The Games We Play
by Andy Hanson
by Andy Hanson, June 19, 2014
This blog is based on ideas generated by the book, Games People Play, by Eric Berne, MD.* In it he offers the following definition of game: “A game is a series of complementary transactions progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Descriptively it is a recurring set of transactions, often repetitious, superficially plausible, with a concealed motivation; or, more colloquially, a series of moves with a snare, or ‘gimmick’…. Every game is basically dishonest, and the outcome has a dramatic, as distinct from merely exciting, quality.”
The book lists the whole series of games that people play: life games, marital games, party games, sexual games, underworld games, and consulting room games. After reading the book I know for certain what I have suspected for most of my life: I'm not a good game player. My friends know that I am naïve, tend to accept at face value what people tell me, and I try to communicate what I think and feel in a straightforward way. One illustration follows.
I was 16, parked on the hill overlooking the city of Glendale, making out with my girlfriend. When we came up for air after a long kiss, she asked me if I loved her. Needless to say, I was torn. I wasn't sure where a "yes" would lead, and the prospect was both terrifying and exciting. Upon reflection, however, I told the truth. I said "no.”
When I came to Chico State, I tried to play the game of university professor. I assumed that university classes should be hard and reasonably unpleasant if students were to learn what was required of them. I was unsympathetic when students complained about the length of my assignments and about the specificity of the questions on my tests. Both my students and I were miserable, but I assumed that I would get used to our mutual discomfort, so long as I achieved tenure. I quit playing that game when one of my best students told me to stop playing games and just be myself.
I have always loved participating in and observing what Berne identifies as pastimes. Pastimes, by his definition are “candid; may involve contest, but not conflict, and the ending may be sensational, but not dramatic.” I take that to mean that pastimes have agreed-upon rules that willing participants or observers understand and agree to. Pastimes can be and often are exciting with unpredictable outcomes, but winning is accomplished within an agreed-upon set of rules.
I can remember playing Rook on Saturday night with my parents and friends when my hands were so small that I had to go into the kitchen to arrange the cards in my hand. I played games of Monopoly that could last for days. I played Battleship with my friend Gary in a tent that could only be reached by negotiating a steep cliff. My friend Roland, who lived across the street, taught me to play poker. Ken taught me how to play Booray. I played computer games with Jim late into the night, and tested my friendship with family and friends as we played Sorry.
I listened to Dodger games on my kit-built radio, and the Los Angeles Rams, featuring Roman Gabriel and the Fearsome Foursome, were my team. Over the years I developed an interest in golf. Arnold Palmer was my hero. I watched Mohammed Ali fight and the UCLA Bruins play basketball.
As a kid I played basketball, baseball, and flag football, but because I was two years younger than my classmates at Glendale Academy, I was often the last player chosen. I went on ski trips with my class, but I didn't have the money to take lessons, and I never learned how to turn on steep slopes. I could, however, win consistently at horseshoes! Today, I fish with my brother and play golf with my friends. I would love to play poker on a regular basis, but my university playing partners have either died or moved away.
Why is it that pastimes have been and are an important part of my life? What do they do for me that other experiences don't? What needs do they satisfy? What do they indicate about me, my personality, the way I see the world, the way I want to live my life?
When I am involved with pastimes, the cares of my busy and often chaotic world disappear. Pastimes have rules, and when these rules are broken an agreed-upon penalty is assessed. The best player or team usually wins. Finally, pastimes can be played over and over again. In golf, if I don't break 100 one week, I can try again the next. If my team doesn't win the World Series or the Super Bowl, there is always next year. In short, when I am involved with sports, I am living in or imagining myself in a kind of utopia where virtue is rewarded, fairness is insisted upon, reasonable penalties are assessed for infractions of the rules, and hope need not be extinguished if I or my team does not live up to expectations.
On the other hand when I am involved with games, I find myself immersed in a chaotic world where rules can be broken and there are no agreed-upon penalties. I have to continually remind myself that virtue is not rewarded, fairness is a liability, penalties are only assessed for losing, and second chances can only be earned through cunning and a blatant disregard for the truth. For me gaming is soul-destroying, depressing, and joyless. If this is the way of the world then, in the words of the hymn, “This world is not my home.” And I want with all my heart to be at home in this world. The people I love are here. That is why I attempt to live my life as if it were a pastime, while recognizing that life is neither a pastime nor a game.
Anyone, guru or preacher, who uses words that imply life is a pastime is a fool at best or a charlatan at worst. Life is simply life. Sadly, many religious people and institutions have found it beneficial to attempt to convince us that this isn't so. They assume the role of sports analysts. They explain why bad things happen to good people and good things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to bad people. They assume that wise sayings or authoritative quotes are laws of existence. They choose to ignore the fact that a penny saved is not always a penny earned. A stitch in time does not always save nine. Bread cast on waters can fail to return. A friend in need is not always a friend indeed.
These sports analysts assume that biblical quotes always reflect reality, when in reality the prayers of the righteous do not always avail much. Faith does not move real mountains. Compassionate words do not always melt a hard heart. Ten thousand don’t always fall at your right hand, and destruction sometimes does “come nigh thee.” In this world the righteous folks seem to be treated just about the same as the unrighteous.
What concerns me here are the consequences of choosing to regard religion as a pastime. For the religious sports analysts, when bad things happen to good people, there has to be a reason. Tsunamis and hurricanes are sent to punish the wicked. Young people die in automobile accidents because parents or church congregations need to be shaken into a spiritual revival. The death of a teenage son is fortuitous because, should he have lived, he would have engaged in behavior as an adult that would have jeopardized his salvation. Children die as punishment for the sins of their parents.
If religious belief also includes the notion that a loving God will eventually punish the “wicked” by fire, rational thought must be discarded. The premise that someone who loves you will torture you in fire is nonsensical.
If Christians cannot rely upon experience and reason to explain the rules of religion as pastime, they must make a decision. They might simply reject belief in “the lake of fire,” or they might conclude that Christianity is a game, or that they are simply not intelligent enough or spiritual enough to understand how God operates in the world. These people may conclude that Christians must rely on people or institutions that have authoritative explanations for everything that happens in the world, i.e., game players.
Unsurprisingly, then, blind faith is highly valued in many Christian ministries.
However, blind faith alone cannot be relied upon to support individual or even institutional Christianity. Even in North Korea, a state that controls virtually every channel of information from the outside world, the demand for blind faith must still be accompanied by the brutal and pervasive punishment of critical thinking, as Kim Jong-un’s numerous prison camps attest. Religious leaders whose credibility depends on the blind faith of their believers must engender fear, overt or hinted at. The pastor of a mega-church in Texas decided not to play games with his parishioners when he told them that he no longer believed in hell. That admission cost him his congregation.
