Question to religious types

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Feel free to respond to any of these, all of them, or -- if you have Oppositional-Defiant Disorder (or "J.M.F.C.S.T." for short) -- none of them.  And I'll answer my own question, just to be fair about it.

was this thread directed at me or was it directed away from me?  cant tell.

but, in any case, this is pretty simple to answer...

how to legitimizing your own Christian experience:  does it conform to scripture which was written by dozens of different people over thousands of years.

how to de-legitimize real but nonChristian experiences:  1John 4:1 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. "

explaining those who dont have any experiences:  dont know why this is even asked.  why would everyone have a religious experience of one type or another?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

how to legitimizing your own Christian experience:  does it conform to scripture which was written by dozens of different people over thousands of years.

how to de-legitimize real but nonChristian experiences:  1John 4:1 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. "

explaining those who dont have any experiences:  dont know why this is even asked.  why would everyone have a religious experience of one type or another?

The J.M.F.C.S.T. thing was just me being facetious.  You're entitled to answer.  But yours is obviously circular.  Are you interested in engaging the difficulty I'm obviously talking about, or do you find it to be not compelling, for some reason you want to share?

well, how could it be made uncircular to you?

maybe you should look to the examples within the bible for your answer.  Example: What convinced Paul that he was on the right track?

Maybe it had to do with Paul's day to day relationship with Christ, and the fact that others were experiencing the same thing, and the fact that dozens of others over a span of thousands of years had predicted exactly what he was going through.

Even though I wasnt called to be an apostle like Paul, how am I any less convinced than what Paul was?  And don't I have even more reason to believe than Paul did?  After all, I have the added layer of 2000 years of witnesses which Paul and Peter didnt have.

I mean, it's not like it's that difficult to trace the steps of the bible:  the NT was obviously written in the first century for just the book of Acts alone is unmatched by any other single piece of literature in the accuracy and breath of its description of the first century Mediterranean world, its obvious Jesus was a historical figure, it's obvious (despite the claims of Islam) that Jerusalem had been the center of Judaism for hundreds of years prior to Christ, it obvious that King David was an historical figure, its obvious that the first five book of the OT were written by someone highly educated in second millennium BC Egyptian culture and language.

And, again, it's not like Islam, that can be easily proven to have been created out of wholeclothe around 600AD, despite the claims of Islam that Jesus and the other prophets where Muslim.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're getting at. Is your point that a personal religious experience is not a great argument to convince someone else of the truth of one's religious beliefs? Because that I would agree with. I view religious experiences as personal and only valid for myself - just like most of my emotional or psychological reactions to various concepts. I would never extrapolate my own experience to someone else, because they could obviously do the same thing back.

That's the point I'm getting at (with you and jmfcst) -- why, unless you strongly assume the other "experiencers" to be deluded and/or lying?

didn't I already answer that by quoting the verse, "Do not believe every spirit, rather test the spirits to see if they are from God.  Every spirit that doesn't recognize Jesus as coming from God in the spirit of the antiChrist"

so they dont have to be deluded or lying, rather they are simply deceived by demons who masquerade as coming from God.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You're still running into the problem I'm getting at above.

I don't see how, I've already alluded to the superiority of the bible (written by dozens of people over thousands of years, yet completely complimentary and on the same page), and I've asked you to consider examples like Paul....yet you never responded

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'll try again...in A and B form

My concern is about situations in which the same methodology would result in two different outcomes between Person A and Person B, but Person A believes his own outcome, despite not doubting the sincerity of Person B's claim that the same methodology resulted in his different interpretation.  Get me?

This is really hard for me because I want to establish the quality grade difference between A and B.  If you insist in saying the quality of A and B is indistinguishable, then I am at a loss because it has never been my experience to have a matter of spiritual importance to be unsolvable.

So I can’t really speak to generic A and B situations, because A and B have always been distinctly different, at least they have since my first experience in Oct 1992. 

