Leaderboard

You know he wasn't a real doctor, don't you?

Can I do the flip charts? Lol

When I first came out as atheist, I started a thread you can probably still find here called "Are you more moral than Yahweh?" It took a look at a number of questionable OT positions (and I think one or two NT, but mostly OT) that are inconsistent with a God who is the author of morality. But if you are to take the position that morality is objective (spoiler alert, it's not) and that certain moral standards are absolute (like rape among humans is always wrong and the victim is the person who was raped), then you have to conclude that the God of the Old Testament is frankly not moral. Is it moral to prescribe the death penalty for picking up sticks between dusk Friday and dusk Saturday? No. Of course not. But Yahweh (allegedly) did that. It's sociopathic! "But it was another time." SO WHAT!?!?! So what you're describing here is a clash between what the Bible actually says about Yahweh (and by extension Jesus) and your own understanding of what actual morality is. And then you have to defend your own morality against the (absolutely and demonstrably false) premise that there is no such thing as morality without Yahweh because he is where we get morality from. HE MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT. Morality does not come from religion. Religion comes from morality. And it is not "objective," which is why our culture rejects a slew of Old Testament pronouncements as immoral. We may have once thought, incorrectly, that eating shellfish or mixing fabrics was immoral. We know better today.

According to Genesis 1-3, God creates a paradise and many different kinds of awesome life and everything is perfect. What a great God He is. Then everything is corrupted because of one single act of two humans (one who was deceived and the other who followed suit). All mankind has now become evil and worthy of death and is therefore in need of redemption. Now there are wars, murders, rapes, natural disasters, genocides, dreadful diseases and disorders of mind and body, hatred, lusts, etc. - SO MUCH pain and suffering century after century which God knew would happen because of Adam and Eve's disobedience. Why was such a cruel and severe punishment so necessary? All of this is explained away by saying “a loving God gave Adam and Eve free will,” so everything is their fault – not God’s. I now call that statement into question because God was GOD and so much GREATER than them: - God was incapable of doing evil, but Adam and Eve were created capable of doing evil. - God had foreknowledge of all that would happen if sin entered the world, but Adam and Eve were only told of “their death.” Who was in a greater and more powerful position to have the responsibility of the whole world placed on their shoulders – God or Adam and Eve? Yet God placed it on humans. I used to think this was how highly God thought of the perfect man He created, and they just went and blew it. Now, I’m thinking they were doomed from the beginning to fail.

Thanks for the replies. Growing up in this cult really did a number on me. I was afraid to ask questions and instead of thinkign that was not OK, I thought I was being decieved by Satan and it was him who was putting the questions in my mind. Think about being 9 years old and thinkign Satan himself is weaponizing your thoughts as a way to attack the Way. It's soul crushing. I just wanted the devil to leave me alone. In reality the devil had no interest in me at all. ugh

https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/s/toPjST02Yg This thread talks about all the social advantages there are in being in a cult. Many “friends” easily accessible. This person talks about the JW app where they are connected to 500 people and are “friends” with 100 of them. Another insightful comment describes that as “forced connections with people whose real personalities are hidden under a facade”. I think many people trade their souls and morals for this fake connection. I certainly lost about 100 percent of those fake connections when I decided that the path of lifetime service to prop up “WOW” TM and self inflated nincompoops was not the best for my family. How many people disagree with the tenets of TWI but are too afraid to leave because of their “friends”???? Heres a tip. They are not your friends. They are less your friends than the neighbors on your street for the most part and than your average person in a community. Those ties aren’t worth the sacrifice. The juice is not worth the squeeze IMO.

Gaslighting is abuse. In the name of God or Truth, it is abject, reprehensible, wicked abuse. It is born of a spiritual poverty by those who beleeeve the spiritually impoverished.

Glad you found medical answers and have enjoyed a rich interaction with your grandson. The JWs are real bad about the medical stuff and superstition with how they refuse any blood transfusions due to some strange scripture interpretation. I blame the Adv Class for all the stuff about devil spirits. It was like Harry Potter crossed with conspiracy theory with some OT reading to lull the hearers to sleep. It is interesting to see the end result of all of that is driving people away from faith.