It is easy for me to understand why mega-churches meet in huge athletic stadiums. These settings support the notion that what is happening is a pastime rather than a game. Huge crowds can dispel critical thought and quiet the fear that always lurks when blind faith is a motivating force: fifteen thousand Christians can’t be wrong.
It's really the same old story, isn't it? Job discovered, much to his surprise and sorrow, that life isn't a pastime. When he made that discovery, the four men who attempted to comfort him were no comfort at all. He discovered that the religion of his day was a game, "a recurring set of transactions, often repetitious, superficially plausible, with a concealed motivation; or, more colloquially, a series of moves with a snare, or 'gimmick'…. basically dishonest." *
As far as I am concerned, Christian fellowship must operate as neither pastime nor game. Communication should be candid and may involve contest but not conflict or fear of being “wrong.”
An authority on church planting once advised me that those sentiments would inhibit church growth. I'm sure he was right. Perhaps that’s why Christ was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. His death is a reminder that religious game playing and blind faith can murder compassion and torture the innocent.
* Quotations are from Games People Play by Dr. Eric Berne.
https://www.amazon.com/Games-People-Play-Psychology-Relationships-ebook/dp/B005C6E76U/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401151229&sr=1-2&keywords=Games+People+Play
Andy,
Mega-churches meeting in stadiums a pastime? I can't say I've seen that description applied to them before, but it makes perfect sense. Do you think that description also applies to those who attend church but who are not finding fulfillment in ministry that demonstrates God's love?
Andy,
Transactional analysis, the psychology behind Games People Play, has real and practical benefits, as Thomas Harris MD's I'm OK, You're Ok is evidence. Psychology is real. In ways it is useful and most often useful when it is practical. I'm OK, You'rs OK is practical.
Christian fellowship is best experience among Adults, while there is inescapably plenty of Parent and Child behavior ongoing whever people get together, to take off on Harris' book. Not easy, actually, even for one who has read both books is my confession.
I'm interested how we might find Christian fellowship more congenial. Checking out Genesis 1 doesn't seem to get us there, based on subject matter alone. And reading John 13:35 often feels bewildering when barked as a command–to the reader as well as the hearer.
The trueism is that if you look across the sea and see two sailboats, in at least one cockpit there is a race going on. Just because churches don't post scores on conversations, I regret how often I've imagined having scored.
Like maybe now … get what I mean?
And giving everyone a participation trophy isn't a solution to what's wrong with games.
So tell us more about Christian fellowship.
What is it that makes John 13:35 … well … possible? Oh, that's right, it is John 13:34 … the 'as I have loved you' being not the why but the how I'm thinking. And John 3:16.
Is there some practicality here?
If not here, where?
i submit people attend church for the fellowship and social sharing, and not for the preaching. It was interesting to note the women scurrying out the door when the sermon was ongoing at 5 minutes past 12 noon, to rush home to turn the ovens off. The preacher was roasted at the sabbath dinner.
Andy: 'Pastimes, by his definition are “candid; may involve contest, but not conflict, and the ending may be sensational, but not dramatic.”'
Isn't one of the central themes of Adventist theology, being the Great Controversy, the notion that life and more importantly theodicy, isn't merely a pastime? We don't see the war between God and Satan as a mere contest, not conflict.
A good cartoon illustration, is how Satan is often portrayed as an equal underlord of Hell. He is in contest with God, but ultimately God sees Satan as a somewhat equal player. In this way, Satan plays his part in the contest, in being God's garbage man for those who don't follow the rules to get into heaven.
I don't see the Adventist concept of the Great Controversy like that at all. God is in total, no-hands bar war with Satan. In fact, not just Satan, but evil and death itself. God doesn't respect Satan as an equal-like but opposite player in the game, but is engaged in a bar-fight to the death. And like all total wars, unlike games of monopoly, there is "collateral damage", where innocent people suffer – sh*t just happens (to excuse my french).
Andy: '…It is easy for me to understand why mega-churches meet in huge athletic stadiums. These settings support the notion that what is happening is a pastime rather than a game.'
It seems to me that a 'past-time' approach to religion is essentially magic (or more accurately magick with a "k", to embrace Crowley's definition as a religious philosophy). You are right Andy, in the sense that the Prosperity Gospel message behind the popularity of the mega churches is very much that of a pastime.
One follows the 'rules' to force God to give you a guranteed outcome of health, money and wisdom. The world is, by contrast, a very different reality. It is brutal, and cruel, and bad things continue to happen to good people, and good things continue to happen to bad people. So observed the wisest man in Eccelesiastes, one of my favourite books.
There may be a 'high reason', but we'll never know it, so don't focus too much on trying to understand it. That is what I take from the first and last chapters of Job.
Andy: '“A game is a series of complementary transactions progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Descriptively it is a recurring set of transactions, often repetitious, superficially plausible, with a concealed motivation; or, more colloquially, a series of moves with a snare, or ‘gimmick’…. Every game is basically dishonest, and the outcome has a dramatic, as distinct from merely exciting, quality.”
Job discovered, much to his surprise and sorrow, that life isn't a pastime. When he made that discovery, the four men who attempted to comfort him were no comfort at all. He discovered that the religion of his day was a game, "a recurring set of transactions, often repetitious, superficially plausible, with a concealed motivation; or, more colloquially, a series of moves with a snare, or 'gimmick'…. basically dishonest." *
As far as I am concerned, Christian fellowship must operate as neither pastime nor game.'
Not sure about that Andy. I agree life is not a pastime; but it may well be just a game. And maybe religion is indeed a game.
'Communication should be candid and may involve contest but not conflict or fear of being “wrong.”'
Wouldn't that be suggesting Christianity should be treated as a pastime, which you have just spent a whole article earlier denouncing? Maybe I'm not getting your point here about how Christians are meant to behave, if neither a pastime not a game?
Seems to me, Andy, we can all relax totally. Even so far as this so-called theodicy is concerned. Its game, set and match. 'Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.' John 16.33
Andy, good work in bringing to this forum an important area for discussion. There are many aspects and complexities of game theory, and as Bill has suggested, game theory has many practical applications in fields ranging from computer science to economics, including mathematical modeling and decision theory (and their practical applications).
Many types of games have been identified and studied (transactional psychology is but one of many fields in which game theory has been useful). It strikes me that many of the discussions we have in this arena would benefit from some game analyses. We would, I suspect, upon very careful analysis, find that the various parties to the discussions are playing different games–or at least are not playing by the same rules.
