"take this drug, it may make you sick
and it may not work, but it works
for many people, ask your doctor"
the drug industry employs 'scientific'
methodologies, and yet they can make
no profoundly exact statement as to
the efficacy of all of their products.
these are considered truthful statements,
but not statements that will lead anyone
to believe that all drugs are always
100% effective, and therefore not
'proof' that such drugs are cures.
one can go into the literature, find a
description of a method to synthesize
"Paxatol"[fictitious example] a cancer
medication that is also a natural product
found in the tree bark of the yum-yum tree.
this synthesis is multistep
and provides very low yield.
now, if all you do is read the literature
you have description of someone else's
method to synthesize this chemical.
if you attempt the synthesis yourself,
you will still have to analyze the
compound after you get a product
-if- you get a product.
as i said, the compound
is also a natural product.
and so, the compound itself
grows in plants and can be
isolated and analyzed.
this analysis can provide a
standard for the identity
of the compound.
and this standard identification
can be placed in the literature.
and now, when you analyze your product,
you can compare it to the standards
found in the literature.
and then, when you consider you
have your product, you may begin
administering it to patients.
when it works on people, to do the
desired effect, your understanding
that that compound is therapeutic grows.
this same sort of argument
applies to our walk with Jesus.
we get the Word from the Body of Christ.
this Word -is- the product of the Divine Nature,
we then go about the task of synthesizing our
own natural product based on the Word as substrate
and 'the word' as conceptual literature.
we compare our experience of God to the
words of the paradigm structure found in
the literature, we apply literature
methodologies to our personal lives,
we grow in understanding and see
that it WORKS.
we attenuate our vision by continued
repetetive usage. our evidence
builds and grows.
we brush aside the talk of those
who refuse to follow proper and
time tested procedures in favor
of their own view that no such
working knowledge can be attained.
all the while, leaving the message
open for anyone to take and
put to good use.
disagreement among people who speak
-about- God is summed up best by
the brocolli example.
three people may be served broccoli
prepared in the very same manner by
the very same chef, and when questioned,
all three may provide differing decriptions
of that broccoli, and, based on these,
when questioned about the character of
the chef, they also, may all three
provide somewhat differing attribution.
all, without ever having spoken to
nor meeting with, the chef in person.
people can come to the considered opinion
that a God must exist and make comments
about the cooking without ever having
met the Creator personally.
multiplex opinions about a Being known
to exist based on study of surroundings
is perfectly reasonable.
and so, based solely on examination
of the personal veiwpoint of the Creation
and an assumption that a God is responsible
for this, coupled with an assumption that
this same Creator is responsible for
-everything- they see,
you will indeed, receive manifold
explanation of the Creator.
-but- these assorted descriptions do not
yield a comprehensive understanding of
that Creator who maintains an aloofness
to the material.
we differrentiate between knowing
-of- God and knowing God personally.
that is, one who knows -of- God may make
some false conclusions about the nature
of God based upon his own personal
understanding of his own surroundings.
all we claim is that such personal knowledge
of a personal Deity is not only possible, but
the only way to actually know God and not simply
know something -about- God or -about- what
the nature of the material universe says
about the nature of God.
a nature that is tainted by our own
presence which removes our ability
to maintain an untainted objectivity.
our presence in the world taints
the nature itself to an objective
understanding of that nature.
our own understanding of ourselves
is tainted by personal bias.
we can't just look at
ourselves and say,
"God is a liar a cheat a thief
and a murderer who does charitable
works when the mood strikes"
here's a little problem;
some have maintained that the conflicting
reports as to the characteristic attributes
of God draws all descriptions of
said God in to question.
that is, because there are variant descriptions
of God, -all- descriptions of God are of
a dubious nature.
much of this problem stems from intuitive human ideas
-about- God based mainly on personal circumstances
and vantage point on their surroundings, coupled
with some notion that a "God" is responsible for these.
but consider this for instance;
consider this as you would a picture being
a two dimensional representation of three
dimensions, only it's a three dimensional
representation of zero dimensions.
you prepare a plate of broccoli, and in
three different rooms, you serve this
broccoli to three different people.
albeit, they never see you, the preparer.
one person says they didn't like
it at all. one person says it was
wonderful and, another person says
it needed a little salt.
the broccoli was identically prepared
and served. the only difference was
in the people eating the broccoli.
and now, they are asked to assess the
character of you, the preparer of the
brocolli, based on their opinions
of the brocolli.
none have ever met you, the preparer,
and only have had a plate of your brocolli.
conflicting reports of your character
are received from people who have
never met -you- at all.
if we say that the preparer of the brocolli is
-like- God and the brocolli represents empirical
sense perceptions and impressions derived from
their own personality structure,
none of -those- people had an actual experience
with and of God, but based an intuitive portrait
of God from their impressions of the physical
reality surrounding them and their own self
assessments, and personality structure, coupled
with some assurance that a "God" was
responsible for these.
fine, and then you have people who feel
the need to tamper with -these- people's
understanding of the preparer by suggesting
that the brocolli simply prepared itself.
but then people come along and say
that they have actually spoken
with the preparer.
The Spirit Himself bears witness with
our spirit that we are children of God,
and tell that the preparer has
left a form of forwarding address.
All things have been delivered to Me by My Father,
and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does
anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one
to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
that if you confess with your mouth the
Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that
God has raised Him from the dead,
you will be saved.
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek,
for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call
upon Him. For "whoever calls on the name of YHWH "[Joel 2:32]"
shall be saved."
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have
not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of
whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear
without a preacher?
so, you basically have to hear that you
should call upon YHWH thru Jesus, who is
your Savior, and Jesus, your Savior, will
send witness to your spirit that you
are a child of God.
["Jesus" means "YHWH Saves"]
and -then- it's possible that your
particular take on Christ can be infused
into an overall portrait of The Almighty.
and that's sort of like this;
there's a concept called "resonance structures"
which concerns that structure of molecules.
having been built on the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
Himself being the chief cornerstone, in
whom the whole building, being fitted
together, grows into a holy temple in
the Lord, in whom you also are being
built together for a dwelling place
of God in the Spirit.
somewhat like the broccoli example;
several people may read the bible and
get variant reckonings depending
their understanding of the author.
that is, someone who may believe that a God exists
based on inspection of their worldly surroundings,
but has no personal relationship with God, will
approach reading the bible thru a filter of a
preconceived nature of God for the better or
the worse, see things in the bible which he
claims conflicts with his own ideas of what
a God -should- be like and begin to find
fault with the bible as a record of
divine revelation to man.
several examples, like one who takes an elixur
into his mouth, doesn't like the taste and then
spits it out, and says that the medicine has
no curative effect.
someone who does not believe that a God exists,
and has no personal experience of God will see
it in an entirely negative manner and will not
take the word into themself at all but only
inspect it from the outside.
sort of like looking at a bottle of
arthritus medication and wondering
why it has no positive effect.
and then there are those who
use and compare the literature
with the divine natural product
of the Holy Spirit and see
one point being, you cannot suggest that
God has no 'proof' or has not been 'proven'
to exist just because God doesn't seem to work
for all people, any more than the fact that
"Paxatol" may make some people sick should
prevent it from being administered
it to anyone at all.
some of us have proof in a very concrete
manner that God not only exists but
works among human beings.
take the body and blood of Christ into you.
this is real food and real drink and very effective.
if you don't know how, consult the literature.