MARK -
I don't believe everything Calvin wrote either, that makes two
of us.
OK, you don't believe premil, my mistake, what position do you
take?
I fully agree about being Bereans, but doing that means one
often
loses popularity. Being a Berean also means setting aside traditions
and presumptions, checking everything against scripture
I couldn't find the quote, I thought it was attributed to Dr.
Livingston, I was presuming, but I can't find it. Anyway the
gist is this:
"We tend to find what we're looking for."
Ah, perhaps this is it - Ralph Waldo Emerson:
"People only see what they are prepared
to see."
So you can investigate to your heart's content - but you're basically
only going to find what's already there in your heart - because that's
what you're looking for.
Also - check out Morpheus in the Matrix:
"The Matrix is a system, Neo, and that system is our enemy.
When you are inside,
you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers,
carpenters. The very
minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do,
these people are part of that
system and that makes them our enemies. You have to understand
most of these people
are not ready to be unplugged. And many are so. . .
hopelessly dependent on the system
that they will fight to protect it."
People will fight and defend the faith/group they've chosen.
Be they JW, Cobuite, etc., etc...
Or as Jack Bickman in Scene & Structure points out:
"Readers are fascinated and threatened by change in their
lives,
and nothing else fascinates or threatens them so much in fiction.
Why?
Because each of us carries around inside ourselves a mental
picture
of the kind of person we are. "I'm an efficient secretary," we
may say. Or,
"I'm an outdoorsman who loves to hunt." Or, "I'm a hometown boy
not
interested in travel far from home." This self-concept is at
the heart of our
opinion of ourselves - how much we like ourselves, how much confidence
we feel, etc. - and we live our lives in a large measure to
be in consonance
with this self-concept, and to enhance it. Our
self-concept is our most
precious mental and emotional possession.
Any significant change can and probably will threaten
the self-
concept. Suppose the woman who defines herself as an efficient
secretary
is suddenly confronted by a new office situation....
...You may be thinking that the simplest thing for our
secretary to do
would be change her self-concept to something like, "I'm an old-fashioned
kind of office worker who doesn't learn new tricks." But it's
been psycho-
logically proven that the self-concept is so deeply engrained, and
so de-
voutly protected, that most people will go to
almost any lengths to protect
it as it stands today."
(from page 7)
Or, "You'll take my beliefs from my cold dead fingers..."
The way you see things now is probably how it will always be and you'll
always fight for it, back it up, back people up, etc., etc...
Unless you want to change, and that is highly unlikely as we just read
about the self-concept, you will absolutely not.
How did you come to see what you see? Good
question.
But we here have the glowing example of our shared past experience.
We were in a mindset, convinced those that tried to get us out
were
motivated by the devil.
Look how wrong we
were.
What makes you think you got it right now? Your self-concept
you've
adopted. Odds are that's where you'll be stuck for the rest of
your
life. Many of you like your present place in your head.
Congratulations.
"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed.
Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as
self-evident."
Schoepenhouer
And if you've got time - more from Morpheus:
"Let me tell you why you're here.
You're here because you know something. What you know you can't
explain but
you feel it. You felt it your entire life. That there's
something very wrong with the
world. You don't know what it is - but it's there, like a
splinter in your mind,
driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to
me. Do you know what
I'm talking about?
The Matrix?
Do you know what it is? The Matrix is everywhere. It
is all around us.
Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look
out your window or
when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you
go to work, when you
go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that
has been pulled over
your eyes to blind you from the truth.
What truth?
That you are a slave Neo. Like everyone else you were born
into bondage. Born into
a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch - a prison for
you mind.
Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is - you have
to see it for
yourself...
...I'm trying to free you mind, Neo. But I can only show you
the door. You're the
one that has to walk through it."
So if you wanted to walk through Rob's door of FC, you may put
on that mantel and change your way of thinking.
(I'll pass)
Or whatever it is you would happen to decide concerning denominations,
resurrections, 2nd Comings, Pre-Post-Midtrib-None- it's over, whatever.
Everyone uses the same book to back up their fought for interpretations.
One way we look for validation is in others. Don't you see what
I see?
And when you do have a few - there's your validation. You're
not the
only nut in the salad mix.
Just an observation.
This may
upset you ---
The June 2002 copy of marie claire (some fashion magazine I
never heard of)
features Angelina Jolie on the cover - and that's why I got it - I'm
writing
a spec script - and Billy Bob would be great for the lead, why not
pair him
up with his wife? Well, for starters, I know nothing about her.
Haven't seen
her in a thing. I was motivated to view Tomb Raider for obvious
reasons, but
have yet to. In the interview, she says she was padded and didn't
even get
to the DD they had wanted for her. She says she's glad that wasn't
her, cause
she doesn't want to look like
that.
