What I meant and what I didn’t

I want to correct some misconceptions about what I was trying to say in my post, My love affair with theology, and what I didn’t say but which may be (and has already been) incorrectly inferred by people who aren’t familiar enough with me to catch my drift or by others who are too concerned about defending their own system to represent other beliefs accurately.

  • I did say that I am sick of endless theology debates over nothing.
  • I didn’t say that I am leaving all theological beliefs behind. Heck, my belief that orthopraxy is more important than orthodoxy is based on a theological belief.

 

  • I did say that I don’t think we can be 100% sure of anything in theology.
  • I didn’t say that all of our thoughts and understandings about God are inaccurate.

 

  • I did say that the Bible presents sometimes contradictory statements on theological matters.
  • I didn’t say that the Bible is useless for our pursuit of the truth about God — in fact, I also did say that I believe the Bible is a reasonably reliable testimony to the works of God by eyewitnesses who understood Him better than I do.

   

  • I did say that I have come to reject rigid theological constructs, especially when they’re used as shibboleths of spirituality, reason, or eligibility for fellowship.
  • I didn’t say that theological systems are innately evil and that no one should use them.

 

  • I did say that the tendency for Protestants in particular is to create complex theological systems that gloss over problems or unnaturally cram in more data than the system can hold up.
  • I didn’t say that there aren’t intellectually honest systems that are useful to help manage and make sense of data, as long as the conflicting evidence is honestly managed as well. By all means, if it helps you through the dark room, please do — just don’t try to convince yourself and others that the brick walls you bump into aren’t there.

 

  • I did say that my love affair with theology, by which I meant spending an inordinate amount of time gathering the right things to believe in rather than acting on the right things I do believe in, is over. And I meant it.
  • I didn’t say that I’m now an agnostic or an atheist. I will continue to look for good theology along the roadside, and take with me only the beliefs about God that I believe are helpful in making sense of His plan for me and for carrying out His will. 

 

Of course, all these caveats nonetheless leave me open to criticism from the theology crusaders. As if I needed any more proof that I’m going the right direction.

Recent Posts:
  • Hey Steve,

    I am a long ways from ever reading enough of the church fathers or Plato or a good sampling of modern philosophers. My current bathroom reading is from “The Portable Atheist” edited by Hitchens. Keeping up with all the name -dropping is as bad as following every hyperlink in some news articles. So I will ever be anecdotal and a generalist. One thing to note is that there is seldom much commendation for plowing through extensive scholarly research when it seems obvious that often as not the doctrinal or logical build-out is founded on what was not said. So yeah, I like that which dismisses the drek and points to something closer to essentials.

    I refer you to one essay in the book —
    An Agnostic’s Apology by Sir Leslie Stephen (1897) If I were to label my view at this point it would be: “Indefinite preterism” or “Agnostic Preterism” as opposed to what Sir Stephen calls gnostic dogmatism.

    Recall it was your link to Walton’s presentation, at PlanetPreterist in ’05, that shed some quality insight on Gen 1 ANE thought. If you are up to a new thought exercise check my entry at
    Further Observations on Gender and Genesis 3
    By all means show me the simple oversight or a fatal flaw in my thinking. If not, then consider the logic challenge of ” … whether the ftkge had inherently toxic or psychoactive properties, whether it was totally off-limits or whether merely off-limits to Adam.”

    Later,

    G1

    …………………….
    .-= Garrett´s last blog ..GidjaJuan Wind commented on Sharon Nichols’s blog post ‘New Tag Name for our Group’ =-.

  • Hey Steve,

    I am a long ways from ever reading enough of the church fathers or Plato or a good sampling of modern philosophers. My current bathroom reading is from “The Portable Atheist” edited by Hitchens. Keeping up with all the name -dropping is as bad as following every hyperlink in some news articles. So I will ever be anecdotal and a generalist. One thing to note is that there is seldom much commendation for plowing through extensive scholarly research when it seems obvious that often as not the doctrinal or logical build-out is founded on what was not said. So yeah, I like that which dismisses the drek and points to something closer to essentials.