Among Christians, there's any number of beliefs about the events in Genesis 1, with a number of justifications about the different positions. I'm going to try to run through the basics of the ones with which I am familiar, without making a "Thou must agree with me" on the subject. I know what I believe and why, but there's room to disagree, and, from what I've observed, discussions on these subjects tend to start with one position and just wave away all the others with a dismissive insult. I'll try not to do that. (If I fail at that, sorry.) ===================================== Now, then, one thing I want to mention is that one division is whether or not the Earth is old, and how that affects our reading of the Bible. Whichever position someone holds doesn't determine whether they believe or not- there's people of faith holding all positions. I've noticed that "young earth Creationists" tend to be dismissive of anything else- as if to say otherwise indicates a lack of faith, and shut down discussions there. I don't think that science holds all the answers, but I think the OBSERVATIONS of science have much to teach us, whether or not we agree with any positions held by a scientist. Then again, scientists aren't required to believe in a religion allegedly from the Bible, and I am not required to believe in a philosophy allegedly based on science alone (whether or not it's actually anything of the kind.) Regardless, I'm not prepared to completely wave away actual scientific observations no matter what conclusions are drawn by people after me. In this particular case, I'm referring to the age of the Earth. To all competent scientific observation, the Earth APPEARS very old. I'm not concerned as to the exact numbers, and different measures may suggest different numbers, and over time spans that huge, it's no wonder. Some people use that as an excuse to dismiss what's observed, which is a shame. So, the Earth is observed to APPEAR to be very old. It may be in the millions of years, or billions of years, or trillions as far as I know and care. All I personally need to know is that it appears to be from a VERY long time ago. I'm aware that there are Christians out there that CLAIM the Earth is only a few THOUSAND years old. They base that entirely on a direct addition of all the ages of the men mentioned in the book of Genesis, then add 6-7 days for Creation, and call it a day. There's no guarantee we were MEANT to try to calculate the Earth's age this way. Further, people with this position who even address science after this tend to do so with either a misunderstanding of what's observed, or go along with what was written or said by someone whose grasp of science is notably weak. So, to young Earth Creationists, I would point out that there's at least 2 more positions held by Christians, and they are no less faithful to God than those who hide from scientific observations. So, the Earth can reliably said to APPEAR very old. This means that one of two things is true. Either A) The Earth is very old, or B) The Earth is not very old, but APPEARS so because it was created to appear so, it was created with the appearance of age. As to the second position, it's entirely a faith-based position, so there's not much to have to say about it. I will address that one first. We know that God Almighty certainly CAN create things in an advanced state, both in general and in specifics. In the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, the miracle produced fish that was ready-to-eat, not fish eggs nor tadpoles. So, to those of us who believe in God, this position is certainly possible. Its limitations are obviously its lack of limitations. It can't be PROVEN in any way. All observations will point to an older Earth, and a young Earth was designed to APPEAR so. This limits its contributions to discussions. It it's true, then it can't add much to the discussions. Again, it's entirely faith-based, not observation-based. Further, there's no verse that states it outright. So, for those who have faith, it's possible, but impossible to prove. All evidence to the contrary are evidence that also supports its existence. For a scientist, this is frustrating because it is not "falsifiable". That is, there's no way to figure out something, and say "if this is true, then that is false." There's also no evidence that exists that says this is definitively true. (Let me know if something irrefutable turns up like God's Message To His Creation or something, that might settle this one.) So, discussions often proceed that the Earth is old, and that Christians deny that, and that Christians don't know their science. Well, that can be said of certain Christians, but that does a disservice to other Christians. For the sake of discussion, I will skip further discussion on "young Earth created with an appearance of age" because there's nothing else to say about it, really. (Unless a verse shows up that settles the discussion among Christians, since no evidence will be able to do so short of a planetary miracle.) That means the Earth appears old, and I'll address the Christians who say as much. These Christians generally hold one of three positions concerning Genesis 1. 1) The Bible is unreliable, so I look to my church for what to believe. Genesis 1 doesn't matter. 2) The Bible is reliable, and the "days" are period of time in the stated order. 3) The Bible is reliable, and there is a large time-gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. I'm going to skip over the first position, as, again, it will add nothing to the discussion.

Yes. Let it be split. Keep it in About the Way and title new thread "LCDIAZ WC 17."

Ok, this past Thursday, SEVENTEEN YEARS after this thread had DIED DOWN, the new post began, majorly hijacking the thread. (Page two.) People keep checking in, thinking there's some news about the thread topic, and are disappointed to find out this thread now has nothing to do with this thread. Am I the only one who thinks this thread should be split in two, with the old thread intact and a new thread with the new...whatever this is... hosting this completely unrelated discussion?

A not-so-great thought just came to me. The above reference I made about dancing and the manifestation of the spirit had absolutely nothing to do with a certain former twi production. I was thinking purely of the power of music and dance that I felt while watching these two clips.