The debate stimulated by Jack's Grand Canyon essay is a case in point. One or more of the parties to that debate is sure to ask me to explain just exactly what I mean by that. My anticipatory response is, "go figure it out for yourself." I'm not going to play that endless-arguing-about-trivia-to-avoid-seriously-looking-at-the-larger-picture game that is so typical of some participants.
Joe,
I agree with your observation about the many games people play. One of my grad school professors did his PhD on Game Theory at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. (Are you surprised they would offer such a study program? Duh!) One thing I remember from one of his lectures was how people play games with certain objectives in mind. A big contributor to the complexity in human behavior is we may not even recognize that what we're doing is a "game" with an objective.
I also agree with your desire to focus on the "big picture." Many of the games I have seen people play in the church are intended to cultivate power under the illusion of doing God's work instead of being subject to God's authority and following His directions.
Joe,
I was thinking the very same thing about the Grand Canyon discourse 8-).
I read Byrne's book as an Academy student and it helped me understand many things.
When my eldest son in adolescence began to seriously butt-heads with his mother I gave him this book and said "read it". Afterwards he came to me with a smile on his face and said "you're right". I knew better than to ask his mother to also read the book if I wanted to stay married. The inner parent reflexively views anyone who disagrees as a child.
One must not however view all irrational arguments this way. In systems engineering there is a saying that ignorance and ineptitude strike on a much broader front than the deliberate perpetrator. So before I assume that a problem is due to deliberate acts, I must first allow for ignorance and ineptitude. In the case of the Great Controversy over the Grand Canyon, I have still not ruled-out ignorance and ineptitude on a massive scale 8-).
~~"If religious belief also includes the notion that a loving God will eventually punish the “wicked” by fire, rational thought must be discarded. The premise that someone who loves you will torture you in fire is nonsensical."
Another game that people play as well as some theologians who assert – "God does not kill."
If you really believe that why is there death today?
Maranatha
why is there death today?
There is death today because SIN KILLS. It is part of the devil's BIG LIE to blame God for what are the natural inevitable consequences of the actions of demons and humans.
This is not to deny that God can and does intervene in earthly affairs. There are indeed some occasions where God has intervend to destroy sinners. There are many, many more occasions where God has intervend to save sinners from destruction.
Even as a metaphor, the concept that "sin kills" and its function in the singular Adventist imaginary war of God versus Satan, the Great Controversy, is so specious that even flat earthers have a source for a good laugh. The concept of death as an intruder into a perfect universe, even as a convenient myth, as fodder for clueless nincompoops, fails every test of sensibility and reason. And the contention that God has popped off a few malcontents (by his judgment) on whim is insane.
This is a mental theme park, Six Flags Over the Earth, based on the human creation of God as Superguy, and the Devil as a rascally Superguy wannabe. (Darn, too bad Disney hadn't read the Great Controversy, else he might have built the his ultimate creation next to GC headquarters!)
My point is, Jim, you are an intelligent, educated person. How do you justify the exercise of the Adventist shibboleths that are so vacuous?
Jim,
“You are an intelligent, educated person;” so how can you possibly NOT see that the path taken by ‘Bugs,’ ‘cb25,’ Joe Erwin, Ryan Bell, Elaine Nelson, Ervin Taylor, who are all “intelligent, educated [persons]” is indeed a logical and inevitable progression?
There is no middle ground my friend. Our friend ‘Bugs,’ of course has to denigrate those of faith as “clueless nincompoops.”
Well I do not mind it if others laugh at me. If I could not laugh at myself I would spend far too much time crying.
I will let God who knows the human heart far better that you or I, be the judge of who is going to end-up where and how they are going to end-up there. As I said in the SS class I visited yesterday, I think we are all in for a fair number of surprises when we get to heaven, especially the Adventists who think we already know all of the answers.
Well I do not mind it if others laugh at me. If I could not laugh at myself I would spend far too much time crying.
I will let God who knows the human heart far better that you or I, be the judge of who is going to end-up where and how they are going to end-up there. As I said in the SS class I visited yesterday, I think we are all in for a fair number of surprises when we get to heaven, especially the Adventists who think we already know all of the answers.
Stephen,
You and your friends to my right, seem far too willing to consign your online rogue's gallery to the dustbin of history. For my part, so many of my friends have headed down this very same path away from the religion of my youth for a variety of reasons. If I give up hope for so many of my friends then might I find heaven a rather lonely place?
While you and your fellow sojourners sit in your heavenly valley waiting for your chance to say "I told you so" to Bugs-Larry and his friends, I plan to use my new knees to climb-up the mountains of God, look around and see what other valleys there are to explore. I figure there will be no shortage of other people to get acquainted with. How boring if everyone in Heaven ends up being Adventist, and all they can talk about is Ellen.
On the other hand I would love to have a chance to chat with Ellen herself, William, Charles, Martin, Jean, Moses, Daniel, Bugs-Larry, Joe, Jack and many others. Jesus is going to have a whole lot of interesting friends for us to meet. Most of them will not be in "our" valley.
Disneyland Creators would have a field day just reading Revelation and designing an entire theme park with all the wildly, imaginative creatures of John.
Bugs-Larry,
We have already had much of this conversation before. So I will spare the other readers most of the details and cut striaght to the chase. I think God is an expert in the salvage business. And I think that nut-cases like you and I probably represent some of His/Her/Their more challenging projects. Let's compare notes when we have more information in the sweet bye-and-bye. And let me remind you once again that if you find yourself on the down-elevator please remember not to push the Open Door button at the bottom.
To the friends on my left side, the fool has said in his heart that there is no God.
To the friends on my right side, I do not believe in once-lost always-lost.
I think God has an amazing capacity to reach different people in different ways. Otherwise there is no hope beyond the grave for any of us. We are all a work-in-progress.
Yes Jim, that’s all warm and fuzzy, not to mention holier than I am. Listen friend, I’m not talking about heaven. It’s not my job to judge people or decide who is going to heaven.
I am talking about how change happens (or is it the games people play?).
That said, I’ll wager some heavenly fruit that the vast majority of citizens of heaven will be non-SDAs—and give odds. This demonstrates that you’ve missed the point.
Further, this isn’t about Adventism per se. This is about believing who Jesus was. This is the same path…or “way” if you will, that these (AT) “intelligent and educated persons” and “so many of [your other intelligent and educated] friends” have taken; and you know this is true. But even if you don’t, it’s still true.
