All Activity

We need a |spoon-feed| emoji.

That last post didn't format the way ai wanted. Sorry.

The problem with subjective morality can best be addressed AFTER one realizes objective moral values are not an option. Subjective moral values are subject to conflicting standards. If I use harm-benefit and you use "God's Word," there is no independent arbiter to decide which standard is right or wrong. The best each side can do is appeal to the standard. Now, I picked the hyperbolic examples to demonstrate you cannot presume the "God's Word" standard to be superior (slavery, death penalty, ordering genocide and baby killing). But those are hyperbole. But what about something like abortion? Harm-benefit doesn't give us a clear answer. (Some would argue it does). God's word does. (Some would argue it doesn't). In resolving disputes, subjective morality utterly fails. People simply disagree. And depending on the severity of those disagreements, we see different alliances, friendships, communities, denominations and even nations.

The modern concept of Hell, Purgatory and Paradise originated in Dante's Divine Comedy, in the 14th century. So, there's that.

"An eternity of torture" I think about the reality of this. Since God is all knowing, he would always be aware of their suffering. What would he be thinking? Would he even make his presence known to them? Would he talk to them? What would he say? Day 1 - "This hurts me more than it hurts you." Or the opposite, "It sucks to be you." Day 100 - "It's waaay too late to say you're sorry." Day 1000 - "Stop complaining, a millennia of torture isn't even a drop in the bucket when it comes to all eternity." Day 10000 - "If you can't handle the eternal time, you shouldn't have done the finite crime." Day 100000 - "No, for the hundred thousandth time, I cannot parole you. My righteous justice will not allow it." Any humour set aside, when you seriously consider the logistics of people actually being tortured for eternity, it is completely without reason or logic. It's a man made concept simply designed to put "the fear of God" in people like it has in you.

I apologize for my feeble attempt at humor. See, if you look at it one way, it looks like God and if you look at it *another*way, it looks like Dog. Soooo..it all depends on how you look at it. (I knew I shouldn't have quit my day-job.)

Definitely a dog person…my pooch has never let me down and can always be counted on for her loyalty.

One more.

How's about some Saturday Night Blues?

Or a Dogly person. It all depends on how you look at it.

I was thinking about what it takes to live a Godly life and realized one of God’s demands is for him to be worshipped by his subjects. People also love to be worshipped by the fact of owning pets. Not only are they good company, but my dog loves to please me, which also makes me feel good. If I say “down,” she jumps off the chair. When I say “out,” she heads for the outside door. And just like when God punishes me for not obeying him, when the dog does not jump down, I punish her for disobeying me. Apparently I really am a Godly person.

Apparently the RC church still needs cleaning up. After decades of promises to fix abuse, Pope Leo XIV says abuse needs to be uprooted. https://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/pope-leo-xiv-says-there-should-be-no-tolerance-20387519.php Go Chicago Whitesox

For sure living this side of death to it fullest means not having to be concerned about a life after death. Just think how freeing it is, when you make a mistake in life and not have to worry about confessing it to an unseen god, and then also wonder what effect it will have when you finally see this unseen god face to face?

LA is fine, sunshine most the time and the feeling is laid back LA's fine, but it ain't home New York's home but it ain't mine no more

Success!

