All Activity

Well, it's not MTV (that was 1981). It's not football instant replay (1986, though instigated by a blown call against the Oilers in 1979). It's not the Heidi Rule (1968). Reagan was elected, but debates and elections had been televised for decades. jeezIdon't knowthisone. George

This is how I look at nothingness. Prior to being born I was absolutely nothing. And after I die I go back to that state of nothingness. I didn’t suffer prior to being born and will not suffer after my last breath. There is nothing brave about accepting reality. If I truly believed in an after life you can bet I would being doing all the arrive there. Actually I did chase that belief for most of my life. I went down so many rabbit holes trying to be godly it wore me out. Please answer me this. How do you know for a certainty your biblical belief is the correct one getting you into heaven? If your are a RC you get to heaven by being water baptized, attending mass on Sunday and holy days of obligation, confessing your sins to a priest, doing good works, and make certain you do not die with a mortal sin on your soul, because if you do you are assured of going to hell. A Baptist believes you are not saved by works, but by the grace of god. How do you reconcile these contradictory beliefs? Let’s assume you are a RC and die with no mortal sin on your soul. And when you stand before the judgement seat of god he says, “why haven’t you realized works will not get you into heaven?” Or what happens if god actually believes being a Muslim is the only way to heaven. Or what if god believes you must be a Buddhist to enter the pearly gates? How about you must be a Hutterite or Menonite? It defies logic that of the thousand of religions in the world, you somehow, have come upon the correct one! Let’s say one representative of each of the religions of the world stood side by side and formed a line for miles. And when god appears, he would tap you on the shoulder and say “you have got it right. Welcome to your group. All the rest have got it wrong.” Pretty crazy odds, no?

Theists on social media (and this is not directed at anyone on this page UNLESS the shoe fits) tend to think that the atheist failure to account for "objective moral values" constitutes some kind of gotcha. As if rape and murder and genocide are not really wrong unless they are objectively wrong. That's why you may get tired of me pointing out that there is no such thing as objectively wrong. "Aha! Gotcha! So anything goes, because nothing is wrong, nothing is evil!" That is NOT the point. The point is that subjective moral values form an adequate basis to justify labeling intentional actions as good or evil. In fact, subjective moral values form our ONLY basis for condemning evil! But subjective values are just a matter of opinion. What happens when someone disagrees with you? Good question. When someone disagrees with you, the first thing you do is discuss the foundation of your opinion. Values are subjective (is he tall or short?), but the basis for those values are objective (he's 6 feet tall and wants to be a basketball player or a horse jockey). In most cases (not all) an objective analysis will give you what you need to reach your conclusion, IF you can agree on the standard. In a good v. evil analysis, we can check with our harm-suffering/benefit standard. Is someone hurt by this action? Is there a benefit that outweighs the hurt, making it a mere inconvenience rather than actual damage? But if I am using harm/benefit while you are using God's Word, we're going to have lots more disagreement. Example: I believe it is always wrong and has always been wrong to execute someone for crimes other than murder. That is a subjective value. You can't argue with it. It's my opinion. God's Word teaches that at one time it was right to execute someone for gathering wood on the sabbath. I don't think you can make a moral case for the death penalty in that case no matter how hard you try. "It was another time" implies there was a time when this was okay. And here's the crux of my position: If you hold that God is THE OBJECTIVE source of objective morality, you have NO BASIS to question it. None. At all. Zip. You are forced by necessity to accept ALL his actions as inherently moral, all his commands as inherently "holy, just and good." Even when he's ordering genocides, which (according to the Bible) he does multiple times. Go in and kill them all, including the women and babies! Why, that's outra... no, it's holy, just and good. You have NO BASIS to question it. I do. It is unprovoked. It causes avoidable harm and suffering. Now you have to posit things to make it more palatable: Those babies go straight to heaven, so... Stop right there. If a murdered baby goes straight to heaven, give me a good reason not to murder a baby right now. God says not to? Why not? I'm sending the baby straight to heaven! His parents should THANK me! At some point you are forced to concede that it's wrong for a reason other than "God says it's wrong." God didn't say it was wrong for Israelite soldiers to slaughter babies, so objectively speaking, slaughtering babies cannot be deemed to be an objectively immoral, unjust or evil act. It can only be evil under certain circumstances. But God can command the act into moral acceptability and goodness. It may sound like I'm straw-manning the opposing point of view, but I assure you I am not. WLC writes: Let's be clear: According to WLC, the people most wronged by God's command of a genocide were the soldiers who had to carry it out. Did that make you throw up in your mouth a little? I totally understand why WLC had to resort to such a monstrous statement. By declaring God to be the arbiter of right and wrong, and declaring His actions to be holy, just and good by definition, WLC left himself powerless to exercise his judgment to find these commands morally repugnant. He goes further: But THAT is strawmanning the opposing point of view. On naturalism, there IS A basis for making moral value judgments. The fact that there's no such thing as "objective moral values" does not imply in any way that subjective moral values form an inadequate basis on which to condemn evil. The fact is, I can say it's wrong for Yahweh or ANY OTHER GOD to order a genocide, and a theist cannot. That is a fundamental flaw with the notion of objective moral values. Once you recognize that objective moral values do not and cannot exist (they are an oxymoron), only then can you realize that our moral value systems rest on societal consensus, that reaching that consensus requires reason and argument, and that disagreement will form everything from different friend groups to different nations.