You approach these good folk the way you feel most comfortable doing so Jim. Since you believe that foolish people believe that there is no God, why coddle them (especially since they are “intelligent and educated”) on their inevitable path to foolishness—unless of course you somehow don’t believe this path to be slippery and downhill. (Perhaps I should ask you how many examples, in how many continents, you need.)
You misread me rather profoundly my man. Check this blog out I authored a few years ago on this site https://atoday.org/article/297/opinion/foster-stephen/2010/seventh-day-atheists
(It’s too bad that comments from that far back had been removed when the site changed format somewhat, probably around 2011.)
Stephen,
Thanks for the pointer – a good article and I would agree with almost all of it.
We may both mis-read each other. I do believe that everyone in heaven will be there by the grace of God and the atonement of Christ. But that does not mean that everyone will know or agree in advance why we are there.
How much God straightens us out in this life vs the life to come is an interesting question that Adventists have chewed-on since we became Adventists. When I was young I thought I was pretty good at straightening people out. Now that I know how poor a job I do, I try to leave this problem in the hands of God, who is far more qualified than I to deal with it.
So I am more inclined to try to love and understand other people than to try to fix their personal problems. Not that this inhibits me from publicly questioning and disagreeing with others at times 8-).
I still like to believe that while there is life there is hope. As I say we are all still very much a work-in-progress.
Well perhaps you’ve answered my implied question. Maybe you somehow don’t believe that ‘we’ who consciously and knowingly refuse to believe are on a slippery and downhill path.
You appear to be of the mindset that it doesn’t make any difference what we believe, but rather how we live; which, of course, is salvation by works. But then, maybe I misread you altogether.
Apparently we both “believe that while there is life there is hope;” but hope in and for what is the question.
Stephen,
I would encourage you and anyone else following this particular topic, to read carefully what I have recently written about the very same questions on Jack's Grand Canyon page.
For those who do not care to go there let me excerpt one piece of my latest reply to Chris:
"Well Chris, you and I both know the limitations of speculation regarding who any of us would be had we been born and reared in a different time or place. Not to mention the limitations of speculation about free choice vs determinism. Interesting topics to contemplate and discuss – but not too many strong conclusions can be drawn.
This is one of the big reasons why I try not to box God in regarding how He/She/They deal with different individuals. Here as elsewhere honest enquiry yields more questions than answers. And here as elsewhere I have a deep-seated suspicion of those who think they know the answers. It is all too easy to project one's own experiences onto other people. Sometimes we are right but often we are wrong."
You appear to be of the mindset that it doesn’t make any difference what we believe, but rather how we live; which, of course, is salvation by works.
I believe we are saved by grace. Creation of free moral agents was a supernatural act of grace if you believe in Divine foreknowledge. Rescuing us from our fallen condition was an even greater supernatural act of grace. These concepts stretch human comprehension to the limits.
I believe that one's internal beliefs will affect one's external actions, often in unexpected ways. God has made us all in the Divine image. As fallen humans we have each re-made God in our own distorted images. In a very real way we show what kind of god(s) we serve by how we live our lives. The extent to which this a matter of choice vs determinism I will leave to God. Christian theologians have certainly not agreed on these questions given two millennia of debate.
I believe that Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, is the singular undistorted Image of God in humanity since the fall of Adam and Eve. At the moment Jesus is not phycally present among us, so we can only clearly discern Him through the power of the Holy Spirit.
I believe that is only by the grace of God that slaves to sin have any meaningful freedom to choose what to believe and how to live. But time and circumstance definitely constrain our choices in ways we do not completely understand. We do not all have identical degrees of freedom.
When I look at someone who appears rather different from myself, I can inwardly say "but for the grace of God there go I". Meanwhile that other person can inwardly say the same regarding me 8-). The former statement acknowledges much about myself. The latter acknowledges even more.
I could cite you many Bible verses but I think you already know them.
I could cite you many Bible verses but I think you already know them.
Matthew 21:28-32
I lied (cf Arnold and every other actor and politician 8-).
Maybe you somehow don’t believe that ‘we’ who consciously and knowingly refuse to believe are on a slippery and downhill path.
I think that we are all on a slippery slope. Just not all on the same slope or at the same point on the slope. How God saves any of us off our slippery slope is a miracle and a mystery. Ellen said we will spend eternity studying this mystery.
I do not expect that all of us are moving in the same direction relative to God. People coming to God from different places are usually moving in different directions to get there. And if I may invoke the Triangle Inequality, those who are moving closer to God are also moving closer to each other. Or stated in the negative, if you and I are moving farther apart, at least one and possibly both of us, are moving away from God.
My own lifeline is Jesus. The Bible and Ellen can teach me a lot about Jesus (I recommend Desire of Ages as a must-read if you want to know more about Jesus) but they are not my lifeline. Having climbed mountains, I think of Jesus as my belayer and the Holy Spirit as my rope.
Having fallen and only lived to tell about it because I had a good lifeline, I try to concentrate on my own route and not on other climbers on other routes who may also be slipping or dangling. I have told this story to children in church and in chapel. I harness-up with my sling and carabiners. I explain how Jesus is like my friend Howard who had already climbed the route, who kept me from being killed when I slipped and fell with his skillful belay. After chapel two of the teachers told me that if they went climbing they would like to take both Jesus and Howard with them.
We seem to be conducting the same conversation on two separate threads here Jim.
One of my many weaknesses is that I am so left brain oriented that I have great difficulty communicating to and understanding those who are right brain oriented. Maybe that is why I’m not apparently making sense to you and vice versa. (I don’t know if you’re left brained or right brained but this seems familiar.)
What on earth does the reality that we’re all on some sort of slippery slope or another have to do with the certain, particular slope on which Chris, Bugs, Joe, and Elaine among others have slid? These people claim to have at one time believed in Jesus as their Savior and now apparently don’t believe this. (Some aren’t in the dawn of life.) In other words, some claim to be consciously, deliberately distancing themselves from God as a matter of choice; rather than moving toward him from another direction, or whatever.
You’re not suggesting that you are so wrapped up in your own challenges that you cannot be concerned with others’ issues. I don’t buy that for a minute, but that sure is what you’ve indicated. I could be wrong, and that wouldn’t be news, but I believe this middle ground stance that you claim is more confused (and confusing)—and inexplicable than the ‘place’ where Chris, Bugs, et al are.
On the other thread (re: ‘Grand Canyon’) I think that Chris may be suggesting that if and when you get to where he is, you will be less confused and confusing. I think he’s right!