I used to disregard your posts about there being myths in the Bible as simply "inconceivable." But then, one crack led to another crack and .... then, there was a letting go. Thank you for your reply.

nice write-up socks, on those 2 verses with considerations of other perspectives I don't think some literal interpretation can satisfy the very human need to know, or even a curiosity to see things more clearly. Time to God is not a thing to put into the text I would think, so to us it's a tough concept to see it without a framework of assumed reality.

Is there even a spiritual realm? How would we even know? Wasn't it the unexplained events in the physical realm that gave birth to the earliest Egyptian's mythologies?

There were a few times when I actually thought my non-verbal, autistic grandson may have had a devil spirit(s) because of how physically agitated he would become sometimes and then, especially, when he began to have seizures. The seizures had become myoclonic in nature where his head would jerk severely downwards and forcibly hit whatever was in front of him. He had regular black eyes, bruises, cuts and bumps on his forehead and face. I've let go of those thoughts since deconverting. Doing so was like coming out of a freakish h..llhole where I feared not being able to cast out a devil spirit from my own grandson and entering a bright and sane place where such thoughts mean nothing because devil spirits are not real - they don't exist! (Since then, my grandson's neurologist changed his meds, and he no longer has those extreme jerks.) During this time, a friend wanted to encourage me to trust God again and shared how their teenage son prayed for God to remove demons from someone appearing to have a heart attack and the person instantly was delivered of their symptoms. I had no way of knowing if the healing was real or not, but I did know how off-putting the story was to me. It only reinforced my determination to never go back to that "world" again.

Interesting topic, my response is to what the meaning of Genesis 1:1 and 2 is and considering the Way's teaching on it, going back to VPW and PFAL. VPW seemed to have accepted the interpretation of Genesis 1: 1 and 2 from Bullinger's work, who held that the Hebrew word "hayeha" translated and meant became, rather than was (the root is "to be"). So with the words tohu va boho he read it "became without form, and void"....as if to say - the earth was created one way in verse 1 - and then it became without form and was void". “form and void” - I seem to recall that phrase isn't actually 2 things but was a kind of hebrew homophone....I may not have that exactly right, but the best I understand it's meaning is that it isn't two different things - not form, and void as the english reads in KJV - but it describes a formless state and basically means no form, formless or empty - which adds a very interesting context to the record then, not that it's literal but rather simply the idea of an emptiness, formless(ness), a state of not being filled or put into order....and so on. So verses 1 and 2 could read something like "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form". Two things are covered - the heavens (whatever that is) and the earth (whatever this is) and the earth is, at that time, without form. The bibles books cover a history of the earth and mankind and their creator, God. That's the perspective of the narrative, God and His creation, specifically the earth and mankind. A lot of other things are covered too but it would seem clear the vast detail, such as there is, deals with those things, not the whole of everything else that was or is. VPW seemed to take the Bullinger translation as a way to explain how the earth could have millions of years of history - a first heaven and earth in which God created…whatever it was He created and then between verses 1 and 2, the earth became messed up, formless, in a degraded, destroyed state. Or - 1 and 2 are a continuous thought - in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth and the earth was without form and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Some research notes a use of the figure of speech polysyndeton in the greek text and used throughout Genesis 1. Forms of anaphora are commonly used in any language to add impact, as a rhetorical tool. It’s still used today, a lot. So again, to me Genesis reads as more or a continuous set of statements that go through the creation record, rather than what amounts to a Grand Canyon size hole between verse 1 and 2. And of course, there’s no real detail of any kind about what that verse 1 earth would have been like, other than to offer a biblical explanation for fossils we find today from millions of years ago that seemingly contradict the record in Genesis. So it is a huge assumption that aside from a few verses that refer to what are interpreted as related events (Lucifer’s fall from “heaven”, etc) there is never any reference in the Bible at all to what that first creation would have been like. Even the idea that Adam and Eve were told to “replenish” the earth I understand to mean it to “fill” the earth, not re fill it, again. Granted, the biblical authors weren’t scientists or archaeologists but from their perspective in the human history it could seem to make more sense that there’d be reference to what would have been if there was ANY knowledge of it, passed down over time. But there isn’t, really. So while Adam and Eve wouldn’t have necessarily known what had come before, the author would have had to, to some extent if the “became void” was the correct translation…..sot to me anyway, there’s mostly a void of that making any sense after I read the rest of the bible. As a researcher VPW struggled with his linear literalist thinking. On the one hand he wanted the Bible to be taken literally where it could be, while at the same time informing any textual translation with huge amounts of figurative and historical information (“orientalisms”, figures of speech and context considerations that spanned generations, etc etc) Die hard Weirwille-ites want to make that out to be a strength but over the years it seems obvious he used it all to support his earliest convictions, not add to them or certainly not to change them. But to be perfectly honest, I don’t know for sure about Genesis 1:1 and 2 - there’s a lot of translation work that supports a bunch of conclusions. I know all of the other references that try to fit some history into the space between verses 1 and 2 aaaaaaand, I'm not so sure. Today I will say I tend towards it being a continuous creation record and 1 and 2 that moves right into 3 and forward. "YMMV". Hope this adds to the discussion.

