|
Blaine: You used the word,
"hallucinating." Was this friend a frequent hallucinator? How
old was he? People with hereditary schizophrenia have both visual and
auditory hallucinations frequently, usually starting in the late teens or early
twenties--prior to that, they most often seem quite normal. That it
happened at a concert of the Grateful Dead, members of a group of
notorius and self confessed fornicators makes this suspect. Also, the very
excitement of a rock concert is exactly the stimulus often associated with
unusual hallcinations. I once knew a woman who hallucinated often--she was
a diagnosed schizophrenic--and she told me she tended to get that way under
conditions of stress and/or excitement. She lost a baby after a
pregnancy of 6 or so months, and fell into a delerium of hallucinatory
episodes that lasted for months, which she had no control over.
Otherwise, most of the time she was able to tell the difference between her
hallucinations and reality. Not to knock your story, but . . .
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 7:03
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets
the Bird
Read my Polanyi post and get back to
me.
As far as a "Witches Coven" I don't know. I've
not been to one. But a very good friend of mine was hallucinating at a
Grateful Dead concert, when he saw a large man with flaming blond hair walk
out on stage, bible in his hand, and point to him through the crowd and say,
"I coming for you." Then the blond haired big man started pawing through
people like they were ten-pins, coming to get him. My friend fell on his face
then and there, promptly giving his life to the Lord. He is not sure
about the big man, but he is quite sure to Whom he led him.
I am saying, if it is truth, it is our Lord's
Truth, whatever the discloser.
Bill Taylor
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 6:36
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Strawman gets
the Bird
If you like looking for him in all the wrong places, how about checking
him out or his truth at a Witches Coven?
If you did not say he is in it, are you refering to his truth in
it?
So what is so great about Paloneys contribution to Christianity? Was he
a christian in more than name only?
Judy,
I do not know if you are aware of this, so I
won't call your behavior devious and your arguments intellectually
dishonest. Instead I will give you the benefit of doubt and simply point
out that you are committing an age-old fallacy in several of your
rebuttals. The fallacy is called a strawman argument. You twist my words
and then attack them based upon the twist. In this way you are building a
strawman and then kicking it down. Let me show you what I
mean:
You said > How did
Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong"
places?
What's the strawman? I did not say
that Jesus was "looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be. I
said "I like looking for him (the Lord, Jesus) in all the 'wrong'
places."
You said > During his time of ministry on this earth he was still part
of the Godhead yes, but he wasn't God the Father.
What's the
strawman? I did not say
that Jesus was the God the Father. I said, "He is God, always was, always will be."
You said > I agree that He is Lord over it, but this
does not ATST mean that He is in it.
What's the
strawman? I did not say
that Jesus is in it, as if to promote some kind of strange
pantheism. I said, "I have thoroughly bought
into the truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't
matter what or where, if it is in the world, he is
there."
You said > It is my belief that the Word of God can handle the
enlightenment mentality sans Polanyi. How does one put on the mind
of Christ and the mind of Polanyi at the same time?
What's the strawman?
I did
not say that one should put on the mind of Polanyi, nor did I suggest
it. I have never said something so ludicrous. I said, "Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he
raised him up at the time he did and equipped him to speak to the
problems present in Enlightenment mentality?"
Judy, this is an egregious mistake. Please do not put blasphemous
words in my mouth. I have always kept Christ in the center of my
theology and conversations, and I have always put whomever I am
speaking of, whether it be Polanyi or Torrance or Calvin or
Athanasius or Kruger, in the periphery and soundly in submission to
Christ. Please be a little more careful with your
words.
You said > Jesus didn't speak the words of any philosopher, he only
said what he first heard the Father say - He spoke God's Words and we are
to do the same because he left us an example that we should follow in His
steps. Not the steps of Polanyi.
What's the
strawman? I did
not say that Jesus spoke the words of any philosopher; I said he spun the
philosophy of his day, and did so in a way to radically alter its intent.
