DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Things of the Mind
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10382--------------------------------------------------
More from Being Clothed with scripture
DIR By: Amadeus
Date: February 22, 2015, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Amadeus: Sometimes I wish that I could more easily get angry.
The fact is that anger in me is nearly non-existent. I can
remember getting angry with my brother as a child or with other
kids on the playground and getting into a physical fights as a
result, very often initiated by me. Before high school that was
gone. More than once I tried to pick up again the ability to get
angry but always it eluded me.
>
> Later in life when I was moving toward God or being moved
toward God, I gradually was learning to use my lack of anger to
work things as God would want them worked. Another thing I lost
when I lost anger was tears. For years it seemed that I was
unable to cry tears even when it seemed in my mind/heart that it
was the thing to do. That did come back but seemingly in a
different way than the way it was as a child.
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> Kerry: If we study the life of Jesus, I think we see him
getting angry when he saw injustice being done to others. I
think we see the same trait in Moses. They also seemed to get
sad about other people.
--- End Quote ---
Yes, I know that he did even as God did in the OT. That is what
I am still hoping to find in myself. I don’t want anger and
sadness as the world has them I want them as God has them.
--- Quote ---
> Kerry: I think it may be how we look at things. If we start
thinking about ourselves, that's a sign we may be heading down
the wrong path. Almost inevitably it leads to anger, to fear
and to depression. Following the Golden Rule is more than
sound ethics; it's also good psychology. People who fret
about how things will turn out for themselves tomorrow seem to
make things worse by their worrying. They seem to misjudge
situations by thinking too much about themselves and by not
being sharp observers of what others are thinking and feeling.
>
> If someone never gets angry, that may be a problem though. I
think there are situations which almost demand we become angry.
The "normal" response of a rational person when confronted
with someone behaving irrationally is first mild frustration and
then anger.
--- End Quote ---
I quite agree about anger being the best reaction in some cases.
Unfortunately, I learned somewhere way back to eliminate anger…
even perhaps when it is needed. They say old dogs cannot learn
new tricks, but I know they are wrong. It is undoubtedly more
difficult, but not impossible. However, don’t expect a flare up
of anger on my part very soon. May God help me in this.
--- Quote ---
> Kerry: Anger is when we feel being rational won't work with
someone. Be angry and sin not. . . . It may be a reasonable
emotion to feel angry, but the question is if we should resort
to violence or insults in those situations. Should we rush to
judgment that quickly that being rational won't work? Anger,
once expressed, can be a form of judgment of the other person
that he can't be reasoned with. It can also be a trap that
pulls the saint down into the muck along with the person who
roused the anger.
>
> Anger can be a very good thing though since it has so much
energy. If you can get all that energy when you see bad
situations and keep your head, you can use that energy for the
good. Indeed what we call the "satanic" is very worthwhile
trying to save since it usually has so much energy. If I see
someone given to anger, it tells me he probably has a sense of
justice but is feeling incapable of solving a problem. It is
probably a healthier place to be than feeling so beat down by
life, one feels like giving up.
>
> I think you can tell a lot about people about how they behave
when angry. Too many people get married before seeing how
their spouses will behave under pressure.
--- End Quote ---
We must come to where walk the line as the Lord would walk it.
Being slow to anger is, I believe, where we should start, but
once we are underway anger may be best for us and for them.
In my own marriage my wife had a terrible temper early on. She
would then get even madder at me because she couldn’t make me
mad. She eventually was able to irritate me. I am not certain
that qualifies as anger, but it is in that direction. We’ve been
together 43 years.
--- Quote ---
> Kerry: Yes, and I think this also says something about his
faith in the Father. If we keep our feet firmly planted on
the path that the Light of God shows us, we have nothing to
worry about for ourselves. God will take care of us. Even if
we are killed, God will take care of us. But what about other
people? Harm could come to them. It's a logical conclusion to
me that the more faith we have in God, the more we can afford to
think about others.
--- End Quote ---
Usually I don’t like to admit too much to logic even though I
know that I use it myself. The problem is that many people with
viewpoints close to or completely opposed to my own also
supposedly use logic. Some of them misuse logic (that may be
true of me as well), but more than likely some of our basic
assumptions differ.
