Weekly Discussion: The Downtown Church

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[coolerthanme]

I go to wtc.  I have been to dtc, but I don't often go there.  Dan Rude pastors both locations.  I happened on this website accidentally.  I was typing walnut creek community church into google to go to the website and check out the memory verses when google threw the word "cult" on the end.  I was a bit shocked.  I wouldn't say completely shocked because it's not the first time I've gotten myself involved with a cult.  I'm a bit more naive than most people.  Myself, I'm honest to a fault and I have these lofty ideals that I try to live up to and I just assume that everyone else is the same way.  I forget that most people are not like me at all.

I read through a lot of these posts and I feel angry that I have been tricked.  I am thankful for all of the information contained here and when I read some of it a lightbulb went off in my head because that was my experience exactly.  It is very subtle and it does make you wonder if you aren't just going crazy.

Now I have to question, are there any healthy churches out there?  I just want to love and worship God and be with others who want to do the same.  I know that in any group, there is going to be some level of dysfunction and discord.  People bring their issues with them everywhere they go.  I just want to know that being myself with all my quirks will be acceptable and that any issues brought up will be talked about seriously.

[Captein]

While I don't have the personal experience with the GCC churches that most people here do, I did work out of St. Paul's on 6th & High for awhile. The people were very nice (although it was an older crowd) and I never felt judged or pressured in the least, even though they knew I was not Christian. It is Episcopalian, and I'm not sure exactly what that means to you from your experience, but if you are looking for a church and not a social club, I would recommend looking into it.

[newcreature]

I visited First Federated Church a few times in the past. The Senior Pastor has changed since then, but it was a nice, friendly, evangelical church. I prefer small to medium-sized congregations on a Sunday morning; so, I prefer smaller settings than First Federated. However, you can also check out their small group dynamics if interested. Here is their website: http://www.firstfederated.org/

As for the Episcopal Church, my Uncle Eddie was an Episcopalian priest; he and his wife taught me how to play golf when I was a teenager. Fore! I don't know if St. Paul's considers itself a High Church or a Low Church (and I don't know if that even matters to you), but you can always ask. Captein may also know.

If you are interested, here is a link to their history page on their official website: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/page/history-episcopal-church

And here is an excerpt:

MOVEMENTS WITHIN THE CHURCH: The Evangelical Movement in the 18th century tended to emphasize the Protestant heritage of the Church, while the Oxford Movement in the 19th century emphasized the Catholic heritage. These two attitudes have persisted in the Church, and are sometimes characterized as "Low Church" and "High Church." Since the 19th century, the Church has been active in the Ecumenical Movement.

One thing for sure, neither you nor Captein would have to consider monastaries or celibacy as conditions of membership or leadership.

[EverAStudent]

Hello coolerthanme,

I am sorry you feel you were manipulated (though that did seem to me to be the GC way of doing church). 

Yes, there are many good evangelical churches around, though they are in the minority when compared to churches over all.  When we first left GC we found an excellent independent Baptist church that began its own seminary program (the church has since grown into a large community active church providing counseling, food services, battered women housing, and clothing services to the town).  It takes serious effort to find a good church that is not manipulative or abusive. 

In many churches you can be as involved as you want and dedicate as much time to service as you want.  What is lacking in many good churches is the sense of common mission and the sense of fellowship that commonality breeds.  Again, it takes effort to find such a good church that is active, mission-centric, and does not manipulate.  All of these things grow out of a deep and proper understanding of biblical doctrine (a failing point for GC).

Blessings.

[coolerthanme]

I have been reading all night/day about cults and why people join cults, etc.  It just made me uneasy to think that it had happened to me again.  Of course, now I know why and can better guard against it. 

But just as I felt bad for myself, I also feel bad for the others who haven't realized it yet.  I want to help them!  I know that I should just cut ties and walk away for my own good, but I feel that I should stay and ask questions and bring information and make sure I do what I can to take as many people out that door with me.  I know that the longer I stay, the riskier it will be, but my heart aches for everyone else! 

I feel that if I try to reach them once I am a safe distance (physically and emotionally) then I will be regarded as an outsider and not listened to.  They may even begin to use me as an example of a false teacher or whatnot.  I don't know.

I'm torn right now.  Did any of you ever go through this when you left?  How did you deal with it?

[EverAStudent]

Yes, we went through this when we left.  At the first we told no one why we were leaving (except the elders).  

However, some of the friends whom we had helped over the years with car repairs and personal issues wanted to know why some "core members" would leave.  We bluntly told them that the church governance structure was misusing Scripture, being improperly judgmental, and had been driving a wedge in our marriage so as to split my wife off (whom they greatly valued for her musical talent) from me (whom they did not value because I had been studying the Scriptures and had begun learning that many GC doctrines and practices were unbiblical).  

Some of our friends eventually left too having been encouraged by our actions, but none went "with us" or attended the same church as we chose to attend.  We did not circulate letters or level accusations.  Not even after the midnight gestapo visit by all the elders.  