As to how I would approach the problem of A and B prior to Oct 1992, then I would have to answer that prior to 1992, A and B were NOT experiences to choose between.  Rather I was simply being told viewpoint A was true, with A being Armstrongism which my girlfriend (now wife) believed in.  And my solution to the problem was to take B (the bible) and compare it to A.  I didn’t assume B was inerrant,  rather since A was claiming it was in agreement with B, I could at least judge the validity of the claim that A=B by comparing A to B.  And I didn’t get farther than an hour into that comparison when it was clear to me that A did not equal B, and then things unfolded very quickly, within a span of a couple of minuets, and  my spiritual eye-opening “experience” began with the spiritual perception that there were spiritual forces driving A and B and that they were on different sides of the battle and they weren’t battling over peanuts but rather were fighting a battle over eternal souls. 

It was the ability to spiritual perceive this spiritual battle that caused me, right then and there, to believe the couple of chapters of Galatians I had been reading.  And then the spiritual insight panned over to my life and the multiple events separated by years in my life (how I used to watch Armstrong’s TV program in my early teens, how I met a friend in college who was a member of Armstrong’s church, how through him I had met my girlfriend who had prompted me to look into this thing) that brought me to this point of belief. And when I enquired to myself if all these events were engineered for the purpose to bring me to believe n Christ, God poured out his spirit into my heart and answered the question himself, “Yes that is the reason why, now go and tell them the truth.”  And basically sent me to them to show them that B didn’t equal A.

Now, you and probably a lot of the other nonbelievers on this forum, since you’re not under the spiritual influence of A, can easily see that A does not equal B. (which is why I have so few scriptural disagreements with nonbelievers on this forum).  But for those who are under the spiritual influences that are telling them A = B, they are blinder than blind can be.  They no longer can see because they are deceived.  For example, to you it is easy to see that 4 does not equal 5, but to them, they can’t see the difference between 4 and 5 because they are under a spiritual deception that is telling them 4=5.  As Jesus said, it is better to be admittedly blind than claiming you can see when you can’t.  Because a blind man knows he is blind and asks for help (e.g. you yourself are asking how to distinguish A from B), but a blind person deceived into believing he can see is quite dangerous because he is convinced that 4=5 and is therefore beyond the help of those who can indeed see and who are trying to help him understand 4 does not equal 5.

And when youre confronted with such spiritual deception, it can be quite frustrating – it took 18 months before my girlfriend left her church.  And what won her was the fact that her church study guides were corrupting 4 to appear as 5.  When she read the bible without her church’s study guides, she could see clearly.  What I would do is sit her down and have her take a whole book of the NT, e.g. Hebrews, and read it to me and explain each verse to me as she read them.  I could sit back and not say a single word (I know that is hard to believe)  to her and allow her to completely own the conversation.  And she could see just fine that the number 5 was actually a 5.  But after she finished Hebrews, I could say, “I agree with you that it is a 5, but look, your church says it is actually a 4.”  And because of the fear instilled her that the only unforgivable sin was to leave Armstrongism, she would draw back and allow herself to be convinced by her study “guides” that it was actually a 4 and not the 5 she had perceived through her own reading.

But after 18 months of her seeing the difference between what she read on her own and what she was being told, she understood that if she couldn’t see on her own, then there was no way for her to judge who was telling the truth.  So she had to learn to trust that the bible was meant for individuals to understand, that it was written to the masses.

So, the only thing I can tell you is:  you have to trust your own eyes and don’t follow any guides.  For there are MANY unbelievers on this forum that have much better eyesight than those who claim they can see.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Alcon, I'm not sure what you're getting at.  

I reject Scientology because it is made up totally out of thin air a few decades ago.  I reject Islam because it also was made up out of thin air around 620AD and conflicts with human recorded history.

what else is there to judge it by?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think your example is exactly my point.  Why would someone accept their own experience, and not question their experience when confronted by someone who they assume to be lucid and rational?