[Quote]Amadeus:
I sometimes also will not express my own views, or at least not
as clearly as I could. My reasons may be similar at times to
yours for taking that approach. All of us have learned something
from other people, whether it was good or evil, whether it was
from direct teaching or by example. Certainly a large part of
what we have received from and about God came through people,
whether they knew it or not.[/quote]
--- Quote ---
> Kerry: That was the reason I found his statement so telling.
I found it astonishing that anyone would say that; but when I
followed through with that statement, I also asked myself if he
also rebelled at being taught spelling by other people. I
believe he meant no one had taught him any spiritual truth; but
I wondered if he resisted being taught anything even as a child.
I could be wrong, but my answer was "yes." It seemed to be a
pattern, so I believed it was probably true.
--- End Quote ---
Sometimes it may be a matter of not knowing what the source of
our learning has been. It would nice to say that everything I
learned came directly from a connection with God with no people
used as conduits. Probably some knowledge that some of us have
has come by such directness, but it is likely to have been the
unusual rather the usual.
In the OT, most of the time people learned the things of God
through the priests or prophets, and it is likely that most of
the time those priests and prophets learned from other priests
and prophets. But sometimes it seems that there were visions of
dreams that provided something to the recipient that came
through no other man.
--- Quote ---
> Kerry: If it was and is true, that means his mind is not the
type that is curious the way a child's is. He does not seen
people and events in the real world as being able to teach him
anything. There are people who want to make up their own
truths and impose them on the world rather than study the world
to see what they're dealing with.
--- End Quote ---
What we so often call the real world may not be, but in any case
any one able to live in this so-called real world, usually act
(from what I can see and understand) as if it is real.
If we read and study the Bible, while it may have written under
the inspiration of God, it was written by men. There is no
getting around that unless one of us was actually inspired by
God to write scripture, which seems unlikely today. Could I be
wrong?
[Quote]Amadeus:
Or it could be that he in really has a connection with God.
Having a connection with God is certainly a good thing, but it
does not mean that we have all of the right answers or that we
make all of the right decisions. Seemingly Adam in the garden of
Eden had such a connection and did understand what was expected
but made the wrong decision anyway.[/quote]
--- Quote ---
> Kerry: It took me a while to form my conclusions; but over
time, the more I read of his posts, the more I doubted he had a
valid connection. He may have had one once; but his attitude
suggests to me he does not. As you say, someone with a
connection does not think he has all the right answers; but his
attitude seems to be that he has all the right answers, and that
is what makes me wonder.
--- End Quote ---
It really hurts me to contemplate that as a possibility but of
course it is.
[Quote]Amadeus:
He has come up, for me, with some good ideas in the past. Those
ideas have sometimes helped me in my walk. The problem is to
sift out that which is of God for me from anything that may not
be good.[/quote]
--- Quote ---
> Kerry: I find it interesting that you admit sifting must be
done. That means to me that you don't take his claim that all
his ideas come from God is true.
--- End Quote ---
I believe everything needs to be sifted, but often we may not be
able to as good a job of sifting as is preferred or needed.
Personally, I would be careful about telling him that everything
he has is not from God unless I believed that it would
accomplish something positive for him or for others. Sometimes
it really is best to remain silent, but not always.
[Quote]Amadeus:
This is always a problem, this thing of want to be authoritative
and expecting people to accept it because they say it. Moses had
authority from God but any of us who believe that we a measure
of similar authority should try walk as Moses walked... or
better walk as Jesus walked. When we can then God will back us
up when we really need to be backed up. We know that the
authority of both Moses and Jesus was questioned. The way that
each of them handled such questioning should give us a clue as
to when to submit to authority.[/quote]
--- Quote ---
> Kerry: I find it interesting that Jesus refused to tell the
skeptics where he got his authority. My own opinion is
generally that if you have to explain your authority, you don't
really have it. Does a shepherd need to lecture his sheep about
why they should obey him? Does a shepherd explain it to the
wolves?
--- End Quote ---
I recall my first non-Catholic pastor. I was very new to reading
the Bible. It was in that church that I first began to read it
and I knew little or nothing about what it really contained.