    I refer you to one essay in the book —
    An Agnostic’s Apology by Sir Leslie Stephen (1897) If I were to label my view at this point it would be: “Indefinite preterism” or “Agnostic Preterism” as opposed to what Sir Stephen calls gnostic dogmatism.

    Recall it was your link to Walton’s presentation, at PlanetPreterist in ’05, that shed some quality insight on Gen 1 ANE thought. If you are up to a new thought exercise check my entry at
    Further Observations on Gender and Genesis 3
    By all means show me the simple oversight or a fatal flaw in my thinking. If not, then consider the logic challenge of ” … whether the ftkge had inherently toxic or psychoactive properties, whether it was totally off-limits or whether merely off-limits to Adam.”

    Later,

    G1

    …………………….
    .-= Garrett´s last blog ..GidjaJuan Wind commented on Sharon Nichols’s blog post ‘New Tag Name for our Group’ =-.

  • I think this is a good direction for you, Steve.

    I also have been frustrated the times that I’ve gotten really bogged down in theology only to ask myself “Okay, that’s all fine and good, but what I’m going to do about it?” That’s an important question to ask and beginning to act on the truth you’ve discovered is the right step to take.
    .-= Josh H.´s last blog ..Why Is Healthcare a Important Moral Issue & Not Abortion =-.

  • I think this is a good direction for you, Steve.

    I also have been frustrated the times that I’ve gotten really bogged down in theology only to ask myself “Okay, that’s all fine and good, but what I’m going to do about it?” That’s an important question to ask and beginning to act on the truth you’ve discovered is the right step to take.
    .-= Josh H.´s last blog ..Why Is Healthcare a Important Moral Issue & Not Abortion =-.

  • Doh! … Should be Walton’s not “Watson’s”.
    So much for tidying up with spell-check and the tedium of proofreading.

    Walton’s presentation is still available —
    Science Symposium – Scientific Cosmology and Christianity

    Recently there was some buzz at PP about Walton’s new book. Now for a guy sparse on budget and time, is there significant gain of insight over a good grasp of the concepts Walton presented at the symposium and in his Genesis commentary to justify purchase?

    I think you have a fairly balanced perspective on theological discussions. I can’t think of a better phrasing, at the moment, but note that coupling “love affair” with theology strikes me as mildly cringeworthy.

    G1
    .-= Garrett´s last blog ..GidjaJuan Wind commented on Sharon Nichols’s blog post ‘New Tag Name for our Group’ =-.

  • Doh! … Should be Walton’s not “Watson’s”.
    So much for tidying up with spell-check and the tedium of proofreading.

    Walton’s presentation is still available —
    Science Symposium – Scientific Cosmology and Christianity

    Recently there was some buzz at PP about Walton’s new book. Now for a guy sparse on budget and time, is there significant gain of insight over a good grasp of the concepts Walton presented at the symposium and in his Genesis commentary to justify purchase?

    I think you have a fairly balanced perspective on theological discussions. I can’t think of a better phrasing, at the moment, but note that coupling “love affair” with theology strikes me as mildly cringeworthy.

    G1
    .-= Garrett´s last blog ..GidjaJuan Wind commented on Sharon Nichols’s blog post ‘New Tag Name for our Group’ =-.

  • Garrett (hard for me not to call you “Windpressor”),

    Thanks for the comment. I wanted to withhold response until I finished reading Sir Leslie Stephen’s essay. I certainly see why you thought of this when reading my posts; my thoughts do tend toward the general agnosticism he defines so well. I am not, in the predominant sense, an agnostic who is resolved to not knowing whether God exists. I am agnostic insofar as I recognize that it is a hopeless cause to try to overexplain or remain overconfident about what is intractable mystery. Sir Leslie asks, “…what is mystery but the theological phrase for Agnosticism?” I prefer “mystery” over the now completely specialized term agnosticism in today’s discourse, but whatever we call it, Christians should be among the first to embrace it, as it our religion teaches us humility as a prerequisite for godliness.