I test any and every experience, my own or someone else's, against scripture.  In fact, when I first experienced Christ, I've told this forum how I questioned if I were the only one in the world with a similar experience, because I had never heard of anyone receiving the Holy Spirit apart from a bunch of symbolic religious ceremonies that left you feeling the same at the end as you did at the beginning.

so, since I consider my experiences to be reflected within scripture, it's going to come down to, once again, me comparing the scripture of Christianity with the scripture of, say, Islam....in order to see which one is true.

I've never doubt the reality of, say, Islamic experiences, rather I question whether the source of the experience is godly or demonic.

(sorry if I am still missing your point)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'll try again...in A and B form

My concern is about situations in which the same methodology would result in two different outcomes between Person A and Person B, but Person A believes his own outcome, despite not doubting the sincerity of Person B's claim that the same methodology resulted in his different interpretation.  Get me?

This is really hard for me because I want to establish the quality grade difference between A and B.  If you insist in saying the quality of A and B is indistinguishable, then I am at a loss because it has never been my experience to have a matter of spiritual importance to be unsolvable.

So I can’t really speak to generic A and B situations, because A and B have always been distinctly different, at least they have since my first experience in Oct 1992.  

As to how I would approach the problem of A and B prior to Oct 1992, then I would have to answer that prior to 1992, A and B were NOT experiences to choose between.  Rather I was simply being told viewpoint A was true, with A being Armstrongism which my girlfriend (now wife) believed in.  And my solution to the problem was to take B (the bible) and compare it to A.  I didn’t assume B was inerrant,  rather since A was claiming it was in agreement with B, I could at least judge the validity of the claim that A=B by comparing A to B.  And I didn’t get farther than an hour into that comparison when it was clear to me that A did not equal B, which meant A was a liar because its claim that A=B was false, and then things unfolded very quickly, within a span of a couple of minuets, and  my spiritual eye-opening “experience” began with the spiritual perception that there were spiritual forces driving A and B and that they were on different sides of the battle and they weren’t battling over peanuts but rather were fighting a battle over eternal souls.  

It was the ability to spiritual perceive this spiritual battle that caused me, right then and there, to believe the couple of chapters of Galatians I had been reading.  And then the spiritual insight panned over to my life and the multiple events separated by years in my life (how I used to watch Armstrong’s TV program in my early teens, how I met a friend in college who was a member of Armstrong’s church, how through him I had met my girlfriend who had prompted me to look into this thing) that brought me to this point of belief. And when I enquired to myself if all these events were engineered for the purpose to bring me to believe n Christ, God poured out his spirit into my heart and answered the question himself, “Yes that is the reason why, now go and tell them the truth.”  And basically sent me to them to show them that B didn’t equal A.

Now, you and probably a lot of the other nonbelievers on this forum, since you’re not under the spiritual influence of A, can easily see that A does not equal B. (which is why I have so few scriptural disagreements with nonbelievers on this forum).  But for those who are under the spiritual influences that are telling them A = B, they are blinder than blind can be.  They no longer can see because they are deceived.  For example, to you it is easy to see that 4 does not equal 5, but to them, they can’t see the difference between 4 and 5 because they are under a spiritual deception that is telling them 4=5.  As Jesus said, it is better to be admittedly blind than claiming you can see when you can’t.  Because a blind man knows he is blind and asks for help (e.g. you yourself are asking how to distinguish A from B), but a blind person deceived into believing he can see is quite dangerous because he is convinced that 4=5 and is therefore beyond the help of those who can indeed see and who are trying to help him understand 4 does not equal 5.

And when youre confronted with such spiritual deception, it can be quite frustrating – it took 18 months before my girlfriend left her church.  And what won her was the fact that her church study guides were corrupting 4 to appear as 5.  When she read the bible without her church’s study guides, she could see clearly.  What I would do is sit her down and have her take a whole book of the NT, e.g. Hebrews, and read it to me and explain each verse to me as she read them.  I could sit back and not say a single word (I know that is hard to believe)  to her and allow her to completely own the conversation.  And she could see just fine that the number 5 was actually a 5.  But after she finished Hebrews, I could say, “I agree with you that it is a 5, but look, your church says it is actually a 4.”  And because of the fear instilled her that the only unforgivable sin was to leave Armstrongism, she would draw back and allow herself to be convinced by her study “guides” that it was actually a 4 and not the 5 she had perceived through her own reading.