With that background I asked him a question in his private
office about his authority a little while before the scheduled
church service was to begin. I was not doubting his authority. I
simply wanted him to explain to me why he thought he had
authority. I wanted to understand. He looked at me strangely
and left the room without addressing my question one way or the
other. I told only my wife what had happened.
A few minutes later I was sitting in the pew next to my wife and
the pastor began talking from the pulpit. He rebuked me sharply
before the congregation for questioning his authority. I was
stunned. My wife was angry.
I know that I was not a wolf. I was very ignorant and was
clueless as his basis for rebuking me. Later I got a clue, but I
never receive any direct answer from the man, himself.
[Quote]Amadeus:
In my experience very few ministers bearing the title of pastor
really understand what it means to be a shepherd. Some of them
are preachers or teachers only and receivers of salary only.
Ephesians 4 speaks of 5 different jobs a minister may have, but
in real church situations there are few real pastors. They
simply carry the title. Some were never called and some who were
called have been badly sidetracked from the purpose they are
supposed to have.[/quote]
--- Quote ---
> Kerry: Yes.
--- End Quote ---
[Quote]Amadeus:
Well, he has not been alone in the thing of being overly
critical of others.[/quote]
--- Quote ---
> Kerry:
> But what was the motive? A lot of the being critical of
others that I see comes about when people feel they are being
attacked themselves. Sometimes people were being attacked, at
other times they got defensive when they felt their ideas were
being undermined and perhaps they were "losing" a debate. I
try to see who threw "the first stone." I tend to care more
about who started a problem than what happened later after
tempers flared.
--- End Quote ---
If it must be addressed then probably seeking who was the
instigator or who was the first stone thrower would be a proper
start.
#Post#: 10385--------------------------------------------------
Re: More from Being Clothed with scripture
DIR By: Kerry
Date: February 22, 2015, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Amadeus link ---
>
> Yes, I know that he did even as God did in the OT. That is
what I am still hoping to find in myself. I don’t want anger and
sadness as the world has them I want them as God has them.
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure why, but this reminds me of David's relationship
with Michal. Was he angry with her? I don't think he was. I
think he was sad.
2 Samuel 6:20 Then David returned to bless his household. And
Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said,
How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered
himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as
one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!
21 And David said unto Michal, It was before the Lord, which
chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint
me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel: therefore
will I play before the Lord.
22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in
mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken
of, of them shall I be had in honour.
23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the
day of her death.
The first time I read this, I thought he had cursed her. Now I
think she had cursed herself by having an evil eye, imagining
evil in David where none existed. To a certain extent, I too
was reading something into the situation that isn't there.
She made sarcastic remarks that weren't true; and I "assumed"
the worst about how David reacted. Now I think he really
regretted she resorted to this kind of remark instead of asking
him what had happened. However she had proved something to
him about herself. He had loved and trusted her and thought
she loved and trusted him. That railing accusation revealed she
didn't really trust him. She had fooled him; and who knows how
long she had been suppressing things without being willing to
discuss her inner thoughts with him openly? It's best to get
such things out in the open and not try to fool people the way
Martha did when Lazarus died. She had a "bad" thought, but she
didn't try to hide it. I read that to mean she felt safe to
tell Jesus what was on her mind and never tried to fool him.
Michal however seems to have been insecure in her marriage and
it finally came out.
--- Quote ---
> I quite agree about anger being the best reaction in some
cases. Unfortunately, I learned somewhere way back to eliminate
anger… even perhaps when it is needed. They say old dogs cannot
learn new tricks, but I know they are wrong. It is undoubtedly
more difficult, but not impossible. However, don’t expect a
flare up of anger on my part very soon. May God help me in this.
--- End Quote ---
I think righteous anger should involve a clear cut situation.
If one party is completely innocent and the other person
completely responsible, then righteous anger may be called for.
If neither party is completely innocent, then I think it's
wrong to get too angry since both played into making the
situation worse. I think we can see when Jesus got angry,
there was absolutely no excuse that could be made for what made
him angry. There were no mitigating circumstances.
--- Quote ---
> We must come to where walk the line as the Lord would walk it.
Being slow to anger is, I believe, where we should start, but
once we are underway anger may be best for us and for them.