jeezdoiknowTHISone

Are you questioning my right to add (or try to) perspective? This question is rhetorical. Does not need to be answered.

No. I corrected your mistake. You referred to Wierwille's Birth Certificate. That's incorrect. The post in question actually referred to his DEATH certificate. It matters to me when materially incorrect posts need to be corrected in order to avoid significant misunderstandings.

Thank you. If I am less than respectful in responding to your questions, please call me out on it.

Possessed... that's what we all thought. (I was 17 years old.) It was a horrible experience for all of us to watch... so glad you are well now!

I don't get that it's comforting but I think you are brave. I can't imagine an eternity of nothingness, or even worse an eternity of torture. Both scare the hell out of me.

Got it, thanks. I hope the logistics of this discussion works to help improve mental clarity.

OK, this is probably too easy, but I'll give it a shot. In 1980, something happened in US television. It made world history one way, and it made US history in that way (obviously) and in another. In its own way, it changed television around the world, and that way still applies to this very day. What happened? By they way, cable TV had already existed, so it's not "cable TV was founded."

So, whose up here now? I think I'll just go with something, alright.. "Slippin' and a sliding and playing domino Lefting and then righting, it's not a crime you know You gotta tell your story boy before it's time to go"

I have no problem believing there is no karma.

And for the non-believer, it's difficult to believe there is no karma. But here's the thing. If you make a habit out of blowing through red lights on a regular basis, there's a pretty good chance you're going to get T-boned someday. It's not karma, it's just the laws of statistics catching up with you. It's not a punishment from God. It's not a tit for a tat or an eye for an elbow. It's just a way to cope with the sometimes harsh realities of this world.

It it so difficult for folks who believe in God to accept that there is no spiritual punishment for any wrong actions. They just can’t wait to send someone to hell or purgatory, for say, killing someone, adultery, rape, and any other wrong against a human. Believers who have been wronged by someone say, “You might get away with hurting me in this life, but justice will be served in the next, and you will suffer.” If one believes there is no god, we understand a human being is just like any other life, and when we die our body rots and we are forgotten about after our 3rd generation. No god is keeping track if we wronged our neighbor or family dog, which will result in spiritual consequences. Nor if we spoke in tongues, helped a little old lady across the street, or sacrificed our life to save someone elses life, there are no spiritual rewards waiting for us to be claimed. Our last breath is our last breath, and our existence ends never to be heard from again. Very comforting, for sure.