But after 18 months of her seeing the difference between what she read on her own and what she was being told, she understood that if she couldn’t see on her own, then there was no way for her to judge who was telling the truth.  So she had to learn to trust that the bible was meant for individuals to understand, that it was written to the masses.

So, the only thing I can tell you is:  you have to trust your own eyes and don’t follow any guides.  For there are MANY unbelievers on this forum that have much better eyesight than those who claim they can see.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Basically, it is: If someone else, using your methodology (although perhaps not heuristics which come out of that methodology), comes to a different conclusion, why would you (if you would) accept your experience over theirs without agnosticism?  This seems ludicrous to me.

can you restate that using smaller words?  i've had 1.5 beers, which is a lot for me, even though I am 190 pounds, so I am not in any mood to fake having a vocabulary

also, if you could try to give me a hard-coded example, instead of using abstract A and B examples, it might help me understand where you're coming from

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jmfcst had a religious experience that he believed to be of a Christian nature, and so he has compared his experience to what is written in the scriptures and has determined that it truly was. From there he studies scripture further and comes to have a certain interpretation of it.

Billy Joe Bob Junior the Fourth, who I henceforth shall refer to as Stan just to confuse you, also had a religious experience that he believed to be of a Christian nature, and so he compared his experience to what was written in the scriptures and determined that it truly was. From there he studies scripture further and comes to have a certain interpretation of it.

However, if you were to compare the two experiences as described by these two men, they would sound very different. Also, their interpretations of scripture that too would be quite different, and in fact would be contradictory in many places. Obviously, they both can't be right, and the differences are so great that one or both of them might doubt that the source of their experience was truly of a Christian nature. Yet both of their interpretations are rather self-consistent across the scriptures, and both have arguments for their case that are rather convincing.

Is this a hypothetical, or are you thinking of something in particular?  In the non-salvational areas (timing of rapture, view of godhead, etc), I would agree there is room for disagreement  But in foundational issues concerning salvation (sin, faith, repentance, love, etc), I don’t know of any example that has come before this forum in the last 10 years where both sides of the argument are self-consistent across scripture.

So, you’ll have to give a specific example.

---

Here is an example of someone I disagree with on some nonsalvational issues, yet still accept him as someone who is saved.  Before watching this video, I new nothing about Kurt Warner being a Christian and basically I disliked him as a player – didn’t like the Rams style of play, and HATED his coach Dick Vermeil (due to cowboy-eagle rivalry days).

When I first started watching the video in the below thread, I thought Kurt was just rambling a bunch of nonsense, but as I continued to watch the video, what emerged from behind the views I disagreed with was a true testimony:

http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2009/01/thats-good.html

Did he say he believed Jesus and the Father were "two separate beings"?!

I have always thought the wording of the Trinity Doctrine, "three persons", was a very very poor choice of words that has confused many Christians, like Kurt Warner, and led Muslims and Jews to believe Christianity isn't monotheistic.

The simple truth of Christianity is that God manifested himself in human flesh, and the identity of that "being" inside of that flesh was the one and only Supreme Being, God.  And it is in complete agreement with the bible to claim that the being inside of the flesh we know as Jesus Christ, was none other than God the Father.

I figured his theological views would draw your attention jmfcst, but the whole spiritual ramblings while doodling God/Jesus was somewhat amusing/borderline crazy...Not necessarily bad crazy but the type of crazy you see when you combine John Madden, religion and a telestrator.

I actually stopped watching when I heard him claim two separate beings.

but i'll tune back in when i have a chance and listen to all of it.

just watched it.  I think he, like all of us, are kinda blow away with trying to wrap our minds around God coming to earth in the form of a man

...but now that I've seen the whole video, I think it was pretty cool and praiseworthy.  Maybe a little eccentric and slightly misguided, but Kurt Warner makes a good witness for Jesus Christ.