After we left, all the rest of our "friends" (even those who had gotten saved via our ministry or had joined the church through our efforts or were immediate family members) simply shunned us without explanation.  The freeze-out was pretty much immediate and total.

But that is just our story and what we chose to do.  I would not condemn someone for being more proactive in their leaving, but I would caution them to only employ biblical and holy actions, to throw no mud (no untrue accusations), and to avoid inciting factions or slander.  I would also encouage them to join this forum .

---

Some helpful advice can be found here: http://thefaithfulword.org/leavingchurch.html

[coolerthanme]

Thank you, that website helps a lot. 

I am not looking to start factions or even direct people where they should go if they do leave.  I am not a leader, but I do care about people and I do not want them to "wise up" years from now and wonder "why didn't anyone tell me?"  The truth of the matter is that I don't even know where to go from here yet. 

Away, that's all I know and for now it's good enough.

[Captein]

Thank you, that website helps a lot.

I am not looking to start factions or even direct people where they should go if they do leave.  I am not a leader, but I do care about people and I do not want them to "wise up" years from now and wonder "why didn't anyone tell me?"  The truth of the matter is that I don't even know where to go from here yet.

Away, that's all I know and for now it's good enough.

I have a somewhat different mindset than the others, so you can take my advice with a grain of salt, but first I would examine why you attend church, and what you are looking for. From my experience, people who are lost in the mist tend not to want to follow anyone out unless they have a direction.

You do have a choice. Accepting or rejecting God's gracious offer of eternal life is the choice we both have. I accepted his free gift, and as of now, you haven't.

If I knew for certain that the story of Jesus Christ is true in even the most basic way, then I would only have as much choice in accepting it as I do in accepting that water flows downhill. I could make as many excuses as I wanted, but in the back of my mind I would know the answer. I am not afraid of the truth, and will accept it as it is revealed.

You may have read it already, but "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" is a well-known book written 40 years ago by Josh McDowell. He was an agnostic who decided to write a treatise to examine the historical evidence of the Christian faith in order to disprove it. However, he became a Christian during the process because of all the evidence he found in support of Jesus Christ.

Since you appreciate thinking critically and searching for the truth, I highly recommend that book, along with the Bible. After all, Jesus said he is "the truth." If that's not true, then Jesus was an arrogant liar, or a full-blown nutjob.

It's also possible he never said it, meant it in that light, or that he honestly believed what he was saying, without necessarily being crazy. Embellishment is a powerful thing. I just finished reading "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, which is in the same vein. Strobel claims he was an atheist before writing the book. While it did address and reconcile points and supposed contradictions that I had not even considered, many arguments were very weak. For example, (while we are on the subject, I have the book around here somewhere...) in addressing the fact that Jesus was only explicitly acknowledged as God himself within John, and not Mark, Matthew, or Luke, Strobel spoke with Ben Witherington:

EXPLORING THE EARLIEST TRADITIONS

It was a 1977 book by British theologian John Hick and half a dozen like-minded colleagues that prompted a firestorm of controversy by charging that Jesus never thought of himself as God incarnate or the Messiah. These concepts, they wrote, developed later and were written into the gospels so it appeared that Jesus was making these claims about himself.

To explore that allegation, Witherington has gone back to the very earliest traditions about Jesus--the most primitive material, unquestionably safe from legendary development--and discovered the persuasive clues concerning how Jesus really regarded himself.

I wanted to delve into that research, starting with this question: "What clues can we find about Jesus' self-understanding from the way her related to others?"

Witherington thought for a moment, then replied, "Look at his relationship with his disciples. Jesus has twelve disciples, yet notice that he's not one of the Twelve."

While that may sound like a detail without a difference, Witherington said it's quite significant.

"If the Twelve represent a renewed Israel, where does Jesus fit in?" he asked. "He's not just part of Israel, not merely part of the redeemed group, he's forming the group--just as God in the Old Testament formed his people and set up the twelve tribes of Israel. That's a clue about what Jesus thought of himself."

Witherington went on to describe a clue that can be found in Jesus' relationship with John the Baptist. "Jesus say's 'Of all people born of woman, John is the greatest man on earth.' Having said that, he then goes even further in his ministry than the Baptist did--by doing miracles, for example. What does that say about what he thinks of himself?

"And his relationship with the religious leaders is perhaps the most revealing. Jesus makes the truly radical statement that it's not what enters a person that defiles him but what comes out of his heart. Frankly, this sets aside huge portions of the Old Testament book of Leviticus, with its meticulous rules concerning purity.

"Now, the Pharisees didn't like this message. They wanted to keep things as they were, but Jesus said, 'No, God has further plans. He's doing a new thing' We have to ask, what kind of person thinks he has the authority to set aside the divinely inspired Jewish Scriptures and supplant them with his own teaching?