Then again, he’s absolutely wrong about Jesus; and you are absolutely right about Jesus. You’re confusing to him because you won’t/can’t tell him he’s wrong and you’re right. (So he’s saying anybody can be either.)
What does the reality that we’ve all been traumatized by sin have to do with the clearly common spiritual/cultural/emotional/theological abuse that some Adventists on these boards have evidenced? That’s the copout language of copout tactics.
Please provide an example of the authoritarian language and rhetoric to which you refer. You surely can’t be talking about disagreements in which you claim to be right and someone who disagrees with you wrong.
What does the reality that we’ve all been traumatized by sin have to do with the clearly common spiritual/cultural/emotional/theological abuse that some Adventists on these boards have evidenced? That’s the copout language of copout tactics.
Well Stephen, if you consider my description of how I dealt with the trauma of abusive church school teachers to be a cop-out, then I am at a loss for further explanation. It is easy to talk high and mighty when you have not had to walk in the shoes of those you can readily dismiss as fallen, backslidden or taking a wrong turn to inevitable darkness and doom. God emptied all of heaven by sending Jesus to seek and to save such as these.
Ultimately it is not you or I who bear the responsibility for sin, but Jesus Christ who took all of our sins upon Himself at the cross. Admitting that I cannot heal my own wounds and desperately need a Savior is not a cop-out as I see it. Admitting that some trauma scars will not be healed in this life is not a cop-out as I see it.
Nor is it a cop-out to report that different people have responded to their particular trauma in different ways. And that the means the Holy Spirit uses to reach me might not work for someone else who is in a different place. And I totally disagree that having the faith to believe that God has not given-up or written-off those who have taken different turns in life than I have taken, is in any sense a cop-out.
Please provide an example of the authoritarian language and rhetoric to which you refer. You surely can’t be talking about disagreements in which you claim to be right and someone who disagrees with you wrong.
The difference between authoritative and authoritarian is the difference between having the first say and having the last say. When considering a question where I need help, I tend to consult first the sources I consider to be most authoritative. But I may also consider other sources that have different answers or explanations. In the end after looking at the question from several different angles I can decide which one or more of the sources to believe, or decide that I still do not know the answer. I do not consider that I have mastered any subject until I have found multiple good potential answers and am able to compare and evaluate them.
Authoritarian on the other hand, means that you must have the final say. That anything or anyone who disagrees with this source is simply wrong. That there is no need to consult other sources or consder other viewpoints. That I abdicate the capability to search for myself and think for myself. That as long as I conform with the one true authority I have no responsibility for consequences. That I can be compelled to conform, and in turn compel others to conform, simply by invoking the authority. And by warning them of the dire consequences of failure to conform.
For me I see God as authoritative but not authoritarian. He is all-wise and all-knowing. Nevertheless He encourages me to investigate and evaluate what I will believe and what I will do. He says "come now and let us reason together". He does not need to compel everyone to conform because He does not need to prove anything to Himself. None of which denies that there are better or worse consequences from better or worse choices. And that God encourages us by all loving means of persuasion to make the better choices. But the God I serve is not the ultimate control freak.
I would encourage you to go back and read through the various comments on Atoday and decide which commenters are trying to present and explain evidence from various sources and which are simply insisting that their answers and their sources are the only ones worth considering. That all other sources are inferior and untrustworthy and meritless. Then I will let you decide for yourself whether you can see any difference between authoritative and authoritarian.
You didn’t copout in your school incident. You copped out by responding to my observation that some of the vitriol (toward the God of the Bible, the Bible, Christianity, Adventism, EGW) on these boards is evidence of past trauma to certain individuals, with your statement that we’ve all been traumatized by sin, which ignored it altogether. Remember that my statement about trauma followed your story about your particular classroom incident; and actually was a reaction to it.
The fact is that you also copped out regarding the undeniable slippery slope toward unbelief that specific regular participants have even been candid enough to have admitted taken, by your observation of the vacuously obvious—that we’re all on some slippery slope.
I see this ruffles you but these are both avoidances of the particular points; if “copout” is too harsh, then “avoidances.”
I have never once ever suggested that God has given up on or written off these individuals, or anyone else Jim. However some of these individuals have said that they have given up on or essentially written off the notion of God. I prefer to take those statements seriously. You’ll just have to get over that. But the suggestion that anyone has suggested that God has given up on or written off these individuals is a canard.
If citing Exodus 20:11 is authoritarian and therefore unfair or something; so be it. We should agree that is a claim that either was or was not made. I have no issue with those who believe Moses was the Wizard of Oz (claiming to be in contact with ‘the Wizard;’ but pulling off one big hoax). I disagree with that notion of course; I think that ‘The Claim’ was authentic. At the very least, we should agree that it was one or the other.
In that Grand Canyon/age discussion, Bob Pickle argued erosion? and I argued confirmation bias. Others argued that the science on this was settled, overwhelming, etc.—which sounds authoritarian—and suggested that we were rather “ignorant.” Maybe I’m getting authoritarian and authoritative confused.
OK Stephen, I think I am beginnig to understand what you were trying to say. But I myself do not feel vitriol, though I have experienced trauma. That is the beauty of learning to forgive. Forgiveness however is not denial. I certainly agree that where there is not forgiveness grievances can fester into vitriol. I have seen and felt this vitriol in people very close to me. But for the grace of God there go I.
But I am unwillig to accept that God no longer reaches out to these people. This is not a cop-out. You have asserted that thier current position is an inevitable consequence of their own chices. I would agree that it is a likely or expected consequence of their own choices. But when you insist that it is inevitable then I will and do push-back vigorously. My God excels in the unexpected. With humans this may seem impossible, but with God all things are possible. That is why there is hope for me and every other person who has ever been traumatized by sin.
Authoritative allows for the reality that there is yet more to know. Authoritarian pronounces the final answer with no room for dissent. I do not apologize for pushing-back against authoritarianism. As I said, I have seen the dark side of this mode of reasoning.
In the Grand Canyon discussion you and Bob have taken an authoritarian stance. Your plea that some on the other side have also taken authoritarian stances is valid. But it does not justify your own stance. Nothing is gained by authoritarianism on either side, except perhaps some reassurance for those who are insecure with accepting the uncertainty that is a consequence of our fallen condition.
Where there can be no room for doubt, there can be no room for faith. This is as true for a crationist as for an evolutionist. Confirmation bias may be an explanation for authoritarianism, but it is a flimsy justification.
“But I am unwilling to accept that God no longer reaches out to these people.”