>
> In my own marriage my wife had a terrible temper early on. She
would then get even madder at me because she couldn’t make me
mad. She eventually was able to irritate me. I am not certain
that qualifies as anger, but it is in that direction. We’ve been
together 43 years.
--- End Quote ---
A lot of the time, people get irritated before they get angry.
If you can spot mild annoyance in people, it can help defuse a
situation. If you're doing something to annoy them, maybe it's
something you can stop if you can figure it out or if they tell
you; but some people go around mildly annoyed most of the time.
Something is bothering them.
My guess is your wife learned that trick before she met you.
People pick up all kinds of tricks from their parents or other
people around them even as children. They'll keep using them
too as long as they work.
If I meet someone on the internet who I think is trying to upset
me, I resolve not to let it show if they ever do. I'd be
signaling to them what tricks work on me, what annoys me, what
they can do to get me out of control of myself. Most of the
time I'm genuinely not upset. If I do get upset, I don't post
until I calm down. I have learned not to do things I know I'll
regret later.
--- Quote ---
> Usually I don’t like to admit too much to logic even though I
know that I use it myself. The problem is that many people with
viewpoints close to or completely opposed to my own also
supposedly use logic. Some of them misuse logic (that may be
true of me as well), but more than likely some of our basic
assumptions differ.
--- End Quote ---
I think sometimes it's differing assumptions and sometimes
different definitions. If people are defining words
differently, they're not even talking about the same thing.
Then too there are lines of thought that involve flawed logic.
I believe God is logical and gave us a logical mind so we could
understand Him. If God were irrational and did capricious
things, how could anyone ever understand anything about Him?
The big problem though about religious discussion may be the
definition of "God." Jesus told the woman the well she didn't
know what she worshiped. While I believe God is rational and
logical, I doubt we can pin Him down using logic. There are too
many ways God can manifest. I believe logic is more useful
in showing us what can't be true rather than trying to use it to
establish truth. God's Truth is there at all times. Anyone
can receive it; but our minds may have wrong ideas that obscure
the truth. Can one hear the Voice of God if he has firm
opinions about what God thinks? Can that person ask God about
something and get a real answer if he has already decided he
knows what the answer should be?
--- Quote ---
> Sometimes it may be a matter of not knowing what the source of
our learning has been. It would nice to say that everything I
learned came directly from a connection with God with no people
used as conduits. Probably some knowledge that some of us have
has come by such directness, but it is likely to have been the
unusual rather the usual.
--- End Quote ---
It may seem at first it would be nice to say everything we
learned came directly from God; but I don't think you would like
it if that were the case. That sort of universe would have God
acting like a tutor to an infinite number of beings who didn't
have much to say to each other and who didn't trust each other
and who didn't value each other for what they got passed on.
I think of people and animals and the whole universe as
potential messengers of God. I have received insights into
life from incredibly dumb people -- they saw something I didn't.
When they said it, I knew they were right. I've learned from
ants in my sink. I felt like killing them; but then I
remembered Solomon said to go to the ant. They were being
industrious. I had been lazy, leaving food in the sink. They
were cleaning it up for me. What right did I have to be angry
with them then? I thanked God for the ants then. If I can
see how a message made me a better person, I figure it had to
come from God, even if the messenger is an ant.
--- Quote ---
> In the OT, most of the time people learned the things of God
through the priests or prophets, and it is likely that most of
the time those priests and prophets learned from other priests
and prophets. But sometimes it seems that there were visions of
dreams that provided something to the recipient that came
through no other man.
--- End Quote ---
I think there are two stages to spiritual life; and I think
people start off as students who rely at first on their
teacher's connection with Heaven. They should mature and get
their own connections. We are like the mustard plant, a herb
at first, which later grows up to reach into Heaven.
--- Quote ---
> What we so often call the real world may not be, but in any
case any one able to live in this so-called real world, usually
act (from what I can see and understand) as if it is real.
--- End Quote ---
I tend to think most of reality is what we agree it is.
--- Quote ---
> If we read and study the Bible, while it may have written
under the inspiration of God, it was written by men. There is
no getting around that unless one of us was actually inspired by
God to write scripture, which seems unlikely today. Could I be
wrong?