"And what about his relationship--if we can call it that--with the Roman authorities? We have to ask why they crucified him. If he had merely been an innocuous sage telling nice little parables, how did he end up on a cross, especially at a Passover season, when no Jew wants any Jew to be executed? There had to be a reason why the sign above his head said, 'This is the King of the Jews.'"

Witherington let that last comment hang in the air, before providing the explanation himself: "Either Jesus had made that verbal claim," he said, "or someone clearly thought he did."

These arguments rely far too heavily on strained symbolism, and only add more questions than they answer. Now you have to ask, if Jesus was asserting that he was the son of God in those examples, then why did he have to rely on coded messages and crypticism to say it? No, it seems much more likely that these are not instances of any claim to divinity.

In Strobel's case, at least, he was operating under a bias. Not as an atheist or Christian, but as an author. While there may be significant evidence within the synoptic gospels to show that the claims made in John are not completely independent, serious flaws in Strobel's methodology prevented a more critical look at the issue. In this example, he simply accepts the argument as fact and moves on to the next topic. The book as a whole is riddled with further (and some even more flawed) variations of this, and leaves many more holes than answers.

Let's assume that the author was 40 when he wrote the original gospel, and he remembered without flaw the story he had been told as a boy at 10 (unlikely, but we can give the benefit of the doubt). That means the author heard the story in A.D. 62 at the earliest, only thirty years after the death of Jesus.

That's a faulty assumption if John is to be taken at his word. He is known as a close personal friend of Jesus Christ. He also said he was an actual witness to the events as they happened. And he said he was telling the truth. (John 21:14).

Of the accounts I have read, most historians believe John was closer to 20 (born 6 A.D.) when he became a disciple. But for the sake of your argument, let's say he was only 10. If that's true, then that would make John's story even more remarkable because he was already a businessman when Jesus called him and his business partners (Peter, Andrew, and James) to become disciples.

Furthermore, even a 10-year-old boy would remember details to phenomenol occurences such as water turning into wine, Lazarus rising from the dead, or his best friend (and likely cousin) being crucified right before his eyes. I was only 10 when my father died and I still remember that night. I still remember seeing him in his open casket at the funeral home, and I still remember watching them lower his casket into the ground and covering it with dirt. I have visited his gravesite during the passing decades, and there has been no evidence of him rising from the grave.

After watching his close friend's gruesome death and burial, I imagine it was even more amazing for John to see the risen Christ, to talk with him, to walk with him, and to eat breakfast with him.

This of course relies on the assumption that John the Apostle wrote the gospel. From what I can tell, that is generally not considered to be true. The gospel is anonymous, and John has only been considered the author by tradition. The earliest copy we have of the Gospel of John was written between 100 & 150 A.D.

[newcreature]

If I knew for certain that the story of Jesus Christ is true in even the most basic way, then I would only have as much choice in accepting it as I do in accepting that water flows downhill.

Before responding further to your recent post, I needed some clarification. What do you mean by "true in even the most basic way"? What is your point of view regarding the actual, historical existence of Jesus Christ?

[coolerthanme]

Thank you, that website helps a lot.

I am not looking to start factions or even direct people where they should go if they do leave.  I am not a leader, but I do care about people and I do not want them to "wise up" years from now and wonder "why didn't anyone tell me?"  The truth of the matter is that I don't even know where to go from here yet.

Away, that's all I know and for now it's good enough.

I have a somewhat different mindset than the others, so you can take my advice with a grain of salt, but first I would examine why you attend church, and what you are looking for. From my experience, people who are lost in the mist tend not to want to follow anyone out unless they have a direction.

I understand that you are atheist, so may not get why people attend church or church activities.  The main reason is fellowship.  Matthew 18:19-21 (New International Version) 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” 

The other is to hear the Word.  Sometimes, the pastor will teach on a lesson that has been on your heart for awhile and it helps you.  Sometimes, the pastor is also able to clarify or cross-reference to other scripture and show you the bigger picture.  And sometimes, the pastor will teach you things to help you study the Word yourself.

And I know that you may get the idea from dtc that it is just some sort of social club, but it is not.  Yes, it is meant to be a social outlet for Christians, but that is not the main purpose.

As for people not leaving a place without a clear direction, well I did it.  People may be hoodwinked, but they're not mindless zombies.  Yes, things go better with a definitive plan or destination, but without one, people can still make their own choices and follow through if given the evidence that choices need to be made.  And of course some of them may wait until they have a definitive plan or destination before acting on those choices.  It all depends on personality, what is their risk comfort level, are they planners and plotters or impulsive risk takers?  To say all people would just rather stay, is that a way to discourage me from taking action?  What is your true motive here?

