All Activity

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 to 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?

... nevertheless still emotionally immature. self-justifying rationalizations through and through (by TWI and Victor Wierwille).

This can be objectively observed and described. It is through this frame I will make a subjective moral assessment. Value judgements are indeed subjective. How else could the species survive 200,000 years? Humans had to cooperate, help each other, for the survival and flourishing of the group, clan, tribe, nation state. Likewise, the individual needed the help of the group to survive and flourish. And we still do. WLC. *exasperated sigh* We were incapable of making value judgements about rape and murder until 3500 years ago? Whew! Finally! After enduring thousands of years of rampant child rape and matricide, humans finally understood how to live righteously. Thanks to the Hebrews - enthusiastic child rapists and mother murderers themselves, until they got morality. Got it.

We have addressed these issues before, but I did so in a way that was confrontational and not constructive. I hope to reverse that this time and do so in a way that addresses the issue from an angle I'm not sure we covered directly last time. One of the criticisms we (who do not believe in gods/God) face is that in the absence of God, we have no foundation for objective morality. I'll allow Christian apologist William Lane Craig to frame the issue. Objective moral values do exist, and we can justify the existence of such values because God exists. Objective moral values cannot exist unless God does. Now, I am oversimplifying his point and I invite you to read his work on this for yourself, but I do so with a cautionary note: I believe Craig (I will abbreviate to WLC to avoid confusion with that other Craig of our common experience) uses a LOT of words to obscure the fact that his argument is ultimately circular. That is, one has to presume objective moral values exist in the first place and you must assume there is a causative relationship between those values and the existence of a God in order to reach the conclusion that God provides the foundation for objective moral values. As I will demonstrate in either this post or a future one, the problem with the assumption that God is the foundation of objective moral values is, it leaves us with no mechanism to evaluate the morality of the actions committed by or ordered by that God. Of necessity, anything that God says or does has to be morally good, even if we know they're not. For the unbeliever, this is a serious problem, because we need to evaluate the moral value system of multiple gods who disagree with each other, with each religion telling us we have no right to question the morality of their God. We cannot question Allah or Jesus or Yahweh. A Christian sure can evaluate Allah, but only against Christianity. And the Muslim has no responsibility to accept a Christian's criticism because to the Muslim, the Christian is using a false moral foundation. Simply put, Christians believe Yahweh/Jesus is/are always right, and if your morality conflicts with theirs, you are wrong and better get with the program. Muslims think Allah/Muhammad are always right and if your morality conflicts with theirs, you are wrong and better get with the program. The problem is, they cannot BOTH be right, and there can't simply be no way to evaluate the morality of a god's actions or orders. The problem is in the premise. The problem with the whole construct lies right at the beginning, with the premise that objective moral values exist. They don't. Repeat, objective moral values do not exist. In fact, if you think about it, objective moral values are oxymoronic. We need to first distinguish between types of values. Some values are objective. Say, measurements. Five feet is taller than three feet. Six feet is taller than two feet. But is six feet objectively "tall"? Well, it can be. It can also not be. If you're a horse jockey, six feet is real tall. Perhaps prohibitively so. However, if you're a basketball player, six feet is tiny. Same six feet. Tall against one standard, short against another. The objective value is feet and inches. Or centimeters, for anyone reading on the rest of the planet. So when we talk about values, we can't assume we're talking about something objective, especially when human evaluation against ANOTHER standard comes into play. And THAT is the problem with morality. Morality is an attempt at a coherent system of value judgements, but such judgments are subjective BY DEFINITION. One cannot say an action is objectively moral, objectively right or wrong, anymore than one can say something is audibly green or chromatically loud. Actions merely ARE. They do not become moral or immoral, right or wrong, good or evil until they are measured against something else. What does this mean? On social media, a believer writes: "If atheism were true sin wouldn’t be real. It would be a social construct. So really if you murdered, raped or genocide a village, then that wouldn’t be wrong. So even your worst evils aren’t evil if atheism is true." But this believer is mistaken. Badly. The first mistake is to assume that subjective morality is somehow inadequate to evaluate the goodness or evil of an action. Not only is subjective morality adequate to the task, it is the ONLY tool we have to accomplish the task! That's hard for people to process because it requires saying things like "rape is not objectively wrong; murder is not objectively wrong; genocide is not objectively wrong." Here's the thing, though: "Not objectively wrong" is not a synonym for "right, acceptable, good," or even "neutral." Good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral are all subjective value judgments. Always. (This doesn't change just because one subjugates his own moral value system for God's and calls it "objective." God's moral value system is HIS subjective value system, and all people are entitled to evaluate it to decide whether it is adequate. Rape is not objectively wrong. But it is subjectively wrong and that is an adequate basis to condemn it. Murder is not objectively wrong. But it is subjectively wrong and that is an adequate basis to condemn it. Genocide is not objectively wrong. But it is subjectively wrong and that is an adequate basis to condemn it. On what basis does one evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an action? Well, I submit you hold it against a standard that IS objective. While it is not written in stone, one can build a predictable and useful subjective value system around the premise that all actions have the potential of helping people or hurting them, contributing to our benefit or contributing to suffering. If you commit an act that contributes to the greater good without exacerbating suffering, we can generally evaluate your action to be "good" or at least "neutral." And we can test that standard against any other. Ditch the parts that don't work and improve the parts that do. This is what humanity has always done. It is why slavery was tolerated for centuries. It is why punishment for criminal activity has become less barbaric over time. It is why we look back at a movie like Reefer Madness as a virtual comedy rather than a solemn warning. It is why Amos and Andy were hilarious in their day and offensive now. Our morality evolves. Biblical morality does not. Quranic morality does not. Objective morality cannot change, by definition, because if it's objectively moral in 2025 then it must have been objectively moral in 2025 BC. If you argue "but it was a different time," then you concede, of necessity, that morality changes when times change, which is the OPPOSITE of "these actions are objectively wrong." This is how I answered the social media Christian (I will repeat his post so you don't have to scroll back up for it: "If atheism were true, sin wouldn’t be real. It would be a social construct. So really if you murdered, raped or genocide a village, then that wouldn’t be wrong. So even your worst evils aren’t evil if atheism is true." My reply: 1. Sin is not real. 2. It is a religious construct. 3. Rape, murder and genocide are wrong, which is a SUBJECTIVE determination with a rational basis in the amount of avoidable and unnecessary harm that is caused. 4. Evil is a subjective value judgment, so as long as there are people, those acts will contribute to avoidable human suffering therefore determined subjectively to be evil. 5. Subjective morality is an adequate basis to condemn evil. 6. Objective morality is an oxymoron. It does not and CAN not exist. Stopping here to allow others to weigh in and ask questions.