 
So, I didn’t accept Kurt Warner as saved due to the fact I agreed/disagreed with him on non-salvational issues, rather I accepted him because I recognized the grace of Jesus Christ within his life.

About the same thing happened at the Jerusalem council – they concluded everything Paul had been teaching was correct, but they only accepted his ministry when they recognized the grace given to Paul:

Gal 2:9 “James, Peter, and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me.”

I just want to go on the record to state that correct doctrine does not necessarily equate to being the real deal.  It is possible to be 100% right but still miss the boat, and it is possible to be wrong (at least in nonsalvational disputable matters) and still be saved.


But, as far as salvational matters go, I do not think you’re going to be able to come up with an example where you think both sides are in agreement with scripture.   So I think your ChristianA vs ChristianB hypothetical is just that – hypothetical.

(don’t misread the tone of my disagreement.  It is NOT hostile, I think it is a worthwhile thread, I just think you’re trying to create a puzzle that really doesn’t exist)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As a Catholic, I do find it bizarre when people are using Bible as if they are the logical final point of a discussion. I'd be tempted to say that they should be the beginning of a disussionn, theological or otherwise. But this is, I suppose, very beside the question.

But, doesn’t the NT itself quote scripture as proof of a given point? Example:

Gal 3:10 “All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written [in Deut. 27:26]: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.’”

If you agree the bible is the canon (i.e. standard) of the Christian faith,  surely you agree we should attempt to be in agreement with it.   Right?

---

As a Catholic, I do find it bizarre when people are using Bible quotes (often with very little eye for the spirit of the text in casu, which frequently could be unearthed by even a very casual lecture)

Please speak up anytime you think something is taken out of context.

---

Also surprising is how many American evangelicals seem to deem it important to stress they only came towards a position of belief trough some sort of epiphany. I can't see how an epiphany is necessary after the ultimate epiphany of the Holy Scripture.

Are you attempting to say the NT itself is a replacement for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You remembered a post of mine/conversation of ours from 2+ years ago?

Kudos.  I really need more fish oil/omega 3 in my diet.

well, to be honest, it was Kurt Warner's testimony that made it memorable to me.  but at least you're in there somewhere...


Navin: I know this is our first date but, do you think the next
time you make love to your boyfriend, you could think of me?

Marie: Well I haven't made love to him yet.

Navin: That's too bad. Do you think it's possible that someday you
can make love with me and think of him?

Marie: Who knows. Maybe you and he could make love and you could
think of me.

Navin: I'd just be happy to be in there somewhere.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If you would could you give your opinion on the second one I asked?

was this the 2nd question:

Also, just as an extra question to jmfcst since he believes in bad spirits that try to throw you off course: would you say there are such bad spirits that try to point people to the Bible but also try to make sure they interpret it wrong?

I think this question is answered by the original deception:

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

Eve is not the one who brought up the word of God, rather it was the serpent. Also, the devil attempted to use misuse scripture when he tempted Jesus Christ in the desert.

mat 4:5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

   “‘He will command his angels concerning you,
   and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’(Psalm 91:11,12)”

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dibble,

Not that it is conclusive or anything, but do you see how the part of my testimony concerning being made aware of the battle of spiritual forces behind the deception of Armstrongism is yet another area where my testimony is exactly in line with scripture?  

That’s not to say my doctrine is exactly in line with scripture, for my doctrine has some elements of my own influence (my own study, my own knowledge of scripture, etc, etc)…but my testimony was not a product of anything I purposely set out to do, and certainly wasn’t a product of my knowledge of scripture at the time, rather it was a revelation that was given to me.  Which is why my doctrine isn’t perfect, but the revelation given to me is.

That’s not to say my testimony includes every facet of scripture; it doesn’t (e.g. I didn’t speak in tongues).  But every facet of my testimony is included within scripture, and, obviously, there are many facets of my testimony I haven’t even discovered yet.  And even the facets of scripture my testimony lacks (e.g. not speaking in tongues), the lacking of some facets is in itself backed up by scripture:

1Cor 12:27 “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But eagerly desire the greater gifts.”