I get your point about JS conflating his two reasons for beginning the study for his paper. The first reason occurred during JS’s last year of residency (which being in the 6th corps would have been in 1976/77.) His words regarding this initial study were, “I began studying the Word of God, and I got as far as the Mosaic Law which proscribes the death penalty for adultery.” It was around 5 years later, in 1982 or 1983, when RD and VF came to him. He then specifically says, “This paper is the result of those years of study." (In it, he includes his study of adultery in all the administrations [Patriarchal, Law, Christ and Grace]). If he was conflating these two reasons, “those years” would have included going back to 1976/77. In his Forward, he gives his reason for the paper as being, “I have discovered that not everybody believes that adultery is wrong.” Everybody seems to mean Christians in general as he immediately writes after the Forward, "Many Christians are confused about adultery and fornication." _________________________ Now, comparing the above with what JS wrote six or seven years later in his Additional Comments on WayDale's Forums in May 2000, new information is given. He exposes adultery within twi’s leadership, including weirwille, which he most likely was not aware of before 1986 when he wrote the paper. - I wrote in (sic) through the summer of 1986 and handed it in to the research department in September of 1986. - As it is here in WayDale it is missing the preface and the footnotes. The preface gives some of the history of the paper and how it came to be. - Unfortunately, and history bears this out, some pretty high-powered churchmen throught (sic) the years have not really gotten the impact of what the Bible plainly says, and in this case the research seemed necessary. - My story (short version): In the spring of 1986 a girl came to me and said she had had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wierwille. (This appears to be a third impetus to investigate adultery happening specifically in twi which finally motivated JS to actually write the paper months later (while leaving out the new information about said leadership being involved.) - I started asking around to girls...Lo and behold, I talked to many women that were very candid about their sexual relations with leadership. - Perhaps the most disturbing thing about those months was the developing picture was that this was not just practical sin based on lust but rather was sin based on wrong doctrine (started by whom was not mentioned)--many of the people involved thought it was okay with God. In fact, all of the "reasons" that I wrote about in my appendix came out of the mouths of women I talked to. - On the other hand, the facts are as true as I remember after 14 years (since 1986), and I am not ashamed of them. I do not try to hide them, So, in conclusion, JS either did not know about the drugging and raping by vp as of 2000, or he deliberately decided not to mention it in his update since according to him, “The thesis is pretty simple: adultery is a sin.” Overall, WordWolf, I think we seem to agree on most points.

Nathan, So, do you want to bring back your previous question? George

Well said WordWolf.

By saying "the rest of us," you seem to be excluding JS from those who knew about vpw's crimes. Unless you know this for sure, JS is the only one who can reveal all he knew then and all he knows now - but will he? Again, only one way to find out. In 2000, his perspective was what he wrote, "On the other hand, the facts are as true as I remember after 14 years, and I am not ashamed of them. I do not try to hide them, it is just that it has not been that profitable to share them. People are still so angry and hurt over things that happened years ago. We all need to come to Christ, and let him teach us how to get healed and move on. There is a world out there that needs the Truth. " (Underlining is mine) Scriptures say the following (NASB): Eph 5:11 Do not participate in the useless deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; 2 Cor 4:2 but we have renounced the things hidden because of shame, not walking in trickery nor distorting the word of God, but by the open proclamation of the truth commending ourselves to every person’s conscience in the sight of God. Paul did expose serious sexual immorality and also wasn't afraid to openly confront the apostle Peter (Gal 2:11-13) 1 Cor 5:1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and sexual immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, namely, that someone has his father’s wife. 2 You have become arrogant and have not mourned instead, so that the one who had done this deed would be removed from your midst. James 4:17 So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, for him it is sin. Having an invested interest in any organization so that one is not willing to expose the deep problems within that are (or were) hurting people happens all the time. Maybe I'm wrong, but doing such a thing in a religious organization for the greater good of "moving God's word" is just as, if not more, egregious.

Raf I agree with what you're saying. To me, it's simply logical that one doesn't necessarily have to believe in a god to believe in morality. We all have brains. It's simply a matter of logic not religion, to want to do unto others as you would have others do unto you. (even though a religiously moral person said to do that too...)

You know, it is possible John might answer questions about his paper and what happened way back when if any of you ask him. Here's the website contact page to reach him and his organization: Connect With Us | Spirit & Truth

CORRECT! CNN was founded. Worldwide, it was the FIRST 24-hour, news ONLY network. It was the first US news only network, 24 hour or otherwise. Now there's a bunch of 24 hour, news only networks. Seems like every major network in the US has one somewhere. ( CNBC, FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, not to mention BBC and Euronews, or business news like Yahoo Finance or Bloomberg.) Now, there's all sorts of 24-hour news channels, whether available for national or international viewing. (Where I live, there's at least one LOCAL 24-hour news channel.)

In 1985, JS wrote his Adultery paper. In 1988, JAL wrote about how this ruined marriages and damaged people. A lot of things had come to light in 3 years. When JS wrote again in 2000 with ces/stfi, the rest of us all knew about vpw raping and drugging women since so many of them had come forth. The young, idealistic guy who JS had been 15 years before now had an organization to promote where he was a top dog, and a vested interest in not looking any closer any more, even if it was dishonest. Plenty of people who have been determined to maintain the fiction that vpw wasn't a plagiarizing rapist and have made it a point to avoid all of their accounts. It makes things easier when they pretend there were never women who came forward. I'll call them like I see them- I have no organization to promote. It's not like you're buying a book I wrote at a table in the back of the theater or anything.