    Due to the same constraints as your own, I haven’t bought Walton’s book yet, but I would like to. As it turns out, there is no rush, because I have been reading two extensive, chapter-by-chapter reviews at Jesus Creed (with feedback from Walton himself) and Exploring Our Matrix. The response has generally been good, but I know some people who disagree with some of his main contentions. I remain agnostic. 😉

    coupling “love affair” with theology strikes me as mildly cringeworthy.

    Sorry! But I think it suits my situation nicely. We remain on speaking terms, however.

    Josh,

    A lot of my frustration has come from seeing Christians talking about doing great stuff and how wonderful it is that God wants to use us, but alarmingly rare are the opportunities available or taken for believers to minister to actual needs. We do tend to excel at the useless benedictory “ministry” of saying godly stuff to them and hoping they’ll catch on (the equivalent of “Go in peace” in James 2). I’m no better in this regard that anyone else, so I think that my resolve to reform is only just beginning.

  • Garrett (hard for me not to call you “Windpressor”),

    Thanks for the comment. I wanted to withhold response until I finished reading Sir Leslie Stephen’s essay. I certainly see why you thought of this when reading my posts; my thoughts do tend toward the general agnosticism he defines so well. I am not, in the predominant sense, an agnostic who is resolved to not knowing whether God exists. I am agnostic insofar as I recognize that it is a hopeless cause to try to overexplain or remain overconfident about what is intractable mystery. Sir Leslie asks, “…what is mystery but the theological phrase for Agnosticism?” I prefer “mystery” over the now completely specialized term agnosticism in today’s discourse, but whatever we call it, Christians should be among the first to embrace it, as it our religion teaches us humility as a prerequisite for godliness.

    Due to the same constraints as your own, I haven’t bought Walton’s book yet, but I would like to. As it turns out, there is no rush, because I have been reading two extensive, chapter-by-chapter reviews at Jesus Creed (with feedback from Walton himself) and Exploring Our Matrix. The response has generally been good, but I know some people who disagree with some of his main contentions. I remain agnostic. 😉

    coupling “love affair” with theology strikes me as mildly cringeworthy.

    Sorry! But I think it suits my situation nicely. We remain on speaking terms, however.

    Josh,

    A lot of my frustration has come from seeing Christians talking about doing great stuff and how wonderful it is that God wants to use us, but alarmingly rare are the opportunities available or taken for believers to minister to actual needs. We do tend to excel at the useless benedictory “ministry” of saying godly stuff to them and hoping they’ll catch on (the equivalent of “Go in peace” in James 2). I’m no better in this regard that anyone else, so I think that my resolve to reform is only just beginning.

  • Jared

    One day some old men came to see Abba Antony. In the midst of them was Abba Joseph. Wanting to test the, the old man suggested a text from the Scriptures, and, beginning with the youngest, he asked them what it meant. Each gave his opinion as he was able. But to each one the old man said, “You have not understood it.” Last of all he said to Abba Joseph, “How would you explain this saying” and he replied, “I do not know.” Then Abba Antony said, “Indeed, Abba Joseph has found the way, for he has said, “I do not know.”

  • Jared

    One day some old men came to see Abba Antony. In the midst of them was Abba Joseph. Wanting to test the, the old man suggested a text from the Scriptures, and, beginning with the youngest, he asked them what it meant. Each gave his opinion as he was able. But to each one the old man said, “You have not understood it.” Last of all he said to Abba Joseph, “How would you explain this saying” and he replied, “I do not know.” Then Abba Antony said, “Indeed, Abba Joseph has found the way, for he has said, “I do not know.”