[Captein]

I understand that you are atheist, so may not get why people attend church or church activities.  The main reason is fellowship.  Matthew 18:19-21 (New International Version) 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” 

The other is to hear the Word.  Sometimes, the pastor will teach on a lesson that has been on your heart for awhile and it helps you.  Sometimes, the pastor is also able to clarify or cross-reference to other scripture and show you the bigger picture.  And sometimes, the pastor will teach you things to help you study the Word yourself.

And I know that you may get the idea from dtc that it is just some sort of social club, but it is not.  Yes, it is meant to be a social outlet for Christians, but that is not the main purpose.

As for people not leaving a place without a clear direction, well I did it.  People may be hoodwinked, but they're not mindless zombies.  Yes, things go better with a definitive plan or destination, but without one, people can still make their own choices and follow through if given the evidence that choices need to be made.  And of course some of them may wait until they have a definitive plan or destination before acting on those choices.  It all depends on personality, what is their risk comfort level, are they planners and plotters or impulsive risk takers?  To say all people would just rather stay, is that a way to discourage me from taking action?  What is your true motive here?

I meant no hostilities, to you or your faith. I know why people attend church. And yes, the social aspect is one part of that, but I never meant to insinuate that it is the only reason. Some churches do tend to focus more on the worldly aspect of things, and some to a fault (like the DTC), but I assume that this is not a reflection of you. I have been to a number of churches, and yes, I am very aware that each one is different. I asked exactly what I meant:

Why do you attend church? As in, what are you looking to get out of it? You briefly skimmed over the question in saying that certain people look for this or certain people look for that, but is it only that which drives you?

You say you left with a clear direction, but is that direction only away from something, or is it toward something else?

The truth of the matter is that I don't even know where to go from here yet.

Away, that's all I know and for now it's good enough.

Away is not a direction. Away can send you anywhere, and get you lost.

I have made my motives here very clear. I do not wish to undermine anyone's belief system, because that would only serve to undermine my own. You posted in my thread, asking for advice from the general public. All I can do is offer my viewpoint, and leave the decision up to you. I ask questions for answers, not to inject any school of thought into a total stranger. That would serve absolutely no purpose. Assistance in self reflection is different, and that is all I intended to accomplish. You have no obligation to partake in any of this. All I ask is that you make no assumptions of me, as I make no assumptions of you.

I will ask the question again, because I am curious: What are you looking for in a church? It's not about others. What do you hope to get out of it? Are there any reasons other than educational? Examine yourself, and your goals.

[Captein]

If I knew for certain that the story of Jesus Christ is true in even the most basic way, then I would only have as much choice in accepting it as I do in accepting that water flows downhill.

Before responding further to your recent post, I needed some clarification. What do you mean by "true in even the most basic way"? What is your point of view regarding the actual, historical existence of Jesus Christ?

I believe there is sufficient evidence to show he existed, led a religious group considered a cult by the Romans, and most likely traveled to the places depicted in the Gospels. Early Christians were probably sincere in their beliefs, although it seems more probable to me that the miracles and events depicted were only stories in circulation during or shortly after Christ's death. A combination of legendary development, embellishment, and early church behaviors are a more probable explanation for the New Testament than the total truth of the events depicted.

By "basic way" I was referring to any supernatural events. If Jesus was the Son of God, preached the general ideas depicted, and died for the sake of humanity, that would be the most basic way. Whether he turned wine into water or not makes little difference to the point of the story.

[coolerthanme]

I understand that you are atheist, so may not get why people attend church or church activities.  The main reason is fellowship.  Matthew 18:19-21 (New International Version) 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” 

The other is to hear the Word.  Sometimes, the pastor will teach on a lesson that has been on your heart for awhile and it helps you.  Sometimes, the pastor is also able to clarify or cross-reference to other scripture and show you the bigger picture.  And sometimes, the pastor will teach you things to help you study the Word yourself.

And I know that you may get the idea from dtc that it is just some sort of social club, but it is not.  Yes, it is meant to be a social outlet for Christians, but that is not the main purpose.

As for people not leaving a place without a clear direction, well I did it.  People may be hoodwinked, but they're not mindless zombies.  Yes, things go better with a definitive plan or destination, but without one, people can still make their own choices and follow through if given the evidence that choices need to be made.  And of course some of them may wait until they have a definitive plan or destination before acting on those choices.  It all depends on personality, what is their risk comfort level, are they planners and plotters or impulsive risk takers?  To say all people would just rather stay, is that a way to discourage me from taking action?  What is your true motive here?

I meant no hostilities, to you or your faith. I know why people attend church. And yes, the social aspect is one part of that, but I never meant to insinuate that it is the only reason. Some churches do tend to focus more on the worldly aspect of things, and some to a fault (like the DTC), but I assume that this is not a reflection of you. I have been to a number of churches, and yes, I am very aware that each one is different. I asked exactly what I meant:

Why do you attend church? As in, what are you looking to get out of it? You briefly skimmed over the question in saying that certain people look for this or certain people look for that, but is it only that which drives you?

You say you left with a clear direction, but is that direction only away from something, or is it toward something else?