Anyway, there's an article in there, and I do mean "in" there, it's
not
listed on the cover - probably because of the controversial nature:
On page 115 is: "Why I Converted to Islam
After September 11."
Threatened? I mean you, the reader - did you like hearing that?
It's only a page and a half long - this is from the middle:
IN THE MOSQUE I FEEL AT PEACE
"There is nothing Middle Eastern about my heritage. I am 31 years
old
and was born and raised a Catholic in Queens, NY. As a child,
I went
to Catholic school and attended mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral.
It
was totally impersonal. I'd always felt like there was a lot
of God
flowing through my life, but in church, people seemed to be going through
the motions without any real connection to Him.
After high school, I began to look into other religions,
but nothing
really inspired me until two years ago, during a conversation I had
while
working at a financial-services firm in Manhattan. I asked a
Muslim
coworker about his religion over lunch. As he talked about Islam,
I
realized that everything he was saying meshed with my own beliefs.
In the Catholic schools I used to attend, the nuns and
priests were
bitter, angry people. They never seemed like representatives
of God.
But in Islam, there is no one between
you and God.
Also, I liked the fact that in Islam, you totally run your life according
to religion. It makes you aware of what you eat and how you dress.
Islam felt natural to me. It was like a good friend with whom
I had
a lot in common."
That's her testimony, folks. I obviously can't reprint the whole
article,
but believe me, there's more... And I follow what she's saying.
I'm not
going to follow Islam, obviously. But I understand her inner
workings of
her heart and mind - and if you can argue with her, okay - but they
are
peace loving people that don't like to argue. Three quarters
of the way
into the article:
"The media may say Islam is hostile toward other religions, but in fact,
Muslims in the U.S. -and throughout the Arab world - are peaceful of
all
other faiths. The Koran proclaims, "God does not love aggressors.""
And now for the coup de grace:
And this is upsetting - perhaps moreso than the Catholic converting
to Islam.
This book is fairly famous, you may have heard of it. Robert Cialdini
was
on NPR recently. He wrote Influence - The New Psychology of Modern
Persuasion.
Our "teacher" at Cobu used just about every trick in the book.
This is from the chapter called "Social Proof." This part takes
place around
pages 120 to 128. Don't laugh, some of these people were well
educated, in
fact, some were teachers on the college level. Okay, you can think
flakes if
you want. But to sum - this was a gathering of "normal" people.
They were
very secretive, and, well it's a long story - but they're waiting for
a flood,
but before this flood comes and destroys the earth, a flying saucer
is going
to come down and take them off this planet. (sounds a little
similar to
Heaven's Gate, eh? Only heavens gate used suicide as a way to
get TO the
rescuing saucer - these people need only wait).
Well when the time came - it became increasingly obvious the saucer
wasn't
arriving. And now, instead of being secretive, they started receiving
phone
calls, talking with the media - let's pick it up at page 127:
"To what can we attribute the believer's radical
turnabout? In
the space of a few hours, they went from clannish and taciturn
hoarders of the Word to expansive and eager disseminators of it.
And what could have possessed them to choose such and ill-timed
instant - when the failure of the flood was likely to cause non-
believers to view the group and its dogma as laughable?
The crucial event occurred sometime during
"the night of
the flood" when it became increasingly clear that the prophecy
would not be fulfilled. Oddly, it was not their prior certainty
that drove the members to propagate the faith, it was an en-
croaching sense of uncertainty. It was the dawning realization
that if the spaceship and flood predictions were wrong, so might
be the entire belief system on which they rested. For those hud-
dled in the Keech living room, that growing possibility must
have seemed hideous.
The group members had gone too far, given
up too much
for their beliefs to see them destroyed; the shame, the economic
cost, the mockery would be too great to bear. The overarching
need of the cultists to cling to those beliefs seeps poignantly from
their own word: From a young woman with a three-year-old
child:
I have to believe the flood is coming on the twenty-first
be-
cause I've spent all my money. I quit my job, I
quit computer
school. . . . I have to believe.
And from Dr. Armstrong to one of the researchers four hours
after the failure of the saucermen to arrive:
I've had to go a long way. I've given up just about
every-
thing. I've cut every tie. I've burned every
bridge. I've turned
my back on the world. I can't afford to doubt.
I have to be-
lieve. And there isn't any other truth.
Imagine the corner in which Dr. Armstrong and his
fol-
lowers found themselves as morning approached. So massive
was the commitment to their beliefs that no other truth was tol-
erable. Yet that set of beliefs had just taken a merciless pounding
from physical reality: No saucer had landed, no spacemen had
knocked, no flood had come, nothing had happened as proph-
esied. Since the only acceptable form of truth had been undercut
by physical proof, there was but one way out of the corner for
the group. They had to establish another type of proof for the
validity of their beliefs: social proof.