Of course God still “reaches out to these people,” Jim; and again, no one had even hinted that He doesn’t! You however insist on missing the point that they claim to no longer believe. That’s the point man; and the inevitability is the result of a logical progression/conclusion.
I push back on the notion that denying this reality, or agreeing with their thinking, will somehow magically do some good. I don’t recall Bob Pickle or me threatening those who disagree with us with damnation or anything of the sort Jim. Unless I misunderstand, you seem to have an issue with us citing the Bible. Yet in all my discussions with Joe I don’t recall citing any scripture whatsoever.
So perhaps you view us as dogmatic; and are saying that dogmatism is authoritarian. Be that as it may, I do not apologize for citing the Bible Jim; even if I have rarely done so.
You will agree with me, won’t you, that if Exodus 20:11 is indeed an accurate and authentic claim that God actually made, it would represent the final authoritative, definitive, and last word on the subject; or at least should for those who claim belief in the God of scripture. Is this an authoritarian view Jim; or would such an authentic claim be authoritative? If it’s authoritarian, what is there to push back against if it’s also true?
(I have observed, quite candidly, that if a regional clergyman, compensated by a regional conference, publicly expressed doubt about the veracity of the Genesis account of creation, as has Darrel, he’d be seeking employment elsewhere. That may be authoritarian by your lights; and if it is, so be it. I don’t do the hiring or firing; I’m just telling you what would happen.)
Things that are hoped for and/or things that are unseen produce/yield “room for doubt.” Having room for doubt is one thing; but promoting doubt is entirely something else.
Well in much prior dialogue with both Chris and Bugs-Larry I have challenged their assertions about thier belief and/or non-belief. If you take the touble to study these dialogs carefully you will see that Chris and Bugs-Larry are in somewhat different places spiritually. But to perceive this you need to dig beneath the surface by asking them many questions, rather than simply stating your conclusions.
Hogwash! I’ve dialogued with Chris and Bugs. I’ve dialogued with Chris as much as anyone has on this site, for years. It was from dialoguing with Bugs that I perceived trauma (which he has denied).
I know that they know that you empathize with them and are empathetic to their perspective—much more than I am. But neither can deny that I have dialogued with them, and with Chris, extensively.
(Don’t jumping to conclusions and/or leading with assumptions that aren’t factual exemplify confirmation bias?)
As for either of them (or anyone) being on a spiritual spectrum of sorts—and where they stand relative to each other—is not for me to say. But I’ve read much of what they’ve written and take them at their words. I also recognize and appreciate that their journeys were not all that dissimilar. You can ignore or rationalize the pattern all you want; it doesn’t change the reality.
How many examples, on how many continents…?
Well I suppose that those of us who do not see things exactly your way must all be full of hogwash 8-).
Mr. Foster, you make the claim that "Darrel" doubts the veracity of the Genesis account of creation." I think I can speak for him, to verify that he does not doubt its veracity one wit. Though he might doubt yours!
My apologies Darrel if I’ve misunderstood you, or should I say your Creation position. I may have (and apparently have) taken your discussions with Bob out of context. Regarding scripture’s creation narrative, since you “[do] not doubt its veracity one wit” that settles it as far as I’m concerned.
Not that what I think matter much, but since I’ve clearly mischaracterized your position, I apologize and greatly appreciate the clarification.
Jim, you are not full of hogwash; the suggestion that I haven’t done what you have, in terms of dialoguing with and questioning Chris and Bugs, is hogwash.
I see this ruffles you but these are both avoidances of the particular points; if “copout” is too harsh, then “avoidances.”
You should know that when I am reading or writing on this web site I am usually smiling and sometimes chuckling as I am right now 8-). Which does not mean I would I bother to spend all of this time on something I did not enjoy doing? The only ruffles you could see on me right now are products of advancing age.
(oops – the foregoing got broken in the editing)
You should know that when I am reading or writing on this web site I am usually smiling and sometimes chuckling as I am right now 8-). Which does not mean I am not thinking about what I am reading or writing. Why would I bother to spend all of this time on something I did not enjoy doing? The only ruffles you could see on me right now are products of advancing age.
There are some things that tend to rub me the wrong way. One is demagoguery of any kind. Another is accusations that I am lying. And then there is authoritarianism regarding any position, especially spiritual authoritarianism.
I don’t know if you’re left brained or right brained but this seems familiar.
Actually I am in the minority that seem to make fairly balanced use of both sides. I take this from some psychological experiments performed on myself by my wife in the course of her graduate studies, and also from some leadership and management training I have undergone in my own profession.
For one of her graduate psychology classes my wife administered a test that attempted to evaluate how people use various mental capabilities. I scored very strongly on both "abstract sequential" and "concrete random" which in that particlular analytical model are polar opposites. The textbook offered no explanation for this combination. My wife showed the results to her professor and asked him what they meant. After studying it for a few minutes he said "this person should be a consultant" to which my wife replied "he is". She and I were impressed that this professor clearly was better than the textbook (which is not always the caes).
FYI – abstract sequential is considered by some to be a strongly left-brained activity whereas concrete random is considered by them to be a strongly right-brained activity. However one of the major points of this particular class was to debunk that overly-simplistic view of the brain/mind. There are lots of different mental skills that map differently in different people.
In one leadership training class we were given a test intended to help us understand how we deal with conflict. The results of this test were plotted on three axes or lobes (with different colors). There were separate plots for modes of dealing with moderate conflict and with strong conflict. By superimposing these two plots one could see a "conflict vector" that showed how our responses changed as a conflict escalated. Most people's "conflict vectors" gravitated towards one of the three lobes as the conflict escalated whereas mine was in the minority that gravitated towards the center.
It is interesting to speculate about the conflict vectors of the various commenters on this web site. Someone like Joe might find if interesting to do a plot for each of the commenters and compare them. In my professional career I have at times been paid very well to work towards resolving very difficult conflicts where there were major business interests at-stake. I have also been paid a lot on some occasions to represent various entrenched stake-holders. Sometimes I have been paid to do both simultaneously which can be very interesting.
Regardless of my clients' desires, I have always tried to advise them of the strengths and weaknesses of their own positions vis-a-vis their competitors, and to advise them on developing contingencies in case things do not go their way. Many clients do not like it when I point-out their own vulnerabilities. In the case of the $ billion lawsuit where I was being deposed, I maintained a very strong technical position on the record while off-camera I was urging both sides to settle. Eventually they did.
Physically I am not ambidextrous, but for some activites I prefer one hand while for others activities I prefer the other hand. And as a mental and physical challenge I like to play some one-handed games with both hands.