Please read my words: "Long before Christ walked the earth, Confucius
instructed his followers with these words: 'Do not do to other people
what you would not have them do to you.' I think it's just too great a
coincidence to imagine that Jesus was unaware of Confucius when he
told his followers, 'Do unto others what you would have them do to
you.' My point is this: Jesus took the philosophy of his day, no
doubt a popular convention, and spun it just enough to radically
alter its intent. One could be completely passive in life, spending
every day doing nothing, and still satisfy Confucius' demand;
-- not so with Jesus. It takes action to please him: "Do
unto others
..."
What's the
strawman?
Secondly, I did not say to follow in Polanyi's steps; I did say, "I do
not worship Polanyi. I worship Jesus Christ. But I do admire
Polanyi's contribution, just like I admire others for their
contributions."
Judy, this is ridiculous.
These are all in just one of your posts. Look over some of your others. In
other words:
Silly woman, scarecrows are for
birds. Your strawman is lazy; he's sleeping on the job. Ravens are
roosting on his shoulders. He needs to get the boot.
Promptly.
Bill Taylor
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 12:59
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] Confucius,
Polanyi etc.
I said > I
like looking for our Lord in all the "wrong" places. It doesn't surprise
me to find him working in strongholds normally given to the other side.
Jesus made it his career doing this.
jt said > How
did Jesus make his career looking for God in all the "wrong"
places?
First of
all, I did not say that Jesus was
"looking for God." He is God, always was, always will be.
jt: During his time of
ministry on this earth he was still part of the Godhead yes, but he
wasn't God the Father.
I said I like looking for him
(the Lord) in all the "wrong" places. By that I mean places not commonly
frequented by highly stuffy religious types, places like university
lecture halls and science forums. I am always amazed, when I go to those
places, to find that Jesus is already there, laying the groundwork for
the sharing of the Gospel. I think he thinks he would grow old waiting
for most high brows to meet him at "church."
jt: I'm glad you believe you
find him there Bill because I sure can't see him in much that comes out
of those places.
Judy, I
guess what I'm really saying is that I have thoroughly bought into the
truth that Jesus is Lord. He is Lord of everything. It doesn't matter
what or where, if it is in the world, he is there.
jt: I agree that He is Lord
over it, but this does not ATST mean that He is in it.. He was Lord over
those who crucified Him.
That's what disturbs me about your attitude. Why
in the world should Christians be content to concede any strongholds to
the devil? There's just no getting around it, as long as we are in this
world philosophy and science are going to be major players in shaping
the way people think (Christian people included). I say, why
be afraid?
jt: I'm not saying to concede
any ground God wants to take, nor do I advocate fear which in itself is
sin but there was a time when Jesus told his followers to "leave them
alone, they be blind leaders of the blind"
Go there and be amazed to
discover that our Lord can hold his own in any climate. Start
changing the tide. Why shun Polanyi? Why not thank our Lord that he
raised him up at the time he did and equipped him to speak to the
problems present in Enlightenment mentality?
jt: It is
my belief that the Word of God can handle the enlightenment mentality
sans Polanyi. How does one put on the mind of Christ and the mind
of Polanyi at the same time?
I think
if you will bear with me a while, you'll begin to realize that your
thoughts are not as genuinely biblical as you imagine. They too have
been influenced by philosophy. If I'm wrong, you lose nothing but a
little time. If I'm right, well, you'll know what you've
gained.
jt said
> Was [Jesus] a student of any kind of philosophy
that you know of?
I do not
think I would characterize Jesus as a "student" of philosophy, just like
I do not characterize myself in that way. I do know this, however, that
Jesus did not shy away from opportunities to challenge the conventions
of his day. Allow me one example. Long before Christ walked the earth,
Confucius instructed his followers with these words: "Do not do to other
people what you would not have them do to you." I think it's just too
great a coincidence to imagine that Jesus was unaware of Confucius
when he told his followers, "Do unto others what you would have them do
to you."
jt: Hey a stopped watch is
correct twice a day and Satan has been around a long time and he has
heard a lot also. He puts a little poison on a lot that is true.