The truth of the matter is that I don't even know where to go from here yet.

Away, that's all I know and for now it's good enough.

Away is not a direction. Away can send you anywhere, and get you lost.

I have made my motives here very clear. I do not wish to undermine anyone's belief system, because that would only serve to undermine my own. You posted in my thread, asking for advice from the general public. All I can do is offer my viewpoint, and leave the decision up to you. I ask questions for answers, not to inject any school of thought into a total stranger. That would serve absolutely no purpose. Assistance in self reflection is different, and that is all I intended to accomplish. You have no obligation to partake in any of this. All I ask is that you make no assumptions of me, as I make no assumptions of you.

I will ask the question again, because I am curious: What are you looking for in a church? It's not about others. What do you hope to get out of it? Are there any reasons other than educational? Examine yourself, and your goals.

You misunderstood me.  I said that I left WITHOUT clear direction.  As in, I did it, and if I did it, then why wouldn't others?

[coolerthanme]

And as for why I personally go to church, I like the cookies.

[Captein]

You misunderstood me.  I said that I left WITHOUT clear direction.  As in, I did it, and if I did it, then why wouldn't others?

You are not anyone other than yourself. Say you ask two people to leave GCx. Chances are that one will stay and one will go. Basic variation. Those odds will change depending on the situation. When you ask someone to leave, the first thing they will want to know is how that decision has affected you. If they understand that you have no direction, it is seen as a negative effect of that decision. In fact, that is one of the reasons that many people are resistant to criticism and changes in schools of thought. You can change that to a positive, though, by altering the situation, and showing you have found a more positive path than the one they are currently on. Highlighting negatives alone is distasteful, and more often than not turns a listener away from the message; so, if you want to be persuasive, you need positive reinforcement for your message. To find positive reinforcement, you need find an alternative path. To find a path of your own, you need to know where you want to go, and so on and so forth.

At any rate, you don't want to do this (at least not on here, or with my help). I understand, and apologize for the detour. There are many other Christian members on this board willing to help you out in a way that is more suitable to your tastes.

I believe there is sufficient evidence to show he existed, led a religious group considered a cult by the Romans, and most likely traveled to the places depicted in the Gospels. Early Christians were probably sincere in their beliefs, although it seems more probable to me that the miracles and events depicted were only stories in circulation during or shortly after Christ's death. A combination of legendary development, embellishment, and early church behaviors are a more probable explanation for the New Testament than the total truth of the events depicted.

By "basic way" I was referring to any supernatural events. If Jesus was the Son of God, preached the general ideas depicted, and died for the sake of humanity, that would be the most basic way. Whether he turned wine into water or not makes little difference to the point of the story.

I should also mention that these are only my recent thoughts on the subject, and what I have found to be the most convincing case. That does not mean that it is absolute truth.

[newcreature]

I believe there is sufficient evidence to show he existed, led a religious group considered a cult by the Romans, and most likely traveled to the places depicted in the Gospels.

Occasionally I have spoken with non-Christians who won’t even acknowledge the existence of Jesus Christ. I am glad you don’t adhere to that irrational point of view.

I am also glad you said, “I am not afraid of the truth, and will accept it as it is revealed.”  I fully concur with you on that sentiment. Furthermore, there is no shame in being a “doubting Thomas” when confronted with things that are beyond our natural realm of reason or experience.

However, we disagree on what has been revealed and what hasn’t. I believe the truth has been revealed by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as described in the New Testament. I vicariously “put my hand in his side” with Thomas after rationally considering the evidence and then taking that step of faith into the spiritual realm. If none of it is true, then I have wasted my life and time and money believing it, and I also have propagated a lie. If none of it is true, that also makes Jesus and the writers of the New Testament evil cult leaders (worse than Jim Jones) because they duped millions of people into following them, and along the way, a good number of those followers were tortured and killed.

In response to my recommended reading suggestion (“Evidence That Demands a Verdict”), you said you read a book in the same vein by Lee Strobel. Does that mean you also read McDowell’s book? If not, I still recommend it. He approaches the documentation from a legal point of view as well as from a historically documented point of view.

Also, since you are interested in other perspectives while seeking for truth, I also recommend “Mere Christianity” by C. S. Lewis. He was an atheist prior to believing in Jesus Christ. He was also a top scholar at Oxford, and subsequently taught there and at Cambridge. He was a prolific writer and he wrote “Mere Christianity” with respect and dignity for sincere seekers of truth.

Even though you may be tempted to “roll your eyes” because the basic evidence is still the same (after all, the truth of the Gospel hasn’t changed for 20 centuries), I think you will find those books interesting and enlightening.

Good luck in your search!