  • Steve said:

    “I recognize that it is a hopeless cause to try to overexplain or remain overconfident about what is intractable mystery. “

    Ah, welcome to the Vaduvian-McLaren-Bell-Transmil form of hyperpreterism, where it is “hopeless” to really know what God is trying to say, because of a faulty premise that supposes God didn’t actually reveal anything. Add to that an idea that the Bible is errant and what kind of “new Christianity” is being followed?

    Rather, the Bible is replete in the NT with phrases such as:

    “Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,” — Rom 16:25

    And

    “And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ” — Eph 1:9

    But since hyperpreterism is the last stop before syncretism, then agnosticism, then finally atheism; many end up like Vaduva’s fellow PP administrator; Jared Coleman — avowed atheist. You can see it in process with hyperpret chris winn (http://preteristdebate.ning.com/profiles/blogs/outside-the-circle-confession) where he admits:

    “Theology is fun to discuss and is important, but if your theology doesn’t change your heart and your actions, its worthless.”

    This sounds good but it is a denial of the FACT that doxology dictates practice. You can’t “live out the kingdom” unless you know what the kingdom is and what it means to live it. Jesus says:

    “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” — John 14:15

    Which means we’d have to know what He commands and to know what He commands involves knowing theology. So, when people gush on and on about “love” and how they are just going to live “loving” lives and forget about all of that “divisive” theology, my first response is who are they really “loving”? According to Jesus, they can’t be loving Him. Maybe they are loving themselves and their own egos of thinking they are so “beyond” theology and “beyond” the people who “waste their lives” studying the Word of God.
    .-= RoderickE´s last blog ..Exclusive Psalmody: A Ten Minute Introduction Podcast =-.

  • Steve said:

    “I recognize that it is a hopeless cause to try to overexplain or remain overconfident about what is intractable mystery. “

    Ah, welcome to the Vaduvian-McLaren-Bell-Transmil form of hyperpreterism, where it is “hopeless” to really know what God is trying to say, because of a faulty premise that supposes God didn’t actually reveal anything. Add to that an idea that the Bible is errant and what kind of “new Christianity” is being followed?

    Rather, the Bible is replete in the NT with phrases such as:

    “Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past,” — Rom 16:25

    And

    “And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ” — Eph 1:9

    But since hyperpreterism is the last stop before syncretism, then agnosticism, then finally atheism; many end up like Vaduva’s fellow PP administrator; Jared Coleman — avowed atheist. You can see it in process with hyperpret chris winn (http://preteristdebate.ning.com/profiles/blogs/outside-the-circle-confession) where he admits:

    “Theology is fun to discuss and is important, but if your theology doesn’t change your heart and your actions, its worthless.”

    This sounds good but it is a denial of the FACT that doxology dictates practice. You can’t “live out the kingdom” unless you know what the kingdom is and what it means to live it. Jesus says:

    “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” — John 14:15

    Which means we’d have to know what He commands and to know what He commands involves knowing theology. So, when people gush on and on about “love” and how they are just going to live “loving” lives and forget about all of that “divisive” theology, my first response is who are they really “loving”? According to Jesus, they can’t be loving Him. Maybe they are loving themselves and their own egos of thinking they are so “beyond” theology and “beyond” the people who “waste their lives” studying the Word of God.
    .-= RoderickE´s last blog ..Exclusive Psalmody: A Ten Minute Introduction Podcast =-.

  • Well, I actually favor that name also. It is unique enough that search engines don’t list a lot of other junk. I did check recently and found that someone has “windpressor.com” which sells some kind of odd musical sound effect devices.

    My limited reading in philosophy and theology seems to have a recurring theme: the same arguments are and have been rehashed with some betterment in phrasing however. Like “The Creed of Agnosticism” demonstrated in the essay, there is a lot to be said for how we understand word meaning and usage. The word “retarded” or “ignorant” have descriptive, neutral, and also negative potential that depend on context. (Acknowledge Dee’s posting at pretblog which is reiteration of not so common commonsense) “Agnostic” and “love affair” are examples of how we attach emotive valence based on personal subjective values.