(So if you suspected that I am rather atypical you now have both formal and anecdotal evidence 8-).
So then, you clearly have no excuse for jumping to erroneous conclusions so often!8-)
There is an egregious authoritarian bias in your comment.
You think that when I write something I am stating a conclusion.
I think that when I write something I am offering ideas for further consideration.
I do not need to make excuses for ideas.
I meant to make you smile Jim. Of course to you’ve jumped to conclusions. I can recite a few of them. We all occasionally do so, of course. I’m not saying you’re not smart brother. Lighten up; you’re smart but you’re fallible. Every conclusion you jump to is not an “idea,” neither is it necessarily accurate.
Correction: Of course you’ve previously jumped to…
Nowhere have I claimed to be infallible nor do I have any such delusions at this stage in my life. I have collected some consulting fees, salaries and bonuses for doing highly accurate work, but reading and writing here is entirely a hobby.
I am not afraid of being wrong. Without failed experiments there are many things I would never have learnt. I have had the rare good fortune to be given substantial time and money to do experiments with a substantial risk of failure, because there was a substantial potential reward should they succeed.
Of course if I did not have a track record of succeeding more often than I failed, and of succeeding where others had failed, I would have had no repeat customers or long-term employers.
In my own way I view this web site as one of my latest experiments 8-). It may yet bcome a failed experiment. But I am not afraid of failure.
The discourse on AToday is so revealing. No arguments or rejoinders are more revealing that the statements each person makes. The relative levels of compassion and generosity, and tolerance of ambiguity versus authoritarianism, are astonishingly clear. Dear friends, may I say once again, love one another, and treat each other with the respect you wish for yourself. The manner of interaction with others says more than anything else about your values and who you worship.
Joe,
Again, as Joan Rivers asks, can we talk; as in be perfectly candid?
Here is the first Bible I will quote to you brother, John 8:7. You are on record on the ‘Grand Canyon’ thread as having referred to someone (who happens not to agree with you) in less than compassionate, generous, and tolerant terms.
Jim and I don’t agree in our respective approaches to…surprise, surprise…Bugs, Chris, you, etc. I think that you deserve credit for intellectual integrity; and have said so repeatedly. We agree (Jim and me) that those who really don’t believe that God exists (which may not include you) are foolish. We don’t agree on how logically inevitable such disbelief will be for those who do not regard the Bible as God-breathed and begin to doubt its veracity.
The funny part is that when one claims to be non-religious, non-Christian, or agnostic, one can look at Christians and criticize behavior on an arbitrary, ad hoc basis. If ever you don’t exhibit Christian qualities yourself, it’s OK because you’re not a Christian. When you perceive (or misperceive) professed Christians not exhibiting Christian qualities you can say, “Ah ha…what kind of God is that?”
Jim appears to agree with you, or at least is empathetic, to your perspectives about earth age and scientific observation generally. So you see him as more loving and tolerant; and me as less so. There are other topics with which you might agree more with me than with someone else. Then I might be perceived as more the tolerant and loving one. This strikes me as conveniently self-serving brother.
Jim appears to agree with you, or at least is empathetic, to your perspectives about earth age and scientific observation generally.
I have never said how old I think the earth is. I have said that I DO NOT KNOW how old is the earth. I have said that I have never read in the Bible that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that nobody has ever showed me that Bible verse. Even if I think the earth is 6,000 years old, I have to allow for the possibility that I might be mistaken.
I have no problem with people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old. I do have a problem with people who claim they can PROVE that the earth is 6,000 years old. So far the only "proofs" I have seen, including on Atoday, are shot full of holes. But then so are the "proofs" that it is 4.5 billion years old (give or take half a billion). There are as many problems with the "chronological column" used to "prove" 6,000 years as with the "geological column" used to "prove" 4.5 billion years, and vice versa.
Jim appears to agree with you, or at least is empathetic, to your perspectives about earth age and scientific observation generally.
I generally do not find attempts to demonstrate the plausibility of singular "miraculous" events described in the Bible, via scientific arguments, to be very persuasive. Usually such attempts come across as junk science and/or junk theology.
God is God. God can and does do whatever He/She/They decide to do, without the necessity of catering to our understanding of the principles of natural science. As the Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos (and possibly many other things that we know nothing about) there is no dichotomy for God regarding singular actions vs recurring natural processes.
The record (thankfully there is one) should show that “I [too] have never said how old I think the earth is.” I agree that the Bible does not say; and, for that matter, also does not say how long the earth “was without form and void,” as I’ve indicated.
For those who believe the Bible and regard it as authoritative there is much more scriptural evidence that the world as we know is closer to 6,000 years than it is 4.5 billion years old.
That last paragraph (starting “God is God.”) is one that I almost wish I had written. (You may want to reconsider.:-)
Correction: …for the world that we know…
Oops again: …more scriptural evidence that the world we know is indeed closer to…
I should have written:
"God is God. God can and does do whatever He/She/They decide(s) to do, without the necessity of catering to our understanding of the principles of natural science or of theology. As the Creator and Sustainer of the cosmos (and possibly many other things that we know nothing about) there is no dichotomy for God regarding singular actions vs recurring natural processes."
Now perhaps Stephen can back away from his qualified endorsement of this paragraph that he almost wished he had written?
I thought you might want to reconsider.;-)
Jim and I don’t agree in our respective approaches to…surprise, surprise…Bugs, Chris, you, etc.
Second only to the Bible, the book Desire of Ages has had a huge impact on my understanding of the character of God as revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. One of the things that I find most striking about Jesus is that He could see in a totally unbiased manner what each individual He met actually was (the "eye of fact"), and at the same see in a highly biased manner what these same individuals could become through His power (the "eye of faith").
I make no apologies for attempting to see in others their God-given potential. I will leave it to God whether and how that potential is realized.
I also make no apologies for deliberately trying to look at many situations and questions through both the "eye of fact" and the "eye of faith".
One of the reasons why babies have such a hard time tracking objects is binocular vision. The brain learns through training to superimpose two different images of the same thing, to construct its visual models of reality. In almost everyone either the left or the right eye is "dominant" in the sense that the visual cortext on one side primarily identifies the image and the visual information from the other side is used for supplemental details only. There are several experiments I could suggest for you to determine which is your dominant eye. And also exercises which can strengthen your use of both eyes.
So with the matter of the "binocular vision" of the"eye of fact' and the "eye of faith". For most observers one or the other of these "eyes" is dominant. The extreme dominance of one eye or the other is manifestly evident in many of the comments on Atoday. I would encourage every observer to try to strengthen the use of boths eyes. Each can reveal important details that are not apparent from the other.