Labels are a way of avoiding meaningful discourse.

Strange, I expected to read news about Donna Lombardi Martindale, which the topic states, and I see the thread is off onto something else.

Hi Oldiesman, I should rename the title of this thread to "letting go" instead of "losing" one's faith. I have listened to quite a few interviews on Harmonic Atheist and when this topic comes up, the answer is usually "nothing" happens after death. Another answer is maybe reincarnation based on research of memories of a past life by some people. The pain/fear of letting go of the belief in an afterlife with Christ where there is no more tears, death, sorrow or pain and where one is reunited with loved ones becomes a non-issue when one sees that the Bible was authored by man alone. What is left is not living a pitiful life but living one with all your heart, strength, mind and soul for the here and now.

The snow on gas pumps was recorded in minute detail from vp’s lips to elena whitesides book, the Way Living in Love, which of course you’re aware of. I consider that book sanctioned material. That is almost a textbook on how to think, act, and talk like a seasoned wayfer.

It was late August of 2012 when I confronted myself about my wavering faith. I was coming to terms with my sister's impending death (from ALS) and my son's autism diagnosis. A lot of people don't believe me, but those two issues did not lead me to doubt God. Rather, they exposed the doubt that was already in my heart. How? I remember asking people to pray for my sister, but I don't remember asking to pray for her healing. And not once did I pray for my son's deliverance from autism. Just for strategies and help coping. That's how I remember it, anyway. I could be mistaken. But I do know at some point in both those experiences, the notion of a miracle was not seriously entertained. I think one of the things people don't understand about losing faith is that it's not a decision. It's never one thing. It's a realization. Over a great deal of time I realized I was not praying the way I used to. Years of asking for something and getting nothing taught me to ask for nothing. The long, slow realization about the nature of the Bible could not be overcome. And, as a straw that broke the camel's back, my search for evidence that first century believers in a position to know for a fact that Jesus was raised went to their deaths rather than renounce that faith... turned up not a solitary shred of supporting evidence. I finally realized there was no longer any belief that I held that could qualify me as a Christian. I had to sort through my thoughts and feelings. Reject God outright? No, I would have to know EVERYTHING to know that (spoiler alert: that's bulls#!t). So I told myself I was agnostic. Then I realized that being agnostic is not incompatible with being atheist. One is a "lack of knowledge" claim. The other is a "lack of belief" claim. You could be both. Most atheists are. I eventually came to the conclusion that the agnostic/atheist dichotomy was not a discussion worth having. Most people don't subscribe to it, and you end up sounding defensive for no reason. When it comes to the existence of any god worth discussing, I am an atheist. Period. When it comes to the existence of some abstract concept of gotchagod, I'm agnostic, but only to the extent that such a god defies definition and testable attributes. Why am I not agnostic? Because Yawheh is a fictional character whose attributes changed over time according to what his creators needed for storytelling purposes, much like Superman and Captain America. He had a wife once. Israel went from recognizing many gods, of whom Yahweh was fiercely jealous, to acknowledging only one, which mad His jealousy wildly irrational. All those other gods? Oh, they didn't exist. Or they were demonstrations of Satan's power. Except Satan is an imaginary character too, whose attributes are comically vague. He bad. No good things. Accuser. Needs Yahweh's permission to murder Job's family. And Yahweh GRANTS IT. What the bloody... Anyway, back from THAT tangent. So now it's been 10 years. Now and then I feel an urge to explore some facet of what I once believed. Not often. For example, I believe the 12 are largely fictional characters. Not all of them. Peter, James and John were real. Judas was a fake. Paul (who certainly existed) refers to Jesus being seen of "the 12" not because Judas was still alive after the crucifixion, but because the story of his betrayal had not been made up yet. But they're just mental exercises at this point. My main concern with religion is that government stays out of its way and that it stays out of government's way. I guess we can say it's not a phase.