Obviously, the answer to this rhetorical line of questioning is “No”.  All Christians are not apostles, all are not prophets, all are not teachers, all are not miracle workers, all do not have the gifts of healing, all do not speak in tongues, all do not interpret someone else speaking in tongues…rather God has distributed his different gifts to different members of the body of Christ so that together they may function as one complete body.


So, as there are differing gifts, there are differing experiences.  Just because someone doesn’t have the same experience I did, that doesn’t mean their experience is less real. They may not have needed my experience, and I may not have needed theirs.  My experience happened the way it did do due to the commission God had planned out for me – to go and witness to my friends entangled in Armstrongism.

In fact, after being given my commission, I attempted not to go through with it – I didn’t want to have to go tell my friends since college that they were deceived.  I had been over to their houses many times and had eaten dinner with their parents.  And my girlfriend and I had decided a couple of days before my conversion not to contact each other until I had looked into their church (we were falling in love and so she slammed on the brakes and said it wasn’t right for her to date outside of the church, and since I already knew a lot of members of her church, I said I would check it out, but wanted to do so without her influence so that I could be convinced on my own accord…I didn’t want to be half way convinced, marry her, and then us get a divorce due to religious differences…it was a strangely heavy conversation after only a couple of months of dating…….so we agreed to stop dating while I looked into it).

I think it was a Wednesday night when I was saved (10/28/92), and we had decided a couple of days before that not to talk to each other until after I looked into it.  And I didn’t call her the night I was saved, rather I thought I perform my duty my writing her a letter and explaining what happened.  I was working on a draft of that letter when one or two days after I was saved, I got a letter from her saying she was too confounded and thought it be best we didn’t speak to each other again.   Which was fine with me because I didn’t want to do what God told me to do, and I said to myself, “Well, I know God told me to go tell them the truth, but this letter from her got me off the hook easy, I don’t have to call her again…problem solved.”  

I had a great remainder of the week and weekend and immersed myself in scripture, enjoying my new life and my relationship with God.  Then I get home from work the following Monday and she had left a message on my answering machine explaining that she felt bad about the way she had cut me off and how she would like to get together and study.  So, we had a “conversation” on the phone that night, and of course, I spilled the beans COMPLETELY.  Her roommate also went to that church as was dating one of my good friends from that church and she was pulled into the phone conversation…needless to say, it was only a matter of hours before my main circle of friends thought I had not only gone completely crazy, but also was quite taken back by my testimony.  And so it began.

But the neatest thing about the manner in which God went about saving me, was that not only did he save me, but he used my future wife (Michelle) to do so, the girl whom just one year before I couldn’t understand why I felt such a common destiny with her soul the instant I laid eyes on her.  The one I would chastise myself for being infatuated with, the one I would say to myself, “What's wrong with you jmfcst, you don’t even know this girl, Michelle? Who is she anyways? Look at her.  Look at you.  You don’t believe in soul mates or love at first sight.  You’re a dude’s dude and there are at least a couple of hundred millions girls in the world you would like to date.  Shake it off.   Forget about her.”

But I couldn’t shake her off, and I would spend the next year making sure everything in Michelle’s life went smoothly as I could make it, from her transition moving from Buffalo to Houston, to having other guys check up on her for me.  I would set up whole get-togethers with the gang and made sure she was invited and had a ticket to whatever event we were going to.  And I made sure my date was the hottest and had the most going for her out of the bunch and arranged the seating so that Michelle would be sitting by me and my date so that she would know I was way out of her league.  I wrote her  a whole series of love letters, odd because I didn’t write love letters to any other girl,  but never mailed a one; instead I kept them knowing some day she would read them.  Well, I say love letters, they were more like love-hate letters telling her she was a one huge thorn in my side, but that I loved her, and hated her for loving her.