[jackhadin05]

I've been rethinking a few things (or maybe a better system to place it is considering about things a chunk more). A few of the subjects appear to come up in sermons more than and also a lot more than. I feel I've recognized an extensive the concepts in leadership preached more than and over. Never to ever exaggerate things, unfortunately it is a lot like a broken record (different topics like evangelism come up more frequently than they are doing whenever I read the Bible, for instance).
Whenever I agreed along with a countless the point given by Dan, I also detected the tangent towards important considering. That comes up in other circles additionally, not just from the stage. My curiosity is whether it is basically because of self-awareness of a deficiency of knowledge and additionally capability to tackle the deeper doctrines. Exactly what I hateful is the fact that an extensive teachings in these areas of leadership appear to feel done from a protective position.
Anyhow, good conversation. Not pretty sure where it undoubtedly will lead. Have always been curious regarding really what you are going to notice during the DTC. There are always a a few simple aspects what kind of bothered me personally upfront. Not going to tell you whichever the couple were as I'd like to see if you are watching it or perhaps if I have always been just imagining everything (role of me physically fantasies that I am). Too bad there isn't a like button in this community forum.

[Captein]

Welcome Jack, are there any other insights into the DTC that haven't been mentioned that you would like to share?

I believe there is sufficient evidence to show he existed, led a religious group considered a cult by the Romans, and most likely traveled to the places depicted in the Gospels.

Occasionally I have spoken with non-Christians who won’t even acknowledge the existence of Jesus Christ. I am glad you don’t adhere to that irrational point of view.

Irrational is right. It is very much a human trait to believe only what you want to, instead of taking the time to examine the evidence and the actual implications of it.

However, we disagree on what has been revealed and what hasn’t. I believe the truth has been revealed by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as described in the New Testament. I vicariously “put my hand in his side” with Thomas after rationally considering the evidence and then taking that step of faith into the spiritual realm. If none of it is true, then I have wasted my life and time and money believing it, and I also have propagated a lie. If none of it is true, that also makes Jesus and the writers of the New Testament evil cult leaders (worse than Jim Jones) because they duped millions of people into following them, and along the way, a good number of those followers were tortured and killed.

While I can't say for certain whether you are right or wrong in that assessment, and I doubt there was any malicious intent behind the New Testament, true or not, if you do later change your mind the last thing you should do is consider that time of personal growth and progress a waste. Moving forward is moving forward, and whether that is me moving toward your frame of mind, vice versa, or something else, it will have been well worth it.

In response to my recommended reading suggestion (“Evidence That Demands a Verdict”), you said you read a book in the same vein by Lee Strobel. Does that mean you also read McDowell’s book? If not, I still recommend it. He approaches the documentation from a legal point of view as well as from a historically documented point of view.

Also, since you are interested in other perspectives while seeking for truth, I also recommend “Mere Christianity” by C. S. Lewis. He was an atheist prior to believing in Jesus Christ. He was also a top scholar at Oxford, and subsequently taught there and at Cambridge. He was a prolific writer and he wrote “Mere Christianity” with respect and dignity for sincere seekers of truth.

I haven't read it, but it sounds eerily like Strobel's book. The Case for Christ is divided into chapters based on the type of evidence being provided (archaeological, documentary, corroborating, etc.) and the beginning of each chapter uses a legal case as an example. Strobel was a court reporter. Also, I have an immense amount of respect for Lewis. His relationship with Tolkien is fascinating, and I have been trying to get a copy of that book for a couple of months (without paying for it, of course).

Even though you may be tempted to “roll your eyes” because the basic evidence is still the same (after all, the truth of the Gospel hasn’t changed for 20 centuries), I think you will find those books interesting and enlightening.

Ha, I know. It's always hard to resist though, when someone says the same tired old high school arguments and expect me to be beyond perplexed. "How do you explain life on Earth? It can't just be a coincidence!" To which my standard reply is the Hitchhiker's Guide coat argument: we are carbon based life forms requiring these conditions to survive. Don't expect to find us on Jupiter.

Good luck in your search!

Thank you very much, and the same to you as well. Parts 12 & 13 of the leadership series have been uploaded! I need to do some recuperating after a celebration last night, but then I will take a look at both of them, and the conversation can continue. They are "Characteristics of a Godly Leader" and "What is the purpose of the Church?" This should be fun.

[newcreature]

Also, I have an immense amount of respect for Lewis. His relationship with Tolkien is fascinating, and I have been trying to get a copy of that book for a couple of months (without paying for it, of course).

I checked Amazon.com for you. A used paperback only costs $1.86 if you ever want your own copy.

It's also easy to find for free on the web. Just type "mere christianity pdf" in Google. Here is the top link that I received: http://usminc.org/images/MereChristianitybyCSLewis.pdf

While I can't say for certain whether you are right or wrong in that assessment, and I doubt there was any malicious intent behind the New Testament, true or not, if you do later change your mind the last thing you should do is consider that time of personal growth and progress a waste. Moving forward is moving forward, and whether that is me moving toward your frame of mind, vice versa, or something else, it will have been well worth it.