"Eternal Now is a concept of time perception suggested by some proponents of New Age spirituality.[1] Its characteristics vary from increased awareness of the present moment to a broader, more open and holistic perception of one's subjective past and potential variants of future. The concept is consonant with and constitutes an integration and development of a number of approaches to spiritual alertness and totality of perception advocated by various forms of Buddhist philosophy (in particular Zen Buddhism) [citation needed], Shamanic practices, and other philosophical and spiritual directions, both ancient and contemporary." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Now_(New_Age) My fellowship commander would misapply this concept, as well. He said victor coined the term, but, of course, victor did no such thing. If the word of god is an eternal now, then it's not the Bible or any version of the Bible, nor interpretation nor class nor Paul.

Wow. Just… wow… …The unflinching regurgitation, the reflexive parroting. The utmost manifestation of indoctrination. Evidence of a very soft, conditioned mind. This is just creepy AF. I need a bath.

wow.... lol...

I don't think there is a scripture that mentions five days. It's arbitrary, like one or two days. The implication is that one or two days of survival is enough to get the slave owner off the hook, after that (five days, two weeks...), if the slave dies from the wounds, well, too bad -- the only loss is the slave owner's money. Only need to ensure your sex slave survives one or two days.

here

Glowwry! Isn't that wuuuunderful?

There are cave paintings that are radio-carbon dated to over 40,000 years ago. The fact that there are paintings at all - and of recognisable creatures and vegetation at that - points to much earlier human(like) creatures that had the skill to do the painting, knowledge of materials, etc etc. There are other cave paintings in other parts of the world that are also very, very old, in five figures. Any theory needs to take account of these - unless there's the allegation that these are all total fakes. Unlikely, methinks.

Yeah, well, mogadishu rafa calamari peshwari naan. I would that you all SIT as much as I do. He said Jesus sits at the right hand of God. God is sitting next to his seated son, Jesus. Neither needs to stop working at any time. They can work while sitting. Neither requires rest because neither gets tired, probably because they are sitting. Though God and Christ are absent, take comfort in knowing that they are sitting down

I look forward to Raf's answer, but I just want to say, what if you're right? Consider letting go of this sinister, manipulative dilemma. This is possible: The freedom, the liberty, to look clearly at anything, unencumbered by forgone conclusions and beleefs.

I know I know I know. Ok Johnny Jumpup tell us. So Moses was like in the middle of translating these messages in his head down to hieroglyphics enscribed on animal skins. Then just as he was finishing up 1:1 and moving on to 1:2 his scribe died of colon cancer. He said whatamigonnado? So unlike Joseph Smith who said screw the golden tablets I’m gonna stick my face in a hat and make up some BS, Moses was true to the vision and eventually replaced the scribe and continued on writing Genesis 1:2. Oh you mean the time between the events described in the verses? Well just about anything could happen. Some unknown centuries later a flim flam artist from Ohio filled it in with all sorts of imaginative drama. And then his successor not a bright man took even further liberties with imagined stories in Genesis. Genesis has all sorts of cool stuff in it. Giants. People living 700 years. Human sacrifice. Incest. But these guys needed their own flair to make $$$$. Snow in July. White and black heart visions. Conspiracy theory. And strange sex. Gen 1:1 and 1:2 has a gap in it where cult leaders designed screen doors for submarines.

Not interested in the video, but interested in sharing my thoughts on any questions you have about your journey. For instance, I would caution very much against allowing your faith to be undermined by whatever challenges your children or grandchildren are facing. My journey from faith coincided with the autism diagnosis of my son and the illness and death of my sister from ALS. To this day I struggle to explain to people that the coincidence of timing was just that, a coincidence. They think I'm angry at God for allowing my son to have autism or my sister to die. The truth is my rejection of faith had a lot more to do with the paucity of evidence for the claims of and about the first century church. Gonna stop here because I see a lot of posts have gone up since I started replying to the thread, so let me read them before I answer. But you are far from alone, Charity. I've walked this walk. Happy to discuss.