--- End Quote ---
I believe we may be on the brink of a new era when new
scriptures will be written. The Bible is so complicated and
obscured with so many problems, we may need books that are
clearer. I rather think it was written to be complicated and
obscure so men would not come to the truth and then trample on
it. If men do not know, they are sinning in ignorance. It may
have been better for men with hard hearts to have difficult
books so they would not learn the truth easily and then be
condemned for defying it. In the next age however, perhaps men
will be more open to God's Truth and things can be revealed more
openly; and of course, perhaps later men will no longer need
books.
--- Quote ---
> It really hurts me to contemplate that as a possibility but of
course it is.
--- End Quote ---
He reminds me of Michal at times -- perhaps bringing a curse on
himself. He write things as if he knows they're true; but he
imagines evil in others that isn't there. I don't enjoy saying
it, but to me that a spirit of accusation. I am convinced that
when people fall into that, they are severing whatever
connection they may have had once. Heaven will remain locked
to them unless they alter themselves. Saying someone has
satanic inclinations is not a condemnation of that person.
Peter had a satanic streak. Peter also was willing to accept
Jesus' reproof and was t hen able to get his own connection to
Heaven. I suppose we may all start off with something of the
satanic about us, and thus we need to rid ourselves of such
foolishness before we can hear the Voice of God.
I think Judas also had something of the satanic about him; but
he did not stay on course. When he insinuated Jesus may be
sinning, I think he went too far. If we imagine evil where
none exists -- or if we know none exists but defame others for
impure reasons -- we may be in danger ourselves. If something
someone does is from God and that person is being moved by the
Holy Spirit and I deny it, have I not grieved the Holy Ghost?
Am I not like Michal condemning David when what he did, no
matter how odd it looked to her, was inspired by the Spirit?
When I see debates with people accusing each other of this and
that, I wonder if they are possibly grieving the Spirit? If
they had the Spirit, are they losing what they had by condemning
others? It seems to me that this angry intolerant spirit of
condemning others, calling them heretics, etc., entered the
church at the Council of Nicea; and Christians have been
fighting and persecuting one another ever since.
--- Quote ---
> I believe everything needs to be sifted, but often we may not
be able to as good a job of sifting as is preferred or needed.
>
> Personally, I would be careful about telling him that
everything he has is not from God unless I believed that it
would accomplish something positive for him or for others.
Sometimes it really is best to remain silent, but not always.
--- End Quote ---
I agree completely. The purpose of correcting others is not to
punish them. It's to make things better. If we can't see how
what we say might make things better, it's better to stay quiet.
Sometimes people need time and experience before they are ready
to change for the better. Sometimes they even have to suffer
before they're ready to admit they might be off course. It
isn't fun to see people suffering; but experience is a good
teacher.
--- Quote ---
> I recall my first non-Catholic pastor. I was very new to
reading the Bible. It was in that church that I first began to
read it and I knew little or nothing about what it really
contained. With that background I asked him a question in his
private office about his authority a little while before the
scheduled church service was to begin. I was not doubting his
authority. I simply wanted him to explain to me why he thought
he had authority. I wanted to understand. He looked at me
strangely and left the room without addressing my question one
way or the other. I told only my wife what had happened.
>
> A few minutes later I was sitting in the pew next to my wife
and the pastor began talking from the pulpit. He rebuked me
sharply before the congregation for questioning his authority. I
was stunned. My wife was angry.
>
> I know that I was not a wolf. I was very ignorant and was
clueless as his basis for rebuking me. Later I got a clue, but I
never receive any direct answer from the man, himself.
>
> If it must be addressed then probably seeking who was the
instigator or who was the first stone thrower would be a proper
start.
--- End Quote ---
I probably would have gotten up and left without saying a word.
It seems pretty clear that he thought he could embarrass you in
front of people who didn't ask him about his authority but
accepted it anyway. And how misguided too, defying the advice
Jesus gave.
Matthew 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against
thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if
he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two
more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may
be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the
church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto
thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Now if you had asked him in public, trying to embarrass him,
then I think he would have been justified in settling it in
public. Other people would have been involved if you had asked
in public; so it would need resolved for them too.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1