Who else has noticed the mistake and omission in John 3:16?

[emilynghiem]

Originally Posted by Wallis

1. Scott Peck was an idiot. I tried to read his book objectively and then threw up. His so-called theology was personal opinion. And, it is not theologically supportable.

he was not ASKING for that.
he WAS asking for further scientific research to document patterns of the
phenomena he observed, which he stated VERY CLEARLY was
95-99% explicable using normal understanding of psychology
while the tiny 1-5% that he observed on spiritual level was beyond science.

Just the part that WAS documentable as symptoms following a pattern of
cause of sickness, diagnosis of the steps, and applying the therapy to
measure the degree of cure or failure, was ENOUGH to merit scientific research
and development in this field.

It was independent of spiritual faith, because there were adequate symptoms and patterns of reactions and changes to develop as a method of diagnosis and treatment.

He KNEW this was his opinion based on what he saw,
so he was ENCOURAGING other scientists and doctors to pursue
FORMAL research to take this a step further.

Wallis you miss the point, he was not asking people to rely "on him" and his faith, but to go replicate the studies and develop it for THEMSELVES based on SCIENCE.

Originally Posted by wallis

If you want to adulate Scott, that is your right to do so.

I do respect and applaud him for:
(1) making the effort to SEE for HIMSELF before keeping his opinion like yours that all this was mental delusion in the patient's heads
(2) admitting that what he saw changed his mind to totally understand
there were outside influences affecting these patients (and that the
steps of deliverance did follow distinct patterns in diagnosing and curing the patients in stages that still require follow up therapy using regular medicine that could not be applied until AFTER the spiritual treatment was conducted first)
(3) writing and publishing his observations that changed his mind and asking others to pursue the same studies but take them further and do FORMAL medical research, NOT just his informal observation for his own questions.


He was NOT asking people to rely on faith, but to use science and to address the "false division" between science and religion that he saw was blocking this from being studied and understood.

[emilynghiem]

Originally Posted by Wallis

3. There is no such thing as Restorative Justice. Thought you got this out of your system already.

1. So all the groups and references I just looked up online (on restorative justice or you can look up forgiveness studies, institute on forgiveness, if you like) are all studying something that does not exist?

2. Wallis are you saying that justice does not exist?
Or what do you call the concept of "equal justice" that law enforcement is supposed to be based on?

Have you never seen relationships healed by restorative justice?
We have all seen damages done by retributive justice.
This is the opposite approach.

Even if you don't believe the end result is possible, Wallis,
can we agree that the approach is real and defineable and practiced today?

==========================
"More results from restorativejustice.org
Restorative justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Restorative justice (also sometimes called reparative justice) is an approach to justice that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders, as well as the ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorative_justice - Cached
More results from en.wikipedia.org »

What is restorative justice? —
Restorative justice is a theory of justice that emphasizes repairing the harm caused or revealed by criminal behaviour. It is best accomplished through cooperative ...
http://www.restorativejustice.org/un...y-classroom/01... - Cached"
====================================

Originally Posted by Wallis

4. No, your interpretation of the Antichrist is not theologically supportive. You are applying a modern term to modern problems. If we are going to use the word Antichrist, then we have to move away from the myth of a actual human person assuming powers of a Voldemort or Jordan Collier (4400 fame) and running the world into the ground.

The first Antichrist was Adam, using one myth to compare against another. The eternal Antichrist is mankind itself. Christ does not represent a human being, surprise, surprise, but the concept of salvation. Hence, the Messiah motif that is rife throughout the Old Testament and performed by a variety of people and characters (some real, some imaginative).

Where is the disagreement Wallis?
You mention these same themes being in historical reference and scripture.
Christ being true fulfillment of the law as spiritual salvation;
while antichrist being false imposition "in the name of" the law while
being against it, or hypocritical and oppressive to cause injustice.

It seems we agree Wallis.
I also interpret the symbols to mean global concepts.

Originally Posted by wallis

There is no such creature as the Devil or Satan. ....
Logically, if we draw a circle and nominate it as "God," then "evil," "antichrist," "hell," "Satan," and everything else in the universe must fit into that circle. Nothing can fit outside the circle; otherwise, God is not God.