If that quote was meant as words of encouragement, then thanks for your intent. However, for me that seems somewhat analogous to passing by a starving man and wishing him well as you walk away. After reading all the stories of regret on this forum, and printing them for your friend, it seems rather incongruous to me that you would make that statement.  

If I am wasting my life in a cult, as you made reference to Jesus and his disciples, that to me is not "moving forward," as you put it. That just sounds like an empty campaign slogan. And if the writers of the NT were not malicious, but simply ignorant or delusional, the end result is still the same: millions have believed them, and many have died as a result. It's like the little boys who put the puppy in the microwave; they weren't charged with malice; nevertheless, the puppy suffered immensely. http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-kids-put-puppy-in-microwave-111510,0,803881.story

Earlier you ruefully said "what a waste of money" it was for something as inconsequential as your bell bottom collection. I think wasting my life by following a lie or subjecting myself to error is far more consequential. I don't want to look back on my life and say "what a waste" as you did with your jeans. If you simply consider that "personal growth and progress," then why even concern yourself with M?

[Captein]

I checked Amazon.com for you. A used paperback only costs $1.86 if you ever want your own copy.

It's also easy to find for free on the web. Just type "mere christianity pdf" in Google. Here is the top link that I received: http://usminc.org/images/MereChristianitybyCSLewis.pdf

I was going to get a copy from the library, but that sounds good, too. I assumed it would be 7 or 8 plus shipping.. and that I can't afford. Poverty sucks, but I chose it.

While I can't say for certain whether you are right or wrong in that assessment, and I doubt there was any malicious intent behind the New Testament, true or not, if you do later change your mind the last thing you should do is consider that time of personal growth and progress a waste. Moving forward is moving forward, and whether that is me moving toward your frame of mind, vice versa, or something else, it will have been well worth it.

If that quote was meant as words of encouragement, then thanks for your intent. However, for me that seems somewhat analogous to passing by a starving man and wishing him well as you walk away. After reading all the stories of regret on this forum, and printing them for your friend, it seems rather incongruous to me that you would make that statement.

If I am wasting my life in a cult, as you made reference to Jesus and his disciples, that to me is not "moving forward," as you put it. That just sounds like an empty campaign slogan. And if the writers of the NT were not malicious, but simply ignorant or delusional, the end result is still the same: millions have believed them, and many have died as a result. It's like the little boys who put the puppy in the microwave; they weren't charged with malice; nevertheless, the puppy suffered immensely. http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-kids-put-puppy-in-microwave-111510,0,803881.story

Earlier you ruefully said "what a waste of money" it was for something as inconsequential as your bell bottom collection. I think wasting my life by following a lie or subjecting myself to error is far more consequential. I don't want to look back on my life and say "what a waste" as you did with your jeans. If you simply consider that "personal growth and progress," then why even concern yourself with M?

FORWARD is the current Obama slogan.. haha.. no reference intended.

I didn't mean to imply that Christianity is a cult, if that's how it came off. I just meant something along the lines of amor fati. Suffering is never good, but you also wouldn't say you are suffering now. If you do come to a new realization and a new perspective on life (again, hypothetically-- I don't want to imply that you will or even should), there would be no point in beating yourself up over an idea you had in the past. You can't reach point B without going through point A. And no one can make that change but you. I'm not trying to influence M's thoughts or decisions, and I have told her that a hundred times. I just want her to be careful about having them influenced by pressure from some other entity (GCx). If she does fall into that mix, and ten years later recognizes the mistake, the last thing I would want to do is say "I told you so." To me, friendships are unconditional. Even if she did make that choice herself, against my advice, if she had known better she wouldn't have done it, and there is no shame in simply being wrong. Sometimes being wrong is the only way you ever really learn what's right, and sometimes all you can do is hold your head high and make better decisions in the future from the lessons you have learned. If you don't, others might. Don't take that to mean that everyone who is wrong learns from their mistakes. I wish that were true, but it isn't. Applying that to early Christians, they didn't make the decision to abuse, torture, and kill millions of people, even though those were the inadvertent consequences of their actions. Call me an optimist, but I don't think people are inherently bad. Sometimes they have a tangled mess of dissonant ideas in their heads that seemingly can't be sorted out by even the most accomplished psychologist, and the result of that garbled ball of idea-yarn is harmful action, but at the root of all of it (and often the cause of all of it) is a noble goal: truth, peace, and happiness.