"John S. wrote, "In 1982 or 1983 Rev. Ralph Dubofsky and Rev. Vince Finegan came to me. Dr. Wierwille had asked them to do some work on the subject of adultery...This paper is the result of those years of study." In his Additional Comments, he said, "My paper is quite accurately presented here in WayDale. I wrote in through the summer of 1986 and handed it in to the research department in September of 1986." Do you or anyone else know more about why vp wanted such a study done? Was he having doubts about his ideas about adultery being accurate? Or was he counting on the study exonerating him? Did the fact that he was having serious health issues at the time have anything to do with this request?" "Also, why did it take JS around 3 years to study the topic and then begin to write it and hand it in after wierwille's death? That was a long time to keep him waiting, even denying him the privilege of actually getting an answer. Did he possibly share his results with vp privately before his death." Charity, I read that and thought about the same things you did- at least, when I was pasting it at the start of the thread. I'll go over what we know. We know that vpw was unrepentant and went to his grave, either unaware he was sinning, or willing to pretend, to the end, he wasn't sinning. We had an eyewitness say that, in his final hours, vpw was trying to scour his memory, and find where he'd "gotten off the Word" and blocked his own healing. Either vpw lied for that person- and knew he had sinned- or vpw told the truth- and he really didn't see what he'd done as "off the Word" when he raped and plagiarized and all the rest. Now, it's been said that, as people approach their final hours, if they see them coming, they look back over their lives, and may repent of wrongs. vpw didn't repent his wrong- he repented his lack of deliverance, because, to him, other people were things that he could use for his benefit. He wasn't "exploiting people", he was "using things." That's how he saw others. We know RD wasn't consenting to the rapes, and at the first sign there was one, he started to make a fuss- which is when the cadre gave him the bum rush off campus, making sure he spoke to nobody, kept an armed guard and attack dog in his presence, and so on. I suspect VF wasn't consenting, but I have no evidence other than my conviction. So, vpw was fine with adultery. RD and VF were NOT fine with adultery. RD and VF approach JS and say "Dr W wants adultery studied from The Word." I believe RD and VF told JS this. I do not believe vpw told RD and/or VF to look into this. I think they took it upon themselves to request this, and tacked on vpw's name to make sure it was taken seriously. JS had given 2 accounts as to why this paper was written. One says that RD and VF said vpw requested it. The other says that he studied this because he was propositioned, and realized he didn't have any verses come to mind to say not to commit adultery. Taking as given he's telling the truth as he remembers it, I think there were 2 events, which he conflated. In the first event, JS has his incident, and does his own research as to what is and isn't acceptable to God re: adultery. In the second event, RD and VF approached him. He finished the paper and had it ready to go in a few months. So, it's all speculation, but it's good speculation. I think vpw never requested the paper. I think JS studied the subject and didn't write the paper. A few years later, he was approached and asked to write it- and he finished it in a few months, revisiting the previous study, and speaking to women at the time, which is how he got the appendices written.

Sin is a real religious construct. Sin is a real religious concept. The concept doesn't exist outside a religious framework..

You're not understanding me correctly. You are equating "sin" with "wrong." Sin is an offense against God, objectively. God says to do x, and you do Not x. No God = no sin, by definition. It is a logical consequence of God's non-existence. Regardless of whether God and sin exist or not, it is a religious construct, not a social one. There are lots of social constructs governing the evaluation of morality. Sin is not one of them. The question is, can we as humans evaluate an action to be right or wrong, good or evil, in the absence of a God telling us the action is a sin? This is a very difficult question for a believer to explore because it requires you to entertain the hypothetical that there is no god ultimately deciding the answer to the question. Bottom line answer to your question: no, 1 and 2 are not subjective. 1. Is an assertion of fact contingent on the premise that there is no God (a direct response to the first premise cited by the theist). 2. Is a statement of fact regardless of whether one believes in a god. You simply cannot have sin without a god to offend. That makes it a religious construct, not a social one. The challenge is to divorce the concepts of bad and evil, which are subjective evaluations of behavior and conduct, from sin, which is an objective evaluation of whether a particular action violates a set of divine laws or rules. Did that clarify my point or muddy it?