OK Wallis so given that all things are included,
then whatever is causing our perception of division
THAT is of the Devil ie *what "is symbolized by"* Satan
So: selfish ego, fear, separation from each other, all these things
are WITHIN the learning curve that is part of the process of realizing
our understanding of God. These separations and divisions fueled by fear and selfishness ARE REAL. Whatever you call that motivation to keep reinforcing these by fear, can we agree that is what is meant by Satan/Devil?

Originally Posted by wallis

5. Assimilating all truth into one. I am going to sneeze again.

If my truth is correct and based upon observation and proof, then my truth becomes paramount and superior to all other truths.

However, (comma), I have never stated that what I write is the absolute truth or superior truth. You are the accuser, and, therefore, as you have not learned from our earlier discussions, taint the truth of free discussion as one whereby I am insisting that everyone fall in line with my thoughts.

That is NOT what I said or meant.
We both agree that none of us has the absolute truth.

I was just pointing out that if you are saying all things are included in God
and truth (there is no falseness or things outside of God)
then you cannot exclude Sapphire or her beliefs or say that mine are wrong
when you stated all things are right!

I agree with you that all things are right when we align them with what God represents, and this will include all people and all views.

There is a way to make all things right and all things included which is
consistent with God.

[Wallis]

No. There is no justice. Guess they didn't teach you that in Sunday School. The Old Testament writers put their own thoughts in God's mouth when the God rebukes mankind for wanting justice.

You know: good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people.

Once something is destroyed, it cannot be restored. Take a look at the fairy tale of Job. Everything is destroyed; everything is restored? No. His original children were destroyed. New children do not restore the old children, and the memories of the former children are not miraculously erased or changed to new, happy memories.

A house is destroyed; the new house simply replaces the old, never restores.

Are you really that naive to believe that law enforcement is based on "equal justice"? How many examples do we have to cite that proves the opposite? Oh, you will dismiss these in order to continue believing in a concept that can hold no water in this existence.

So, while this restorative justice spins its wheels on the needs of both the victims and offenders, nothing is done about preventing the precipitation of the problem in the first place. Case of closing the barn door after the horse escaped. Again and again and again.

Where do you come up with this "Christ is the fulfillment of the law as spiritual salvation" crap? Paul? Calvin? I am really curious how you have bought into this perversion.

Your definition of the AntiChrist is, again, moving the blame from the real perpetrator--US--to something that really doesn't exist.

Learning curve. Well, you got me beat. When you have the inclination, how the hell did you get that concept out of my words?

No. There is no such thing as Satan / Devil. Put the blame where it belongs and stop moving it around. You and I are as guilty as sin. We did it. There is no "extra-anything" that caused us to do it.

When it comes to a specific sphere of dialogue, theology for example, then there are right concepts and wrong concepts. Sappy promotes an extremely destructive theology, and when she purports to be an adherent of the Christ and acts contrary to the philosophy of the Christ, then she is clearly wrong and must be countered.

Is it wrong to counter Sappy? Yes, it is. Is it wrong to not counter Sappy? Yes, it is. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

So, why don't you stop swatting at gnats and start working on the big pests?

[emilynghiem]

Hey Wallis now we may be getting somewhere.
Here you point out the real difference between us is you do not share the same faith there is justice in these things, and I do see justice at work.

We all understand that if you do bad, then if you get bad in return, that is just.
Or if you do well and receive reward, that is also deserved.

What we don't understand
* why do bad people get away with injustice
* why do good people suffer injustice

1. one reason why injustice ends up affecting good people not deserving that:
if bad consequences only happened to bad people, we would not try to get rid of the cause of the bad behavior. We would be content to wait for justice to take care of itself.

But when bad things like alcoholic addiction, which isn't good for someone's health in the first place, leads to drunken driving that kills an innocent person or family, then society reacts and demands action or change. It is not acceptable to let people have a private problem with drug addiction, because it doesn't affect just them, it puts innocent lives at risk. As we learn this we do more to address what is causing addiction and how can it be cured WITHOUT imposing on people.