Until about a year after I first met her, we ending up at a pool party (the kind of pool party you mingle at, not the kind you swim at) at a chartered public pool and neither of us had a date with us.  And I was very angry, at her and myself, because I wanted to ask her out but was pissed that I couldn’t explain my infatuation with her and ended up being extremely rude to her at the party – we each bounced around different friends as we worked our way towards each other and once we came together and exchanged greetings I small-talked with her for a couple of seconds and then did the following;

Me:  “So, when did you get here?” (knowing exactly the instant she walked into the party)
Michelle:  “oh, about 20 minutes ago.”
Me:  “Oh, you’ve been here 20 minutes?”....[changing my tone to a blow off tone] “I’ve only noticed you for ten.” (and I left her standing there and walked right past her)


Ha!  Not a smooth move, but I didn’t intend it to be smooth.  I was pissed for finally stumbling onto a girl I couldn’t forget.  She was taken aback by my rudeness and would comment afterward to several people at the party, “What the heck is wrong with Jay, he was so rude to me just now?!”  I would end up calling her a couple of nights later and asking her out, and giving her the pile of letters about two months after that – which is what prompted her to slam on the brakes to stop her fall with someone outside of her church.  But, I still use that line to this day on her, “Oh, you’ve been here 20 minutes?....I’ve only noticed you for ten.”  It always makes her roll her eyes – she doesn’t like weird behavior – or at least has never been able to comprehend it.

But because God placed that deep connection within me regarding her, she’s always been defined in my eyes as the focus God brought into my life in order to lead me to believe in Christ.  So, not only did God save me, he also gave me a wife (or maybe he knew a woman was the best way to get my attention).  God caught me by trickery, which is also scriptural.  And because she is defined that way to me, there is nothing she nor I could ever do to ever change her definition, for she was defined to me before she ever looked my way.  

1Cor 12:14 “What I want is not your possessions but you. After all, children should not have to save up for their parents, but parents for their children. 15 So I will very gladly spend for you everything I have and expend myself as well. If I love you more, will you love me less? 16 Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!”

He used a woman to save a womanizer who walked all over women, and allowed me to wonder for a year why I had such a strong sense that my destiny involved her, when it was Christ using her to attract me to himself all along.  That was one sly and amazing trick God played on me.  I am glad my God has a sense of humor, for his humor always includes blessings.

Also, google “I caught you by trickery."  You’ll find a bunch of antichristian sites attempting to use the verse to discredit Christianity.  Like this one:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/was_paul_a_deciever.htm

They don’t even understand the verse.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

another example of God using trickery (and no pun intended between this story and the story about my wife):

Ex 3:1 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian, and he led the flock to the far side of the desert and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. 2 There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.”
 4 When the LORD saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!”

Moses' was simply going about his business, doing what he normally does, when his attention was caught by something he couldn't understand, something he didn't think was possible.  And when Moses turned aside to confront this "strangeness" he couldnt comprehend, he found God.  Moses thought his attention was captured by a burning bush, but it was really God that was capturing his attention.

"crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!”

---

Here is another site, a "Christian" one this time, using Paul's "trickery" comment against him to show that you're only to live by the letters in red:

http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/Recommended-Reading/eden-on-false-apostle.html

what a goober of a site, lol

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Here is another site, a "Christian" one this time, using Paul's "trickery" comment against him to show that you're only to live by the letters in red:

http://www.jesuswordsonly.com/Recommended-Reading/eden-on-false-apostle.html

what a goober of a site, lol

wow, that entire "Christian" site is dedicated to trashing Paul....Now, here is a perfect example for Alcon to test and remove me completely from the picture:

Paul vs. www.jesuswordsonly.com

you should be able to use to your own "eyesight" to see which one is telling the truth and which one is full of beans.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

here's the creditials of the author of that site:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

i need some popcorn...and a beer

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

For the rest of it... tl;dr.

guess I was talking to myself then...that's ok.  got nothing better to do in Boston.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm a little confused by the side debate with jmfcst

werent you going to give me a hard coded example?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm a little confused by the side debate with jmfcst

werent you going to give me a hard coded example?

I think the South Africa analogy is pretty hard-coded

you'll have to quote it for me, cant find it