    During the 80’s, there was a quote, about the difficulty of communication, that was popularly circulated on placards and other novelties —

    I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

    I have found on occasion that I have used vocabulary that exceeds my actual definitional grasp. I checked dictionary.com for “obviated” after posting and found it did not mean “make obvious”.

    May be a bad analogy — Maggots are now being used by modern medicine to clean wounds. Reading atheist arguments help to clear away “stupid” religious ideas and superstitions. Atheism presents a troubling phenomenon to us humans, but I just don’t think the sovereignty of Truth is overly threatened.

    G1

    ………………

  • Well, I actually favor that name also. It is unique enough that search engines don’t list a lot of other junk. I did check recently and found that someone has “windpressor.com” which sells some kind of odd musical sound effect devices.

    My limited reading in philosophy and theology seems to have a recurring theme: the same arguments are and have been rehashed with some betterment in phrasing however. Like “The Creed of Agnosticism” demonstrated in the essay, there is a lot to be said for how we understand word meaning and usage. The word “retarded” or “ignorant” have descriptive, neutral, and also negative potential that depend on context. (Acknowledge Dee’s posting at pretblog which is reiteration of not so common commonsense) “Agnostic” and “love affair” are examples of how we attach emotive valence based on personal subjective values.

    During the 80’s, there was a quote, about the difficulty of communication, that was popularly circulated on placards and other novelties —

    I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant

    I have found on occasion that I have used vocabulary that exceeds my actual definitional grasp. I checked dictionary.com for “obviated” after posting and found it did not mean “make obvious”.

    May be a bad analogy — Maggots are now being used by modern medicine to clean wounds. Reading atheist arguments help to clear away “stupid” religious ideas and superstitions. Atheism presents a troubling phenomenon to us humans, but I just don’t think the sovereignty of Truth is overly threatened.

    G1

    ………………

  • Doug Moody

    Roderick,
    OK, just for argument sake, let’s say you believe that you have it all worked out (theology that is) and so you begin doing what your heart tells you is the “correct” way to serve God.
    Then, one day, Roderick dies. As he faces the Lord, he is asked what he did in his time on earth. He then recites a litany of things he did, and even cites the chapter and verse in the bible that motivated him to do these things.
    How would you feel, Roderick, when you hear the Lord’s reply “That’s good stuff, but due to your interpretation of the bible, you completely missed what I really wanted you to do”

    Would you feel your time on earth was a waste, Roderick? Would you point to Steve and wonder how come he was there, and maybe had an even larger crown than yours?
    I see it as arrogant for you to decide, in advance, where someone is headed based on your OWN interpretations of certain “mysteries.” The apostle Peter, in 1 peter 3, states that HIS understanding of Paul’s writings were “hard to be understood” So, are we supposed ot really understand all these things, or, instead, as Steve points out, are we not to be more concerned with the orthopraxy rather than the orthodoxy?
    To me, that was the point of Steve’s post.

  • Doug Moody

    Roderick,
    OK, just for argument sake, let’s say you believe that you have it all worked out (theology that is) and so you begin doing what your heart tells you is the “correct” way to serve God.
    Then, one day, Roderick dies. As he faces the Lord, he is asked what he did in his time on earth. He then recites a litany of things he did, and even cites the chapter and verse in the bible that motivated him to do these things.
    How would you feel, Roderick, when you hear the Lord’s reply “That’s good stuff, but due to your interpretation of the bible, you completely missed what I really wanted you to do”

    Would you feel your time on earth was a waste, Roderick? Would you point to Steve and wonder how come he was there, and maybe had an even larger crown than yours?
    I see it as arrogant for you to decide, in advance, where someone is headed based on your OWN interpretations of certain “mysteries.” The apostle Peter, in 1 peter 3, states that HIS understanding of Paul’s writings were “hard to be understood” So, are we supposed ot really understand all these things, or, instead, as Steve points out, are we not to be more concerned with the orthopraxy rather than the orthodoxy?
    To me, that was the point of Steve’s post.