We cannot invade someone's privacy and compel them if they have not committed any crime yet; but on the other hand, if the person's INDIVIDUAL problem with unhealthy or imbalanced behavior ISN'T corrected, then it becomes someone else's problem or society's. Until we resolve this dilemma, then problems go on unaddressed, and collectively other people suffer, to motivate us to seek the root cause and change THAT instead of relying on circumstances to catch up with that person or thinking it's private and none of our business.

Originally Posted by Wallis

No. There is no justice. Guess they didn't teach you that in Sunday School. The Old Testament writers put their own thoughts in God's mouth when the God rebukes mankind for wanting justice.

2. Another example, let's take the justice or legal system:
If the flaws in the system aren't resolved, then there will be criminals who get away with murder and innocent people convicted of crimes. The point again is to correct the root problem and NOT RELY on the system of justice to be perfect.

Originally Posted by wallis

You know: good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people.

Once something is destroyed, it cannot be restored. Take a look at the fairy tale of Job. Everything is destroyed; everything is restored? No. His original children were destroyed. New children do not restore the old children, and the memories of the former children are not miraculously erased or changed to new, happy memories.

A house is destroyed; the new house simply replaces the old, never restores.

Are you really that naive to believe that law enforcement is based on "equal justice"? How many examples do we have to cite that proves the opposite? Oh, you will dismiss these in order to continue believing in a concept that can hold no water in this existence.

So, while this restorative justice spins its wheels on the needs of both the victims and offenders, nothing is done about preventing the precipitation of the problem in the first place. Case of closing the barn door after the horse escaped. Again and again and again.

Dear Wallis: example of restorative justice
let's suppose we have a convicted trafficker who has raped and killed 10 women and children exploited in a ring that targets immigrant labor

We all AGREE nothing can bring back the 10 people killed or undo the fact they were raped and tortured.

For restitution why not have this offender serve a lifetime sentence working in place of children/women in a sweatshop factory, so that (a) the same number of children CAN go to school and have a chance at a productive life (b) the money and labor from a team of inmates paying restitution can set up a school for children and create jobs for woment to combat sex slavery in those regions (c) and people who commit such crimes to violate rights of others effectively lose their citizenship and trade places with workers who WANT to work an honest living and contribute to society. So wouldn't that restore justice, even though you can't do anything about the past but can do more to build a better future? Wouldn't that be fair to compel the offenders to provide the labor if it pays back society and helps stop victimization of other potential traffic victims?

P.S. as for swatting at petty things,
I believe agreeing on justice IS the key to solving ALL OTHER THINGS, Wallis.

It is not a small thing, it is a major point to be resolved
and all other issues can be resolved in turn, so it affects things globally. Dude!

This is very good, Wallis, thanks for pinpointing where our systems diverge.
If we can resolve where to agree even though we disagree here,
ANYONE can do that, even though they disagree just as much.

My boyfriend also does not believe life is fair.
And yet he and I agree when certain things are wrongful and
need corrections, and certain things are better and more sustainable solutions.

So we can still work through solutions and build a consensus
based on points of agreement DESPITE our areas of disagreement.
If we can do that, anyone can. We don't have to be helpless victims
limited by where we disagree. We can still achieve great social change
by focusing on solutions that make sense so more people invest in them
regardless of political or religious differences. We need solutions like that!
And THIS is the process to formulate consensus to get there! Thank you Wallis!

[emilynghiem]

RE: You may call it "letting go" and not "forgiveness" But
do you agree that the degree of "letting go" affects perception of justice?

Originally Posted by Wallis

Is it wrong to counter Sappy? Yes, it is. Is it wrong to not counter Sappy? Yes, it is. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

So, why don't you stop swatting at gnats and start working on the big pests?

P.S. No it's not wrong to counter Sapphire, when corrections are done out of LOVE, and the Bible even calls for wise rebuke, this is good and not bad at all.

Is it bad to correct someone's spelling or pronunciation or math error? No, when it is offering to help someone, and just needs to shared in a positive way so it is clear.

It is hurtful to ridicule or embarrass that person for self aggrandizement,
especially if you don't appreciate when people do that with you.

