All Activity

You missed one, Rocky. Holy Carp is right! Or, do you guys just attack like a pack to take down ideas you don't like? Now, if you're too offended to come back...hint, hint..

Holy CARP!

Are you an official spokesperson for twi these days? LOL.

I really find your point that man has not changed (I assume you mean mankind and since the beginning of time) interesting and open to various explanations as to why this might be. One would be the theory based on evolution and another would be the doctrine found in the bible. Since we cannot erase the millennia of years where religious beliefs have dominated cultures, looking forward with progressively less religious doctrine to "guide" us would include letting go of the following. Gal 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, 20idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, 21envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. The issue I have with verses 22 and 23 is that non-religious people are quite capable of experiencing what the bible calls “fruit of the spirit.” This is so obvious, and yet the bible claims they are derived from the spirit. (I’ve been told that the fruit of the spirit is of a higher quality, a greater degree of excellence, more supernatural than what humans can experience on their own, but there is no scientific evidence which supports this – only subjective reporting.) So why does Paul call them spiritual fruit when they’re not? I think it is to reinforce his belief stated in Romans 7. Rom 7:14For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold into bondage to sin. 15For I do not understand what I am doing; for I am not practicing what I want to do, but I do the very thing I hate. 16However, if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, that the Law is good. 17But now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me. 18For I know that good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I do the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin that dwells in me. In Galatians 5, Paul gives a long list of actions associated with the flesh, actions that mankind has been a slave to since the fall of Adam, if you believe Romans 7, and actions that will prevent one from inheriting the kingdom of God (with the unfortunate alternative being cast into the lake of fire according to Revelation 21:8). Paul is representing man as being evil within, again since the fall of Adam, and upgrading the positive aspects of mankind as being spiritual - originating from a god. The intended purpose is for people to want to follow his teachings to accept Christ as their lord. What would life be like without accepting the above as truth? I think it would mean accepting mankind for simply what it is - made up of human beings capable of change. I think endeavoring to understand why human beings can be so full of greed, pride, envy, hatred, etc., beginning with an evolutionary POV, would be more advantageous.

I've heard it's the greatest gathering together this side of the gathering together. "Brother Thomas will be there, without a doubt."...Phil Keaggy

I can tell you today the Rock is open to the public. Are you thinking about going?

On your next visit, try asking who might have visited any recognised church within, say, 5 or 10 miles (choose your distance - even 100 miles), in the last 12 months to attend a regular service Or what would happen if someone from within 5 or 10 miles decided to come into the auditorium, or the BRC, or wherever TWI hold its services now. How welcome would they be? Or if a homeless person dressed in poor clothing decided to enter any part of the grounds (not just the auditorium). How welcome would they be? Ask who is welcome at the Rock. Open to anyone, open to Christians across the board, or only open to Wayfers?

Not friends. Hopefully you're so offended you don't come back. Bye bye.

You’ve put some basic logical fallacies to good use on this thread - Ad hominem, red herring, strawman, false equivalence… Mastering these is foundational to the Advanced Class. You’re ready, friend-o!! TWI Today should fit you like a hand in a…

I guess at the time, you could have said slavery was a political institution. Still, it was germaine to Christianity because it couldn't continue without a certain reading of the Bible. If the owner doesn't want us discussing Zionism we won't. I get plenty of that elsewhere, anyway. I don't care about tippy toeing. Romans 11:26, 'and so'. And so what? Well, what's he been talking about for three chapters!? That all national Israel has always been saved? Hardly. That's enough of that.

No one here ever claimed it was.

Moderators and self appointed moderators. FTR, law and order is not an American concept.

By definition Zionism is political. That there are theological arguments for the political movement doesn't make the movement any less political. I am not aware of any moderators ever revealing their thoughts regarding this political topic. I've never revealed mine and don't intend to. You could try with great care to start a topic in Doctrinal addressing your thoughts on what Romans 9, 10 and 11 mean for today... this, our day and time.

Indeed, it IS NOT a democracy. Except that you are FREE to come and go as you please. There IS in our (American) society, a certain law and order. Lots of people challenge the law and the order. Kinda like how children test boundaries of acceptable behavior/conduct. There also are moderators in society, btw.

It's called a hypothetical. Like, I speak against Zionism as a theological matter but the operators of the board are hardcore Zionists, then anything I might say along those lines could be forbidden simply because they don't want to hear it. A hypothetical, I have no idea what is true. I've got one name of an owner, if you will, and one more name of a moderator. I don't know the authority of all this other advice I'm getting. My feeling, I haven't done anything wrong. But, if the owner says you can't talk about that here, it's not a democracy. I'm cool with that. I understand it. As some have said, a million places I can talk about Zionism. Just, the new guy, I don't want to walk on egg shells nor am I going to violate rules.