Wow! The famous adultery paper by John Schoenheit. I took the Class called "Living God's Word as a Family"...(an evolution of the old one by VPW), nowadays TWI places more emphasis on adultery, fornication, and child-rearing than on marital sexuality (nicknames for genitals LOL) I can type the index of the class if you wish.

"And awaaayyy we go!" George

WW is up. George

Expectations of Allied POWS in this WWII movie were that Japan should have honored the Geneva Convention. Actually, Japan wasn't a signatory to the treaty until 1953. (Interestingly, misdeeds by the Japanese prompted revision of the treaty in 1949.) The commandant of the prison was portrayed as being ruthless. According to many of his prisoners after the war, the actual Japanese officer on whom the role was based was one of the more humane and reasonable ones. To keep costs down, producer Sam Spiegel decided not to hire any extras, using crew members and Ceylon locals instead. This meant that some of the British prisoners were really natives of the region wearing make-up to appear Caucasian. George

This has been unattended for a month and a half. I suggest that Raf either give some more clues or just turn over the cards and offer a free post. George

I was surprised to learn that Bullinger is not held in particularly high regard among Bible scholars today. But then I can't imagine any literalist/dispensationalist would be.

Since wierwille relied a lot on Bullinger, here is a website for The Complete Companion Bible. However, any discussion of Bullinger's work that do not apply to vp's literal translations according to usage would be off topic for this thread. I just sent it along as an additional resource. The KJV Companion Bible in PDF Online

Unfortunately, my copy of your book was accidentally ruined when my water bottle soaked it while in my bag, so I can't refer to it. 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? I ask because according to WIERWILLE'S CERTIFICATE OF DEATH, John Juedes wrote about wierwille wearing an eye patch and that ,"Witnesses at the Rock of Ages 1983 reported that Wierwille's speech began to slur during a hymn-sing, and he had to leave the stage during a teaching because he was having trouble communicating. Although rumors suggested Wierwille had two strokes, no specifics were generally announced." 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. Finally, is John Schoenheit still willing to talk about the paper and answer questions?