  • Practice without instruction is not practice, it is self delusion. Love without keeping (and knowing) what Christ commands is not love…except of self.

    Who said I think I have it all figured out? However, I try to be at least within the realm of historic Christianity — after all, if you are going to call yourself a Christian, don’t you think you should believe at least the basics of Christianity — starting with the belief that God has maintained His Word? It is sort of like a person who wants to claim they are an American yet the person has a disdain for liberty, self-sufficiency, and the freemarket system.
    .-= RoderickE´s last blog ..Exclusive Psalmody: A Ten Minute Introduction Podcast =-.

  • Practice without instruction is not practice, it is self delusion. Love without keeping (and knowing) what Christ commands is not love…except of self.

    Who said I think I have it all figured out? However, I try to be at least within the realm of historic Christianity — after all, if you are going to call yourself a Christian, don’t you think you should believe at least the basics of Christianity — starting with the belief that God has maintained His Word? It is sort of like a person who wants to claim they are an American yet the person has a disdain for liberty, self-sufficiency, and the freemarket system.
    .-= RoderickE´s last blog ..Exclusive Psalmody: A Ten Minute Introduction Podcast =-.

  • Steve,

    I think I am still a long ways off from dementia setting in, however, this brain is frequently tired and doesn’t always deliver the sought for phrase or word. I was going to ask “that woman who lives with me” — uuhh what is the term for her? … companion? … babe? … bride or something? Any way, may be “discordant” or “incongruous” was a better choice than “mildly cringeworthy”. I specifically chose to modify with “mildly” to soften any offense. I would hate to incur your full opprobrium if I had left it at the entire force of “cringeworthy”. Who says that I think you should edit on my account?

    I checked out the blog reviews of “The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate”. It appears to have additional instructional value, for me, and would be a great study for anyone looking for an understanding of the cultural givens juxtaposed with modern paradigms. I am not sure yet, among other pursuits, what priority to set on eventual purchase. The most persuasive posts for me are the, just finished (9/11/09), final ones over at Jesus Creed. Those and the other reviews would make a good companion study with the book.
    I am drawn to the “part one” summary at “Matrix: Review” (which you linked above) for an observation on relating to scripture —

    Walton shows persuasively that it is not modern scientific discoveries that threaten the authority of the Bible, but on the contrary it is precisely those who seek to force the Bible to seem to agree with or at least speak the language of modern science, or who seek to make the Bible into a textbook of geology and biology, who are threatening the authority of Scripture by failing to respect it for what it is and read it on its own terms. It is, above all else, the selfish demand that the Bible address me in my language and answer all of my concerns and issues directly that leads to this twisting and commandeering of the Bible, to the detriment of people’s understanding of both Scripture and science.[emphasis added]

    I can’t pinpoint the exact recollections or timeframe, that prior to the extra impetus supplied by exploring the preterist paradigm, when I began noticing how easily the editorial “we” is inclusively presumed from various pronoun usages in scripture. Is it right for those reading or expounding such passages as John 14:1-3 to immediately jump on applications personal and contemporaneous? I would think it more appropriate to inquire as to what the lodging address was and whether those to whom The Christ spoke have settled in or if they are yet waiting for completion of construction. Are there some GPS coordinates to plug in? Is there something like the giants’ realm which can only be accessed by magic beans as in Jim Henson’s Jack and the Beanstalk: The Real Story – Wikipedia ? Whatever the locus, can someone verify if the Lord made it back for his buddies? If not, how would one prove the negative as futurists claim?

