out there" more than most are used to. I would recommend it for all who would like the opportunity to think differently about themselves and break free from self defeating ruts.
Dana
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Welcome to GS, Dana.
Would be interesting to hear a little bit of your take on "soul life".
I'm personally intrigued by the fact that early Christians do appear to have placed great emphasis upon the "salvation" of the "soul", something that wasn't really underscored in the Way, as I recall.
I've never really thought myself as a "victim" though I understand the same cannot be said for others who really did become victimized by the organization.
Momentus has garnered mixed reviews here.
Some find it healing; others have been seemingly traumatized by it.
I recall a few years ago, while on CES' mailing list, recieving an invitation and some forms from some stranger in New York, which didn't particularly inspire me either way at the time.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Thanks you Shaz, for the correction on the lutzes.
I was a mere vowel away from driving a triple axle Lex.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
There are some, what I would call, "telling references" that God, Himself makes. That is IF one gets with the "God Breathed Word" concept. We're all familiar with one in particular. Something to the effect of,
"Would a father, if his son asked him for bread, would he give hime a stone? ... Or if the son asked... would he give him a serpent?"
I'm thinking that the guy who would give his hungry son a stone, or a serpent when the son came to him in need - - is somone to be feared.... as in PRIMARILY, in general... Yes. "Be afraid, be VERY afraid." I'm thinking that God was making a bottom line statement there as to how we should think of Him in general terms - - as an eternally LOVING father. NOT a figure of something to be feared.
Doesn't the scenario referenced there speak to a most acute point in the relationship? When the obviously inferior, and specifically needy dependant one approaches his LORD. The FATHER meets the child's need, rather than BETRAY him with a non nourishing stone or betray the specifically dependant trust by giving the child something that would harm him.
That is LOVE. That is How God wants us to view Him - - in general.
HOWEVER. There are definite aspects of God which certainly are to be feared, as in BEYOND respect. (Perhaps as we mature with God the "fear" aspect ripens to a healthy, reverent respect.) My children are scared to death of me - - at certian times. Like when they are out of line and they know that I KNOW about it. At those times they are not so much afraid of ME, their Dad as they are afraid of what consequence for their actions I will bring down upon them.
They still love me with all their hearts at that time too, as they have no doubt - no not one - that I LOVE THEM, even then. Even though they also know with the SAME lack of doubt that their loving Dad is about to bust loose the fires from DAD on their butt.
I have learned much, at least I THINK I have, about how God loves us and how HE wants us to view Him by how much I love my children and how I want them to see ME. I want SOOOOO badly for them all to be ALL the BEST that they can be, ALL the time. At times, I allow them to endure, what for them seems to be, great and unendurable pain. I will also rain down the pain on any of them, benevolently, for their ultimate benefit. They surely don't see my punishment, especially at the time, as beneficial to them. Ultimately I make sure that they at least hear it from me that what they viewed as a horrible experience, I put them through it, hopefully to grow them and make them stronger, better, etc. When I do that it PAINS me, but I do it with confident expectations that "it will be good for them."
My oldest son, gets into more trouble than any two of the others. Without fail, he will fall into my arms, hug me and tell me he loves me immediately after he's gone through even the worst and most intense "attitude adjustment" session. He's absolutely CONVINCED that I LOVE him. Then he gives his BEST effort to altering HIS behavior to avoid "the wrath of Dad" next time.
I think that's what God wants for us. I think He wants us to be afraid of "getting wrong." I think He wants us to be afraid of what He will allow or bring down on us when WE rebel or "get wrong," with Him, doing things outside of what we should do. All the while we're in full confidence that He will not KILL or DESTROY us while he's "spanking our rear."
While we're pulling out scriptures on the fear God concept... we should pull out the ones about tribulation and all of the good things that enduring it does for us. I was afraid of my Dad too. That fear inspired me to NEVER cross him. I made different, better decisions BECAUSE I was afraid of that man whom I knew loved me with everything he had. I think that fearing God in the same way inspires us to make better decisions regarding our "walk" with Him on this planet. "Count it all joy..."
Ultimately, we'd better be afraid of going to hell in the SAME way we fear crossing a busy highway blindfolded. It is the wrath of GOD that fuels the eternal flames of hell, just as the same loving God would allow your body to be splattered like a bug on the front of a speeding semi-truck should we cross in front of it while it moved at 80mph. I have a healthy reverence and respect for moving semi trucks but I'm flat out scared to DEATH to step in front of one on the highway.
All at the same time.
That's just what I think. Or at least what I think I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Hey Dana!
Welcome to the Cafe!
Yes, its me. your old friend from way back when, when I lived in New Knoxville. So good to "see" you!
I'll drop you a line & we can catch up on stuff.
Later;
Howard
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Not to be real critical or anything, but quite a few of the "new" ruts can be every bit as confining and self-defeating as the one you're in to start with..
I'll change my rut when I find a better one than the one I'm in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Excellent point HCW!!
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
And Dana -- welcome to GreaseSpot.
:)--> 
:)-->
And I'm with Dan -- I also (bullinger) am curious on your take on soul life. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts about how it differs from our spiritual life. Since you are a mental health therapist, you must have avenues of thought that we (I) have not thought of before.
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Yeah Dana... I'd like to hear what you have to say on this too. :-) Don't pull any punches, we can take it! At least you know I can.
Thanks for the complement Dave. Every now & then I squeeze off a decent thought....
Hey! Is it just me, or does it seem like some Christians are afraid of the concept of being afraid of God? To me its pretty darn simple. I'm afraid to fall off a roof, so when I go up on one, I'm veddy veddy careful near the edge.... The stinkin' roof doesn't HATE me cause I'm afraid.
I don't think God hates us either.
AND. I'm definately not BELIEVING to fall off. I'm afraid TO fall off. I like my body much better when its not broken, bruised or DEAD.
Mr. Hamma. Don't race car drivers call the ruts they drive in "the groove?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Could be, you know..
my current "rut" I'm in is:
Going back to school, but its on the slow track. mainly because I have to work full time all day.
Working out at least three times a week at the local community center.
And I'm still poor. At least financially- I'm paying my own way through school, with less than ideal employment..
Yes, I still read the bible.
My "results" are coming, but it is sooooo S-L-O-W....
I'm a little wary of shortcuts.. instant results, instant gratification. But if it works for someone, I don't have anything really bad to say about it.
But three weeks of concentrated "the word like it aint been known since forever" did little but to put me in a real rut, for over twenty years..
Some shortcut.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
What are you studying Hamma?
I'm thinking about doing the similar. It just dawned on me at age 46 that it would be well for me to have an advanced degree like a masters or a docturate.
I feel you on the shortcut remark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dori
Hi,
My husband and I took momentous and we are now divorced .It was one of the worst weekends of my life.
For John lynn I tried CES it sounbded to much liek Twi ego and ego and ego.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
HCW, I am studying Chemistry and Mathmatics. May toss in Physics later for the fun of it..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
If I could just find one of those dern alien "brain boosters" that really work, I'd be the first to try it.
:D-->
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.