Many of my comments here that people find to be confusing, are deliberate attempts to provoke habitually "one-eyed" people to begin using their other eye as well.
Dear brothers, Jim, Stephen, Larry, Darrel, Chris, Bob, Erv, and sisters Elaine and Ella, and others. Thank you for helping me understand a little bit more about the thinking of people in and around adventism today. Each of you makes important contributions to the understanding that each of us takes from these discussions.
Much that Jim says resonates with me, although we disagree substantially on some things. At the same time, there have been times when Stephen has shown a more generous side than those who were disagreeing with him. What Larry and Chris and Elaine and Erv write is often in agreement with my perspective. I don't often agree with Bob, but he does deserve my respect and due consideration. Maybe we can all get along….
The binocular vision analogy suggested by Jim is interesting to give us a way of thinking about different perspectives. I am wary, though, of the right-brain left-brain over-simplification. Brain laterality is a pretty complex issue in itself, and the laterality of behavior is pretty complicated too. Some people are exceptionally lateralized–almost to the point of being handicapped in not being able to use one side much.
I do not throw a ball very well left handed, although I am able to bowl or throw darts about as well with one hand as the other. I cannot write very well left-handed, but I find it feels quite natural to use a fork in my left hand (European style). And chop sticks work alright in either hand. But what about thinking? A combination of creative intuition with physical evidence and quantitative data works well for me. While I can be quite independent, conversation with others is stimulating and helpful.
The biggest difficulty I have with these discussions is the recurrent theme of Young Earth Creation. The creation part does not bug me as much as the young earth part. I am not tied down to some specific time for the Big Bang or the origin of life. I do not really care much (if at all) about 13.8 billion years ago or 4.5 billion years ago. I do not see those as precise estimates. My sense of them is that they are probably less precise than currently accepted evidence suggests. So, it would not surprise me or change my view of the world much if those estimates were off by 50% either direction.
I am a lot more interested in what has apparently happened in the last 100 million years than what happened before that. But, of course, that is because I am much more interested in mammals and primates and apes and humans than in other life forms. So, I find 60 million (or so) years of primate natural history does not fit very well into 6000 years. Six million years since the divergence that led to humans and chimpanzees is hard to fit into 6000 years. Even the most recent 600,000 years of genus Homo does not fit into 6000 years. And it looks like humans have even been in Australia for about 60,000 years. That doesn't fit into 6000 years.
Even though the events described in scripture do come pretty close to fitting the 6000 year model, that is only about the amount of time humans seem to have posessed written language. Hmmmm. "In the beginning was the word…." Could there be some connection here? Did God speak life into existence 6000 years ago? There is something intriguing about the notion that speaking, language, the word, was the beginning of "life as we know it." A life with the spoken and written word. A life during which the possibility of written scripture emerged and the propagation of mythical tradition became possible.
So, even if one accepted that life on earth had existed for 4.5 billion years (plus or minus a couple of billion years), or that primates have existed for 60 million years plus or minus ten million years, or that humans (genus Homo) have existed for a million years (plus or minus a couple of hundred thousand years), and that even in Australia, humans have been present for 50,000 years (plus or minus 10,000 years), even with all that flexibility, 6000 years is just not anywhere close to the amount of time humans have been on earth.
Would it be hopelessly disappointing to adventists if the Genesis story did not really mean what it seems to mean? Would that be worse than Jesus not showing up in 1844? Maybe there is something to learn from the Great Disappointment–perhaps, that things are not always as they seem.
Would it be hopelessly disappointing to adventists if the Genesis story did not really mean what it seems to mean? Would that be worse than Jesus not showing up in 1844? Maybe there is something to learn from the Great Disappointment–perhaps, that things are not always as they seem.
Probably. Definitely. Absolutely. These are my predicted answers.
Were Genesis to go like 1844, one could expect a variety of explanations to arise. Some would be more plausible than others. All would be imposible to prove or disprove. So far Christians have come up with a score of explanations for Genesis. Adventists have only come up with a few for 1844.
There is one big difference. 1844 was a fairly specific prediction about an imminent event. So they got their answers within a few years' time. Genesis is an account of singular events in the distant past. There is no way to prove or disprove a lot of what is being argued about Genesis unless someone can figure-out how to make time run backwards and then come back with the answer. Likewise there is no way to prove or disprove that something happened in heaven in 1844 unless someone can figure-out how to go to heaven and then come back with the answer. We can claim that prophets have done both of the foregoing, but there is no way to prove these claims either.
"1844 was a fairly specific prediction about an imminent event. So they got their answers within a few years' time."
Which answer: That Christ was not returning in 1844 as predicted? Or that Christ began an investigation in1844? The first cannot be disputed; the second is only a theory and there can be no proff of what happens in heaven: it's all human imaginings. How could it possibly be verified?
Whatever answers they got they got rather quickly.
I do not believe that Christ came to earth in 1844 – do you?
The first prediction was that the Second Coming would be in 1844. When that was a disaster, they "found" through a man's walk through a corn field, the second interpretation: Jesus went to another apartment in the heavenly sanctuary and begain investigating who would be saved and who was lost, not in that order.
The small Adventist group readily accepted the new explanation, especially as it was endorsed with their prophet.
Christ has always been in our hearts, regardless of the dates. There is no reason to believe that his second coming will be in a physical body as he came from birth, as after the Resurrection he had an entirely different state, what was expressed as a ghost.
Actually October 22 1844 was at least the third major date they had set. There were also a bunch of other dates set.
Yes, Elaine, i agree. i guess in man's heart of hearts he wishes to be remembered, by his family and friends from Earth. It would appear, from Jesus meeting with those who knew Him, in several instances, that they hardly recognized Him at first. He had a ethereal quality in His physical being, asthough He had assumed His Spiritual nature. Obviously, He was able to utilize both physical and spiritual being instantly. Appearing in a closed room without entering a door, and then putting on His physical being that He was not a ghost, or He mesmerized His disciples into believing He was actually physically in the room bodily. i believe the latter was more likely. He obviously did not transit to Heavenly places in physical form. i believe that God does not have to spend time in transiting anywhere in His Universes, but is able to be anywhere by "thought transfer". Philipp 3:20-21, "Jesus shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body". Eccl 12:7, "then shall the dust return to the Earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it". 1 Corr:15: 40-44 "There are celestial bodies and bodies terrestrial. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. verse 45: the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. verse 49: And as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. verse 50: "that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. verse 53 "For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.