    If not somehow agnostic or acknowledging a “mystery”, on what grounds will I base a conclusion of faith?
    =============

    Oh yeah. The term is “wife”. 🙂

    =============

    Jared,

    Jared Coleman or some other?
    ==========

    G1

    ……………………

  • Steve,

    I think I am still a long ways off from dementia setting in, however, this brain is frequently tired and doesn’t always deliver the sought for phrase or word. I was going to ask “that woman who lives with me” — uuhh what is the term for her? … companion? … babe? … bride or something? Any way, may be “discordant” or “incongruous” was a better choice than “mildly cringeworthy”. I specifically chose to modify with “mildly” to soften any offense. I would hate to incur your full opprobrium if I had left it at the entire force of “cringeworthy”. Who says that I think you should edit on my account?

    I checked out the blog reviews of “The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate”. It appears to have additional instructional value, for me, and would be a great study for anyone looking for an understanding of the cultural givens juxtaposed with modern paradigms. I am not sure yet, among other pursuits, what priority to set on eventual purchase. The most persuasive posts for me are the, just finished (9/11/09), final ones over at Jesus Creed. Those and the other reviews would make a good companion study with the book.
    I am drawn to the “part one” summary at “Matrix: Review” (which you linked above) for an observation on relating to scripture —

    Walton shows persuasively that it is not modern scientific discoveries that threaten the authority of the Bible, but on the contrary it is precisely those who seek to force the Bible to seem to agree with or at least speak the language of modern science, or who seek to make the Bible into a textbook of geology and biology, who are threatening the authority of Scripture by failing to respect it for what it is and read it on its own terms. It is, above all else, the selfish demand that the Bible address me in my language and answer all of my concerns and issues directly that leads to this twisting and commandeering of the Bible, to the detriment of people’s understanding of both Scripture and science.[emphasis added]

    I can’t pinpoint the exact recollections or timeframe, that prior to the extra impetus supplied by exploring the preterist paradigm, when I began noticing how easily the editorial “we” is inclusively presumed from various pronoun usages in scripture. Is it right for those reading or expounding such passages as John 14:1-3 to immediately jump on applications personal and contemporaneous? I would think it more appropriate to inquire as to what the lodging address was and whether those to whom The Christ spoke have settled in or if they are yet waiting for completion of construction. Are there some GPS coordinates to plug in? Is there something like the giants’ realm which can only be accessed by magic beans as in Jim Henson’s Jack and the Beanstalk: The Real Story – Wikipedia ? Whatever the locus, can someone verify if the Lord made it back for his buddies? If not, how would one prove the negative as futurists claim?

    If not somehow agnostic or acknowledging a “mystery”, on what grounds will I base a conclusion of faith?
    =============

    Oh yeah. The term is “wife”. 🙂

    =============

    Jared,

    Jared Coleman or some other?
    ==========

    G1

    ……………………

  • Windpressor,
    FYI, the comment about “speaking terms” was extending the “love affiar” metaphor — theology and I are still on speaking terms, even though she isn’t my main squeeze anymore. No opprobrium toward you was intended. 🙂

    And no, this is an altogether different Jared.

  • Windpressor,
    FYI, the comment about “speaking terms” was extending the “love affiar” metaphor — theology and I are still on speaking terms, even though she isn’t my main squeeze anymore. No opprobrium toward you was intended. 🙂

    And no, this is an altogether different Jared.

  • Thanks for the clarifications.

    If one wears the sensor for a “WE” detector on their sleeve and the sensitivity not properly calibrated, it might get snagged in one’s own post. 🙂
    It was not my original intent to illustrate the point with personal show and a tell.
    .-= Windpressor´s last blog ..GidjaJuan Wind commented on Sharon Nichols’s blog post ‘New Tag Name for our Group’ =-.

  • Thanks for the clarifications.

    If one wears the sensor for a “WE” detector on their sleeve and the sensitivity not properly calibrated, it might get snagged in one’s own post. 🙂
    It was not my original intent to illustrate the point with personal show and a tell.
    .-= Windpressor´s last blog ..GidjaJuan Wind commented on Sharon Nichols’s blog post ‘New Tag Name for our Group’ =-.