This, then, explains their sudden shift from
secretive con-
spirators to zealous missionaries. And it explains the curious
tim-
ing of the shift - precisely when a direct disconfirmation of their
beliefs had rendered them least convincing to outsiders. It was
necessary to risk the scorn and derision of the nonbelievers be-
cause publicity and recruitment efforts provided the only remain-
ing hope. If they could spread the Word, if they could inform
the
uninformed, if they could persuade the skeptics, and if, by so
doing, they could win new converts, their threatened but trea-
sured beliefs would become truer. The principle of social proof
says so: The greater the number of people who find any idea
correct, the more the idea will be correct. The group's assign-
ment was clear; since the physical evidence could not be changed,
the social evidence had to be. Convince and ye shall be con-
vinced!"
So lemme tell you what I take from that. The more vocal and the
more you are being concerned about getting converts - the more insecure
you may be about your belief - because you're desperately out there
seeking social proof. I defer you back to the 31 year Catholic
woman who converted to Islam:
"At the mosque, the people show a genuine openness to others -
the homeless, drug addicts, whoever. True Muslims do not force
religion on anyone; they just listen and help."
Once again - I'm not converting. But I think, if you can be a
little
open minded and think a little outside the box - which in a way -
how can one think outside their mindset. Isn't that impossible?
Perhaps. As Einstein said: "The only thing that interferes with
my learning is my education." I don't mean to insult your intelligence,
but what he's saying here - when you think you already know something
-
you're not open to new frontiers you could be discovering. Some
people have such huge blinkers obstructing their vision, as what they
think are safeguards, meanwhile, they're so narrow minded, their
ears touch.
Yes you, getting angry right now - that could be you.
"When they think they know the answers, people are
difficult to guide. When they know they don't know,
people can find their own way."
Tao Te Ching
It may not be scripture, but it's better than the box.
Also on the subject:
>
> Did God only direct this to Timothy? If it only applied to the time
period
> it was written in, why bother even reading God's Word?
What I get from this is that
you don't get it.
I don't think you want to get it - you'll have to leave "home."
And this is impossible. Here's an attempt to get through the
various mindsets.
Let's hope for the best:
"soon small will mean huge
like bad now means good"
new Billboard advertisement on I-95
"singing songs, and carrying signs
mostly saying 'hurray for our side'"
David Crosby
My conclusions (so far) are painfully obvious:
People don't want the truth.
They just want to confirm their own truth
and proselytize it (which is also another way of confirming
their truth - which will be evident later...)
You are ensconced in your position. You just about have
to be. Sort of the "stand up for something or fall for
anything" mentality. I see the sentiment, but it's not
always used correctly. (and if you wish to "demonize" that
which does not compute - that's fine with me; it's not
going to change my reality...)
Neil's truth is probably more real to him than yours is to you.
(Don't be threatened by those words - it's simply stating the obvious)
Even though you have more Indians inside your teepee (I assume
you're in a more traditional, mainstream setting?) that doesn't mean
the majority rules. That's what makes the JW's so secure - their
worldwide
population. The Catholics, and their worldwide population.
Does the majority rule? Is the majority right? People are
born into
their situations, mostly. Hear about the fight in India?
Seems that
the Hindu God was born a certain place a Mosque was built (the Mosque
was destroyed in 1992 - after that event thousands were killed in and
out of Indian in this religious war - sound familiar? Similar
to the
fight in Jerusalem. Each side believes in their "merciful" God
and
proceed to murder the "bad guys" in His name. "Hooray for our side"...)
Might does not make right, but it can make a lot of converts...
Just as Allah is merciful - so can Christian's version of God be merciful
Just like the flying saucer people -
forgive the long quote - I wish I could relate the whole story -
these people were expecting the world to be flooded
like Noah - but they would be taken away in flying saucers.
(I picked such on obviously ridiculous example to better make the
general point - this will take you outside the box, hopefully, and
maybe we can get a better look in the mirror)
ALL religions and faiths worldwide - no matter what country, what language,
what "god," what faith - the bottom line is control. People want
order in their
life and look to religion for it. Most of the time it just happens
to be what
their parents and everyone else living around them is.
"Those who sincerely seek the truth should not fear its outcome."
Albert Schweitzer
23 So when they had
appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they
commended
them to the Lord in whom they had believed
Were they wrong in appointing them?
Absolutely not, in those situations. I'm glad you're talking about
then, and
not now. Cause now is a joke. A bad joke.
It's intristing how things change and are kept without question.
(When was the last time you heard someone pronounce all of the syllables
of 'interesting?' - Arte Johnson?)
I know I'm going to repeat myself in many ways, but that's
okay, it's
part of the journey...