Why would you say that?

So far I know of one mod. Being new, I don't know the difference between a bossy member and someone in a authority. Also too, thinking Ive done nothing wrong, I wonder whose hypersensitivity am I responding to and why? That could in fact be the case. Let's say the operators of this board aren't entirely rational, you still play by their rules or go away. I get it. I've got nothing to say here about DOGE or vaccines or men in women's sports. 'That subject' that we won't mention, I see that as a theological issue first and foremost. Regardless, I'm not here to .... on anyone's Cheerios. I've already done what I came for.

I'll read the rest of your post later but judging whether my skin is "thick" enough to be on the internet is again focusing on me instead of my POV. I'll continue to point this out to you as long as you continue to do it.

If it was a personal attack, I would apologize. You might want a slightly tougher skin if you're going to stay on the internet. I stipulated to your premise, and am discussing purely on that basis. The initial post all pointed to one question/topic- what would a world be like, without any religion whatsoever? So, given the forum, I approached this as a sociological discussion, where religion is a socio-political structure and so on. My point remains the same- that a society without certain social and political structures won't have a vacuum. There will be OTHER social and political structures, and they will be used- or misused- in much the same ways. People are people. So, there would be some COSMETIC changes, but society as a whole would be much the same. I didn't even object to the implication that churches. etc. as a whole had rules, etc with negative connotations. It's debatable and largely up to interpretation any way, depending on the group and the practice (some more so, some less so, etc.) I pointed out what any sociology student could tell you- that people organize themselves into groups, and those groups immediately begin to have expectations, and so on. That actually is NECESSARY for social cohesion- and social cohesion keeps societies together. (It can also be dysfunctional, for the insider as well as the outsider.) So, addressing your original point, we wouldn't have big holes in the streets where church buildings are. We wouldn't have dead air time where sermons were, and so on. Society would invent other social groups, and invest political identity, personal identity, community identity, and so on. It sounded to me like you were making a binary division of societies where one side had religion, rules, regulations, and expectations, and the other side which did not... and I've seen implications where that means everything is perfect, at least on paper, once the first side is removed. (Try and stay awake while reading "The Communist Manifesto" for a great example.) It sounded like you might have been getting ready to head in that direction. So, since you sounded like one side had all the rules- with the obvious implication that the other side did not- I pointed out both sides would, and that it might be a surprise if you hadn't looked at it that way. Sometimes it takes looking at the right question to have the right answer. This may come as a shock to you, but that was neither personal nor aimed as an attack. Some of us use that expression with our friends and families. If I thought the point was opaque to you, I would have said so. (It may be a shock, it may not be a shock.... vs "Surprise! Here's how it is...")

See, made the same point without getting political, and thus, avoiding moderation. Seriously, stay off politics. We can go the "reproof" path and ask you nicely, which we're doing, and ask you to police yourself. If that doesn't work, there's always the "thousand stripes" method, and moderation, with or without a heavy hand. Myself, I take you more for a "reproof" kind of fellow than a "thousand stripes entered into him" kind of fellow. That's my opinion, I might be wrong- it's a little soon to tell.

I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying this is not the place to discuss it.

Waysider, do you have a junior deputy badge? This has a theological component when getting involved in Christian Communities. Your point has been made. Recent events portend theological shifts. It's a valid point.

OK, you said it. Politics play an important part in all our lives. It's important to stay on top of world events. It's important to actively participate. It's also important to find an appropriate venue to do that. GSC is not that venue.

Thank you. I'll just accept everybody just as they are. Right now I'm more interested in connecting with brothers and sisters in the Lord and I don't care about their stance relative to the Way. So, if the Way is really sectarian right now, it's not going to work. If in fact they really are doing better than most, there will be grace to mingle in and out of a diversity of ministries without stepping on territorialism. It's an important time in history. Sounds like Netanyahu may be burying himself. Sounds like Trump is finally distancing himself. Israel is divided and in disarray. With Iran's hypersonic missiles just minutes away, Israel could just FAFO. Someone will say, THAT'S POLITICS! Yeah, but it's also necessary to say this. I look forward to a world of post Zionist Evangelicalism. Zionism more than Trinitarianism had kept me on the outer fringes. What does that have to do with The Way? It may be one step closer to oneness realized with the rest of the body.