BTW Wallis as soon as you are done analyzing and answering the longer msg below, which I love about you and do not criticize but wish everyone would
do in such detail,

I would like to know what you think of this:
that our ability to see the good or justice in something is affected
by how much we can forgive the flaws or bad side

For example if you can understand and appreciate atheists and Plad and other people on here where you FORGIVE their flaws or shortcomings,
you respond to them in a positive way and they respond to you likewise
So you are more likely to reach an understanding or see how to deal with differences even if you don't change your mind or theirs

And if you cannot forgive or understand Sapphire or fundamentalists
then you are less likely to try to hear what their viewpoint means
and reconciliation is not possible

So the forgiveness and understanding go hand in hand
because unforgiveness blocks communication and prevents resolution;
while forgiveness allows trial and error to work through the
differences and figure out where there ARE points of agreement in there.

This is what I mean by the forgiveness factor affecting consensus.

And I want to hear how you relate the degree of forgiveness
with whether someone can see the "justice" in a situation.

Do you agree that the more unforgiving you are, then emotionally
you would be more biased and blocked and unable to see the
issues on both sides that caused a conflict to escalate?

And the more forgiving and understnading you are of both sides
in a conflict, you might see more insights into where they are
both coming from, where or why they disagree, and what
needs to be corrected or resolved so they CAN reach agreement
or acceptance?

The msg below is about how you and I see justice differently.
So this msg is more focused on how forgiveness affects
that perception of justice, and the mutual responsibility on both sides
not just one side.

You may call it "letting go" and not "forgiveness"
Do you agree that the degree of "letting go" affects perception of justice?

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by Wallis

1. Scott Peck was an idiot.

I've been telling her that for years.

It's worrying to think that there are people walking amongst us who still think that illness is caused by 'demons'!! Oy vey!

[emilynghiem]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

I've been telling her that for years.

It's worrying to think that there are people walking amongst us who still think that illness is caused by 'demons'!! Oy vey!

Dr. Peck said the same things you did, argued for years with his priest friend Malachi Martin on whom the exorcist movie was based.

Dr. Peck decided to settle the argument by observing for himself.
And after he changed his mind, he wrote books asking and urging
others to study and observe for themselves (ie not based on faith
but by the scientific method of studying the causes, patterns, and cure)
and also to pursue FORMAL studies once it is deemed there are distinct patterns.

I found the scientific and academically minded people who agree this can be documented statistically, and am working to set up teams in Houston.

I would LOVE to bet Bill Gates and Bill Maher that this can be proven by science, and bet enough money to treat you guys to your dream vacation
or tour in honor of our friend Orion. I believe you deserve that after all this!

Spiritual healing, by forgiveness therapy to overcome past generational blockages, has been practiced in both Christian and Buddhist methodologies and also in AA and other recovery programs; and the medical and political leaders will be relieved to find that criminal illness can be diagnoses and cured.

There will be a lot more celebration going on than just you guys taking a trip around the world, partying and drinking now that Emily will finally SHUT UP!

Rejoice and be glad!
Start packing your bags....

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by emilynghiem

Dr. Peck decided to settle the argument by observing for himself.
And after he changed his mind, he wrote books ....

...in order to con the gullible believers in mythology out of their cash.

I wonder what percentage of his book royalties he put back into scientific research of his nut-bag ideas??

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by emilynghiem

Dr. Peck said the same things you did, ...

He was also a serial-adulterer who preached against adultery!

[emilynghiem]

Originally Posted by pladecalvo

He was also a serial-adulterer who preached against adultery!

He can still be a hypocrite and still acknowledge the phenomena is REAL.

Notice he didn't deny that adultery "existed."
In both cases he preached against things that caused harm.

In one case, with adultery, he WAS causing the harm he was preaching against. But that is NOT so in the other case, where he was witnessing (not causing) the harm and suffering of his patients and also the effect of the treatment to REMOVE the conditions causing the harm to go untreated.

In fact, with the exorcisms, he first preached against the reality of the spiritual causes and entities to his priest friend who said it was real by experience. Then after he experienced it for himself, it humbled him to change his mind. He knew his observations are not enough to prove it because it required further scientific study to prove, so he asked for THAT!

That isn't the same as preaching morally against something he is doing. He was presenting the observations that made him change his mind and trying to encourage other people to research this formally.

If anything, he did advocate or "preach" to get rid of the false division between science and religion, which was causing harm. Thus, he was NOT trying to commit this harm and preach against it at the same time as with adultery!