When I was a freshman in college, I moved to Iowa City, which was only about an hour from my home town. All of my friends were back home, and of course, as with most new college kids, I missed them very much, and was mildly depressed. However, unlike most college kids, I also had recently discovered a hobby that I could only do at home. I took this hobby very seriously at the time, thoroughly enjoying myself when participating, and some of my friends decided they would try to make a career of it. At that point in my life I was very stubborn. People were either right or wrong, but mostly they were all wrong. When the idea was pitched to me to make a career of that hobby, I pretended to myself I was thinking about it and asked for everyone's advice, before proceeding to ignore them and do what I wanted anyway. I didn't see it that way at the moment. So I dropped out of college to start my career with some friends. At the time, the reasoning seemed flawless: I wanted to be happy, this made me happy, I was good at it, and I would get to travel a lot. No degrees required. I dropped $1000 for training, started working part-time at a retail store, and made it my life. Fast forward a year and a half. I achieved my goal. I was a professional, and had traveled plenty. Things were turbulent, though. The friendships I thought were the strongest I had ever made were hollowing out. The longer we were friends, the less I could talk to them about, and the more it was reduced to bickering and apologies. I began to feel worse than I ever had at college. I had recently quit my job, because it required being around people and smiling. I would spend my days distracting myself with anything I could find: computer work, art, books, video games, the occasional unfulfilling hangout. After months of self-loathing and erratic behavior, I was backed into a corner to the point where I had to make a decision about the direction of my life. There was a big event in Chicago around this time, and we all carpooled to it. Needless to say, at the event, things began to get tense. It was inside a soccer dome, and it was 105 degrees inside. For reference, I was an athlete. I was also dehydrated, hadn't eaten, and was practicing far too hard. I was a little over dedicated, but then again that was what I had been taught. Halfway through, I suffered a heat stroke for the first and only time in my life, and had to retire early. The crowd didn't care, or notice. I was lying on my back on a table by the concessions, trying to drown myself to cool off, barely able to breathe, and no one came over to see if I was alright. It didn't bother me, because that's what I had been taught. Take care of yourself, don't be a burden to others. Then one of my friends came over. Not to see if I needed anything, but to chastise me. And then

BOOM

It hit me. My choices, my behavior, how I had treated people, and how they had treated me. I wasn't there to perform, even though that's what I had told myself over and over again. I was there because I had a moment of weakness, perpetuated by my misunderstanding of the world. In my stubbornness, in not letting anyone tell me what I should or should not do, I fell into a trap. I made a bad decision. These people weren't my friends and never had been, no matter how good I had felt with them at times. They pushed me, criticized me, and rewarded me only when I met their standards. The more they knew about who I was inside, the less they liked. But I had done that to others. I didn't even want to be there. I wanted to be in a classroom, with my face in a book, reading about Roosevelt and Churchill. I wanted to talk about Nietzsche and Kant. I wanted to discuss the effects of an increase in minimum wage. And I had wasted the opportunity I had been given to do that. I couldn't afford to go back to college. My parents couldn't give me anything, they were barely holding on to the house. I had no real job. And as of thirteen seconds beforehand I had no friends. This distraction had sucked me dry financially, and emotionally. I did the only thing I could do. I picked up my pleathers, put a shirt on, and left Chicago, my friends, and professional wrestling behind me for good.

It's easy to trivialize that story, because the words "professional wrestling" bring up notions of silly stuff kids watch on TV. In reality, it's a fairly brutal world. Nobody makes it to 30 without back or neck surgery. Most everyone has an undiagnosed concussion or two. Even though my only bad injury was a broken nose (obtained by flipping over the ropes and smashing face against them... the ropes are steel cables tightened to the point of elasticity and wrapped in a thin layer of black tape) you still spend your weekends being thrown through wood or glass, flipping through the air, getting the wind knocked out of you, getting elbowed in the face, taking hard shots to the groin, etc. etc. all for gas money and a chance to kiss someone's ass. After the show, no matter your injury, you go home and deal with it yourself. There's obviously no health insurance in that line of work. If you're extremely lucky and not against using steroids, you might be the one in one thousand who makes it onto television for three weeks before you're released. Ten years after you started.

Even after what could possibly be considered the world's worst life choice, a mistake that cost me not only the time I was there, but the time and money required to dig myself out of the hole I had made for myself and go back to school, do I regret it? Do I have anything against the realm of professional wrestling? Not in the least. There's nothing wrong with the idea of professional wrestling, just the way it's carried out. But that's not for me to reform. It will happen naturally as it is needed. The same could be said for Christianity, if it is false. It may simply be a giant point A to our point B. Who knows? And I wouldn't be a fraction of the person I am today had I not gone through that. Not in the way that had been intended by others, and not in the way that I had originally wanted or foreseen, but nonetheless here I am, strong and happy. However, if I had a friend who was thinking of making the same decision, I would be on them in a heartbeat. I wouldn't want them to take that risk, even if they had a better chance than I at achieving their goal. I would do my best to teach them what I have learned before they go through the worst of it themselves. But that doesn't mean I can force them to listen to my advice. That's why I'm concerned with M. No matter what I tell her, though, the decision is ultimately up to her. If I pass by a starving man, I can do everything in my power to feed him, but sometimes I won't be able to make him eat. Horses and water. That doesn't mean that wallowing in guilt and self-pity after the fact is a good thing.

I think I'm a little off topic. Sorry about that.