In The Reluctant Messiah the fellow says,
"I believe you are quoting Snoopy the dog."
"I'll quote the truth where I find it," was the reply.
Simply quoting scripture tends only prove what mindset
the quoter has adopted.
Pre & post trib camps use the same exact verse (sometimes) to prove
their point.
How can this be? You're on the opposite end yet staring at the
very same words.
What they see is what they've adopted and anything to the contrary
is a threat
to their security.
You and I do have an influence over our own mindsets.
But reading
through 21st Century eyes is a thing virtually impossible to overcome.
One of my favorite weeks in Cobu was when we had the predestination
versus free will debates. Being all the teaching was wrong and
we were
now on a "new basis," we needed a new foundation - teaching wise...
(1989)
So there were many Bible studies, and we wowed some of them just like
we did in the mid 1970's. Who says you can't re-invent the wheel?
I was on the Philadelphia College of Bible campus full of this enthusiasm.
I was merely on a fact finding mission to help get evidence to support
either view. I asked one fellow on campus, he stopped to consider,
tilted his head and asked, "What is the school's view?"
Well I didn't want to debate with him, I was willing to listen.
We were
trying to decide during the week before the next Bible study our
answers. But he didn't answer his personal conviction and why
- he
was just wondering what policy was and why.
That brings me to another thesis:
Religion is about control.
Control and death. It really impressed me on Braveheart
how they
handled the funerals. This is goes along with death and taxes
-
- the only two certain things in life. Taxes certainly
have to do with
control. Societies need their structure and one of the places
they
get this is in their respective belief systems.
Closer to home - see how obvious control is
the aim in Cobu and
Catholics. The "truth" in those environments is: "step
the way we
tell you to, or you're out of step." It's very similar.
In Cobu you
"go through them." Or you're stopped by them. You
expect to
get away with that number and that 'get-away-from-me' spirit?
(for instance) It's a "submit to me" spirit. Undermine
Kevin's
authority and you'll get the evil eye. But I digress....
What the Bible says is right there on the page. We can also learn
from what the Bible doesn't say. With those horrible things happening
in Corinth - does Paul appeal to the elders to get a handle on things?
C'mon, elders - let's get things ship shape. Where are they in
1 Corinthians?
T'ain't there. 2 Corinthians? T'ain't there neither.
Look for him or them.
They're NOT there. They hadn't grown up yet.
Besides - what was any elder ever told to do? The very first
elders ever
appointed were chosen for the chore of waiting on tables. They
needed
waiters. It's written right up there. They were chosen
to serve tables.
That was their job. Elsewhere elders are asked to lay on hands.
Anything else? I don't know - if you find any, let me know.
The brothers and the brethren did just about everything.
See how many elders are in the NT (minus Revelation) and what they
do and how many brothers are they - and what they do.
You may be surprised. Especially brethren. You will be
surprised.
Let's go to back then. When Paul established a group of believers
in a city it was "the church in Rome." "The church in Corinth."
All he had to do was have people meeting in one house and that
city was "churched." It was planted, built on gold, and he left
-
knowing they were to face trials threatening to kill the church's life.
So there's one church to a city. That's how the letters are addressed:
"To the church of God which is at Corinth..."
"To the church" and it would mention others, including elders where
they had organically occurred through time.
But Paul had a pressing issue when writing Timothy,
et al.
They already knew very well what constituted an elder. But now
it "was in writing." Very important - especially for Timothy.
In some
of the young churches elders hadn't emerged yet. It was very
urgent
to appoint them before it was too late. The Jews would soon be
fleeing Jerusalem for their lives. Where would they go?
Invariably
many would end up in cities where the Christians gathering in that
town were almost all Gentiles. A Jew in a Gentile church.
Remember
how the sentiments were back then. Peter in Antioch. A
Gentile with
more seniority than a Jew? Recipe for trouble - so quick! Appoint
elders!
How can I back that up? I don't know. Couched in my mindset
that
scenario rings truer than anything I have ever heard. I refuse
to accept
a midevil mindset. (if you can find midevil in your dictionary
- rip out
the page and send it to me - - don't worry, you won't be ripping any
pages...)
Just because people say intristing doesn't make it interesting.
Just because people say midevil doesn't mean it's medieval.
And just because that Mormon, who's not old enough to shave,
has a black badge on his pocket that says "elder" don't make it
so neither.
Being an elder has to do tantamountly with conduct - which can
only be established and verified over time. The fact that an
Apostle
saw a need for elders to be appointed doesn't mean this is the mean.
A good example of elder finding is asking a gathering to write on a
piece of paper the name(s) of who you would want to talk with you
should you be caught in adultery. If the same names keep being
mentioned (on a piece of paper - private vote - no influence)
these are your elders. Now appoint them.
Am I speaking loud enough?