My stepson is bipolar. I was reproved and corrected for having compassion and encouraging treatment. Because he was left untreated and no one got the green light to cast out the disorder, he is now in prison.

https://eternallyblessed.org/wp-content/themes/custom-community/ebooks/books/bible_literals_according_to_usage/core/#page/1/mode/1up https://eternallyblessed.org/archive/category/literal-according-to-usage https://eternallyblessed.org/archive/literal-translations-according-to-usage-2891 From the EternallyBlessed website and other sellers of the book: "Every serious student of the Bible endeavors to gain the original thought that was given as holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (The original Word given by God!) II Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (KJV) This is the only way in which an individual can truly know the will of God with the boldness and confidence to say "Thus sayeth the Lord." To get to that original Word of God, many things must be considered. The Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic text must be explored. In addition, the figures of speech, orientalisms and secular references must be known. Once all of these fields of knowledge and disciplines are harnessed into a research team, then the work begins. Under the leadership and spiritual oversight of Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille, a research team joined heads and hearts to be workmen of the Word of God. This research primarily focused on the seven church epistles. (Those books written directly to and for the body of believers in the Grace Administration). These books were Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Thessalonians. The research team involved various individuals over a time span of about ten years, while Dr. Victor Paul Wierwille's research was almost forty-five years in duration. Many books have been written as a result of this research. One of the results of this time in study is the "Literal According To Usage." Definition of "Literal According To Usage": A translation which reproduces the thoughts and meanings of the original based on the words in the original in relation to the verse, the context, the remoter context and to whom it's written. FOREWORD This work is being presented to help the individual understand the seven church epistles. It is to aide the workman of the Word in order to stand approved before God. II Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (KJV) This is by no means the final edition. As additional work is uncovered, there will be updates. PLEASE NOTE: The left column is the KJV and the right column is the corresponding "Literal according to usage." EternallyBlessed also posts this quote, but provides no attribution. (It's obvious on whose shoulders they are standing): "Dr. Wierwille asked me to share with you the definitions of different translations. For example a literal translation. You all know what it is. If not, I'll give it to you. A literal translation is a word-for-word translation. You have it in your interlinear with a very literal translation. But a literal according to usage is what we generally try to express in our translation work. A literal according to usage is a translation which reproduces the thoughts and meanings of the original based on the words in the original in relation to the verse, the context, the remoter context, and to whom it's written, that expresses the heart of what a translation ought to be. A literal according to usage in which you would not try to reproduce the construction of the original, but rather the thoughts and meanings of the original. That's to be based on the actual words that are in the original in relation to the foundational principles: the verse, the context, the remoter context, and to whom it's written. Then an expanded translation. This is another thing which we have done in the ministry. An expanded translation is a translation which reproduces the original with many alternative meanings and explanatory renderings. This would go into greater detail to expound what a literal according to usage would give you. It would give you much more explanation in order for you to understand that thought and the meanings of the original. A free [translation] or paraphrase (which we do not do) is a translation which gives the gist of the original without corresponding to each word used in the original. It would be a very free translation, a paraphrase, giving only the gist, rather than trying to stick as close as possible to the words of the original. That's how it differs from an expanded. There have been translations done along that line." ------ Most of these "literals" are on the amplified-free spectrum. The risk, indeed the demonstrable problem, is producing an interpretation rather than a translation. And we all know how private that can be. It's hypocritical to eschew word-for-word translations while hinging an entire conspiracy theory on the absence of the word "one" in John 19:18. (More to come on this very soon.) ------ WordWolf has shown in other threads that many of "the literals" plagiarized the Amplified Bible.

I was going out WOW and on our way to Amarillo I flipped into a manic psychotic episode and they put me on a bus. I got off the bus in Oklahoma City and was acting crazy and the police picked me up and put me in jail. A warden took it upon herself to look into my purse and fortunately my parents’ address and phone number were in it. (They had moved) and she contacted my dad who flew to OKC and took me home. Without these “fortunate” occurrences God only knows what would have become of me. It’s only because God took care of me not TWI. By the way, I didn’t really want to go WOW in the first place but was pressured into it by my twig leader. I’m bipolar but was undiagnosed at the time.

Are you questioning my right to ask the questions? If it doesn't matter to you Rocky, then just say so.

What are you talking about "Birth Death Certificate?" That would be silly.

Just another way to gaslight people (those still donating to their not-for-profit church). Does it matter anymore?

If I'm understanding you correctly, then wouldn't numbers 1 and 2 be "subjective" as well?