All Activity

Mmmph

I think I see what you mean and the issue is complex for sure. (Bold print above.) I had a good friend who is now deceased, Al, who believed that every person is born with God's will in their heart, irrespective of whether they're born again or not. The conscience to do good works, if you will. The bible teaches this too, in Romans. Charity I'm going to shorten my response here and ask that you listen to the link below a couple of times and see if it makes sense to you relating to this discussion. https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/how-is-the-law-written-on-every-heart

Alright, you can conflate this one thread that I started with the entire board and every other thread. You can do that but you are also being called out. You can conflate regular board members with those being identified as authorities here but you are being called out for that, too. I am not enjoying my interactions with WordWolf, Nathan Jr and Rocky. I'm not going to respond to them anymore. If I am faulted for something I'm doing or not doing please take note that I chose disengagement over distasteful tit for tat. If it simply comes down to mob rule then my time here is done, anyway. Honest, that's not what I came here for.

Glad I asked. I would never have known otherwise. :)

Including a prominent forerunner of GSC. Perhaps our "Joyful" "friend" encountered it back in the 1990s. ;)

We don't have to "look forward" or even SPECULATE as to how such a HYPOTHETICAL society would function. (We can, but we don't have to START there.) I would begin by looking at those cultures where religion can't "dominate cultures"- if only because they are ILLEGAL. Under COMMUNISM, religion is to be stamped out. So, countries like China and the USSR went out to stamp them out en toto. We've had perhaps a century since they did that, so let's look at the results so far. Has either of them shone forth as a haven of mankind's best qualities? Has either been an exemplar of people free of greed, pride, envy, hatred, and so on? Not only is that not the case, but it's even worse. With the "freedom" from religion they have, what have they done with it? Standards of living fell. The have-nots, rather than have a minimum standard of living where they are guaranteed food, a job, and a place to stay, have struggled to survive. We can't find out as many details as we'd like for this discussion, because they clamp down on media and all methods of communication. Disagreements are not allowed, dissent is not allowed. So far, every attempt to make a "secular paradise" has been an attempt to do so through communism, and so far, every attempt to make a "secular paradise" has produced an OLIGARCHY. A handful of the few hold almost all the money and power, a minority with some money and power hold them up and generate technology and some income, and the vast majority of the citizens struggle to put food on the table, and maintain even a MINIMUM standard of living, sharing a tiny place to live. We saw a new word invented- "karoshi." People work themselves TO DEATH trying to provide for their families. In the US, things are bad, but they've never been THAT bad for the people at the bottom- or for so high a percentage of the population. (The richest people anywhere always have a comfortable life, and always will.) Now, the people who defend communism as a THEORETICAL model keep pointing out that those are imperfect examples of Communism. The obvious point, of course, is that mathematics may have ideal concepts, but in the world, we must deal with what we have, which is, real people in real societies. Communism as a concept relies entirely on people- 100% of the people, acting ENTIRELY for the good of the whole of society, and NEVER purely out of self-interest. Can that even work? It hasn't worked yet. I think it's obvious it CAN'T work, because humans will seek self-interest in any place in any time. There will always be a minority seizing all the money and power that they can, and using any pretext to grab it, use it, and keep it. They'll use rhetoric that announces that they CLAIM they are working for the public good even while they line their pockets with money and the workers struggle to figure out where their next meal comes from. ------------------------------------------- Now, if we ignore them and imagine new societies without religion, I direct you back to my first post. Societies will form. People will form strata, Some people will seize power over others. In short, much like we have now, and looking much like we have now, with most differences being cosmetics. There won't be churches, but there will be other sociopolitical, local agencies- philosophy centers, reading rooms, public houses, bowling leagues. People will draw distinctions between themselves and others, no matter how arbitrary the lines. People will define "us" and "them" by some standard or other. People will freely complain about SOME social construct that they claim is universally oppressing people, whatever it is, and other people will disagree with them, saying that construct is helpful. People will argue, yell, and sometimes rattle their sabers and even fight wars. So, really, it would be interesting to see the COSMETIC differences, but the overall societies would develop the same ways, and turn out the same ways.

All messageboards have moderation. Some boards work fine with informal moderation- posters just point out something is wrong, bad, or not allowed, and the posters have the self-discipline to control themselves afterwards. Most boards require at least some moderation, because boards with zero moderation descended into incoherent noise as trolls overran the boards. (We're talking the 1990s, generally.) Since then, there's always someone in charge of making sure things don't devolve so badly that normal posters can't get in a word between 20 pages of trolls flooding the board. If you don't like the way a board is run, make up your own board, and invite who you want. Then you can feel free to snub me or anyone else you don't like because we're not allowed there. You can also just find a different board you like. There's no constitutional right to the GSC. There's also a lot of disagreement on the GSC because there's room for a lot of disagreement on the GSC. If you're getting static from several members, you've actually found something that disparate members can agree upon- even if that something is "you're posting like a jerk." With all the room for disparate opinions here, I think that may be one of very few things where a consensus can be found on the GSC.

I'm surprised that the new guy- the one who objects to moderation of both formal and informal kinds- thinks he's qualified to decide who should and should not come back here. "Hopefully you're so offended you don't come back. Bye bye." "Now, if you're too offended to come back...hint, hint.." Everyone is welcome to post here. Even the obnoxious are welcome to post here, and people with unpopular points of view as well. Keep in mind that posting obnoxiously A) will draw posts of similar tone in reply and B) will sooner or later draw warnings and formal moderation All of which, of course, get used as "evidence" that the person was never treated fairly. "Look how unfairly they treated me." Lots of posters have been allowed to continue posting after having been ASKED NICELY BY THE MODERATORS to behave. Some of those have used that allowance to post twice as obnoxiously on a thread, insult the moderation staff, and complain in general. At that point, the moderators HAVE to pull the plug. I'm being reminded of someone who manufactures a complaint at a nice restaurant so they have an excuse to refuse to leave a tip. If you just don't like it here, you can just stop posting. Go somewhere you like it. Maybe come back and post later, if you like things better some other time. This is the internet in 2025, you can do that.

Insulting post.

Missed one what?

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.