Do you believe that what is true is the same as truth when it comes by
way of the father of lies?
My point is this: Jesus
took the philosophy of his day, no doubt a popular convention,
and spun it just enough to radically alter its intent. One could
be completely passive in life, spending every day doing
nothing, and still satisfy Confucius' demand; -- not so
with Jesus. It takes action to please him: "Do unto others
..." Here's the short of it: Jesus was not intimidated by philosophy. Why
should we be?
jt: No, Jesus does not
manipulate, nor does he spin anything. The Kingdom he came to
present is entirely new and "if any man be in Christ he is part of a new
creation". Not just a rehash of the old. The old has been
judged. The new has come and we need to learn the new
language.
Instead, he stood it on its
head. He did not say, Oh my gosh, Confucius said so and so, and so
I'd better stay away from there. No! He took him on and
set him straight. With Christ as our Lord, we can be doing the same
thing today. Thanks to people like Polanyi, some of us are.
jt: Jesus didn't speak the
words of any philosopher, he only said what he first heard the Father
say - He spoke God's Words and we are to do the same because he left us
an example that we should follow in His steps. Not the steps of
Polanyi.
judyt
"Man in his pomp is like the beasts
that perish"
Your question was prompted by a comment I had made to Judy,
pointing out the Aristotelian nature of her holiness doctrine. She
didn't recognize Aristotle's influence on her thought. My guess is
that neither did you. But I did, and I pointed it out to
her.
jt: Bill
sanctification/holiness is scriptural and the NT was not around
in the days of Aristotle.
I did this not to attack her or to belittle her but to help
her to maybe begin to realize that one does not need to study
philosophy to be captivated by its lure. It is just as often the
unsuspecting one who is hurt by philosophy as it is the one who
makes it his prerogative to know. The point is, however, that I
was not promoting philosophy over the Bible when this all began;
instead I was awakening a sister to the silent whispers of Greek
thought, when you wrote me to inquire about the philosophical
underpinnings of my own theology.
jt: Could be that western
thought is influenced by the Romans and Greeks; however, we are to
die to all that and put on the mind of Christ.
I said, "if I
were to say I adhere to a philosophy, I would look to the
breakthroughs of Michael Polanyi." Why did I say that? I said it
because I understand Polanyi and I know what he has done to
free all thought, and especially Christian thought, from
Enlightenment rationalism.
jt: The mind of Christ
will do just as much to free us from Enlightenment rationalism so
why do we need to come by way of Polanyi?
I wrote
to the best of my ability, and I wrote for you and your
fellow TTers to read. Please, get your dictionary out, put it
beside you, and begin to work your way through it. It won't hurt
you. And if you learn a new word or two, then, so what, that won't
hurt you either.
jt: Thanks for being well
meaning Bill; but can we justify the use of our time this
way?
Beyond that,
I do not worship Polanyi. I worship Jesus Christ. But I do
admire Polanyi's contribution, just like I admire others for their
contributions. I know I must "work out" my own salvation (to
quote Judy, and partially quote Scripture),
jt: Hey! don't give me
credit for that, I got it from the apostle Paul who wrote "So then
mty beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence
only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation
with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both
to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil
2:12,13)
but I am
not so enamored as to think I have to do it all myself. Nor am
easily I intimidated -- I like looking for our Lord in all the
"wrong" places. It doesn't surprise me to find him working in
strongholds normally given to the other side. Jesus made it
his career doing this. Why should it stir you to discover the
same?
jt: How did Jesus make
his career looking for God in all the "wrong" places? Was he a
student of any kind of philosophy that you know of?
Grace and
Peace,
judyt
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax
Center - File online. File on
time.
|
