All Activity

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.

I so appreciate your post. Thank you for taking the time to compose it.

I think this is why being around little children is so often just plain fun.

This is not a shock to me WordWolf and insinuating it might be is a bit of an ad hominem statement on your part. This thread is not about other kinds of institutions. Here is the context in which I used that quote: "I think evolving is a good choice of words especially in progressing away from Christian/religious beliefs being imposed and enforced on others. The "others" here would not only be non-religious folks but also the people within a religious institution who are required to obey its expectations, rules and regulations in order to be accepted and avoid abusive consequences. GSC has been good, especially with posts from Rocky, Penworks and others, about the rights and ways one has to stand against the control of authoritarian leaders. The reality, though, is that all churches and "spiritual" institutions have expectations, rules and regulations. Most of all, Yahweh and Christ have mandates that must be followed in order to avoid the consequence of hell (however it is defined). This is why I think atheism (which is simply a non-belief in the existence of god/gods) is not a very bad, difficult or unpleasant thing." Under this context, however, I did use a broad brush to infer that all churches and spiritual institutions have expectations, rules and regulations (I'll add beliefs as well) that result in negative consequences from them personally or from their supernatural god if they are not followed. This was ignorant on my part as I'm certainly not educated on every one of the thousands that are out there.

A few of us haven't quite made "senior" yet. To name two, myself and Raf. (We went to the same school.) There's younger posters than us, but not many. Then again, right now there aren't many posters. (Not compared to say, 2001 AD)

"The reality, though, is that all churches and "spiritual" institutions have expectations, rules and regulations." This may come as a shock to you, but all INSTITUTIONS have expectations, rules and regulations. Communist China and Russia are loaded with them. Removing religion from a society doesn't change that, it just changes WHICH institutions and WHICH expectations, rules and regulations are in effect.

For the sake of this forum, I will examine from the position that all beliefs, including all religious beliefs, have stemmed entirely, 100% from people, with no exceptions. If so, that would mean all the religious beliefs- which people have based things on- would have that origin, as would every other belief upon which things were based. So, to posit a world where some of those beliefs were never developed, the question is, what would such a world be like? We're not imagining a world of magic and dragons here, we're imagining something deterministic and "realistic" (not fantastical.) I would expect it to look almost identical to our world. As has been pointed out, technology may change over time, but man has not changed. Improving technology has made some changes in society possible, but man is still man. We have the printing press, which helped to try to usher in universal literacy (a radical concept for history, and a recent one.) We have the internet, where someone can use that literacy to read things all over the world. We have the potential to have the best-informed Earth population EVER. Do we have it NOW? No, we do not. People go into an echo chamber and don't get impartial, fair and neutral information on things, just a lot of bias confirmation. (Can't blame ALL of that on Facebook, even if they made it easier.) What happened? Technology may have changed, but man has not changed. Hippies tried to eliminate capitalism, and make things free for everyone. It failed miserably. What happened? Man has not changed. MOST of the people went along with it. But it only takes a few freeloaders to ruin things. A minority of people showed up, and sponged off of the hippies, and tried to get everything they could (including "free love.") So, I could see the brands changing- from religious to any other brand. But I'd expect the same problems with a few cosmetic differences. Man has not changed. So, maybe somebody makes their identity in a philosophical group, or a political group, or even their bowling league. But there will be sectarianism, and sabers rattled. People form societies, and take on labels, and take on "who is an outsider", which strengthens group cohesion. That's going to stay the same as long as we HAVE people.

I guess we just don't have any bridge players in our little ensemble. I thought that that would be a dead giveaway. WW's up. George

Trading Places This might be a little vague: "Ugh! As IF!" George

No. State Fair Kitten with a Whip The Pleasure Seekers The Cincinnati Kid The Swinger Murderers' Row C.C. and Company 52 Pick-Up Magic Bye Bye Birdie Newsies The Villain George (It will get really obvious with the next set, if required.)

Hawaii 5-0 "Beam me up." George

Homeward Bound "We're no strangers to love. You know the rules and so do I." George

"How can anyone claim that TWI’s doctrines are not based on the bible?" You take a doctrine of twi's, and compare it to what The Bible says. You take what they claim The Bible says and means, and compare that to what it says, and the most sensible take on the meaning. It's the same principle you'd use to compare any doctrine or practice with any document. I'm familiar with what the U.S. Constitution says. I'm willing, at times, to discuss what the most logical interpretations are for what that says, and compare that to what any group has said. (I don't want to do that here and now, partly because it would be wildly off-topic for this thread.)

Agree in part. Assuming that death is the natural end of one's existence, eternal nothingness cannot be unpleasant. But is it very bad? Well, I would say that to the believer it's very tragic and sad, if there's a whole world of souls living eternally with God while simultaneously there's a whole world that is not. But perhaps we may agree on one thing: that universal salvation (the belief that everyone will eventually be saved no matter what they believe and/or do) is not the truth?

Today: May 10, 2025 melt values are as follows: Gold: $3,323.30 per oz. Silver: $32.69 per oz. Some say this 100-1 ratio will not last and that silver is the best buy right now. Some are advocating trading your gold for silver right now. For example, one ounce of gold will get you 100 ounces of silver. But there are others who say that gold still is in upswing mode so wait a bit. I think that's more likely.

Agree. I think we'd have to try each one to understand each... and understanding only one may take up to a year or even more. I'm still trying to understand the traditional latin mass. One thing I do believe: each religion has some truth and biblical principle, and even atheism has some too, as in loving and kindness to your fellow man.

"I Must Let the Show Go On"?? Leo Sayer. Three Dog Night Yeah, that's it. I'm sure. I'm going. "Ah, rock on George, one time for me". I feel fine. "Ah, rock on George, for Ringo one time". Whoo!"

I don't think this was as easy as you thought George. I don't think I would have gotten it unless you posted a picture with Tiger Woods holding all four major championship trophies. Good trivia.