After leaving twi, it was necessary to unlearn the lies we were taught in order to become healthier. I think it is true for leaving Christianity as well - it happens when one sees the problems with what the Bible teaches. Is it only a matter of how one looks at things? The following is from the beginning of the video above about the slave mentality of Christianity. It shows a different way of seeing God than what I’ve believed for so long. INDIVIDUAL ASPECT - Fear of Death: God offers a bargain system, not a free gift but a trade in order to save us from eternal death (or hell) which He decided was the apt penalty for all of us because of Adam's sin. Our end of the bargain is to make Jesus Christ our lord and master. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT (6:15 in the video) - 5 LINEAR CHARACTERISTICS OF SLAVE MENTALITY (lowering oneself to bring about the desires/needs of someone greater at a great expense to oneself) i. Obedience: based on being told the Master/God knows what is right; disobedience = personal harm ii. Submissiveness: lowering oneself; believing we're worthless - we who are “wretched” according to our Master/God are “saved” so we can glorify how great our Master/God is iii. Dependence: relying on our Master's/God's authority to supply our personal needs, validation, direction or sustenance which reinforces our worthlessness, wretchedness and incompetence to live our lives without Him iv. Fatalism: The Master's/God’s way is the only way; any other way is bad, therefore we resign ourselves to submission and dependence on the Master/God v. Fear of autonomy: fear of freedom, personal responsibility or unknown outcomes (e.g., Israelites wanting to return to slavery in Egypt rather than face the reality of their hardships in the wilderness) A A believing Christian will obviously not see things this way, but for one who is beginning to doubt the truth of the Bible, the above becomes eye-opening.

“….all the social advantages there are in being in a cult.” What could ever be said to someone who beleeeves this? It is daunting to even imagine the level of delusion required, yet, I see it and read about it every day. Very, very sad.

The error of four crucified is not explained by fundamentalism. It's surprising that this actual error was invented by a man as educated as Bullinger. That he would point to an 18th century cemetery in France as supporting evidence is even more surprising for such a man, until you find out he was a fervent flat earther. Then, it's, "Ohhhhhh..." It's surprising that a scholar as proficient in languages as Bullinger would fail so profoundly to understand how translation works and why word for word literal translations of idiomatic expressions like ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν are ineffectual. The word "one" wasn't added in the way it is suggested. It is not a corrupt interpolation motivated by some nefarious agenda. Translators add words sometimes so an expression in the source language will make sense in the target language. This is not a radical idea. That Bullinger pretended not to understand ἐντεῦθεν is an adverb modifying the verb crucified and answering the question "Where?" is beyond astonishing. It does not modify "two." That Bullinger defecates on all that he should know about Greek and English is suspect. Who now has the nefarious agenda? Why would he invent such deception? Four crucified is so blatantly inaccurate and irresponsible that, for me, it calls into question everything Bullinger wrote. I'm not saying Bullinger was wrong about everything, just that everything he wrote deserves scrutiny.

Here is another example of victor contradicting himself. There are hundreds of examples of this kind of error laced throughly throughout "his writings" and recorded sermons. Either he was a liar or just stupid, or both. Either way, he hoped no one would notice or question the dead rabbits pulled from his hat. If one digs beneath the glowing, seductive, superficial word salad of his "teachings," one can find out. Now, this effort will require a sharp and sturdy tool to penetrate the thick, petrified crust of bullshonta. An infant's fingernail should suffice. I want to know what the text says. I have no doctrinal agenda. (For a doctrinal perspective, go to WordWolf's excellent discussion of Genesis 1 he started in the Doctrinal forum.) As far as I can tell, there is no adverb then in Genesis 1:2. There is no textual evidence supporting victor's bloody rabbit. None. NONE. To say there should be is to tip one's hand to using an eisegetical process of "private interpretation" - a method victor CONSTANTLY railed against! To your point, like the serpent, victor added words to the text ALL THE TIME. As you know, he also deleted words, even entire paragraphs - "Cross it out!" Indeed, there are inauthentic, interpolated words and verses that made it into the Bible, but only those that didn't fit victor's glove were crossed out. And he crossed out added words because he didn't understand how translations work, as in John 19:18. victor also frequently changed the meaning of words. Partly because he didn't understand how language works and partly as a means to force fit his voodoo into his bloody glove. Further into Genesis at chapter 2 verse 2, he changes the meaning of the Hebrew verb shabbath. He says it means SIT, not REST, and not that it should mean SIT, but that it actually means SIT, because God doesn't need to REST. A complete invention! Total bullshonta! A blatant lie from the mouth of a liar! Shabbath means to cease, to desist, to rest (from labor), to stop working. Period. It never, ever, EVER means to sit.

The position that the " creative days" refers to periods of time is a position that has some thinking behind it. After all, the Bible does speak, at times, of a " day" not as a period of 12-24 hours, but as an event. (" I was in the spirit on the Lord's day..." ) According to this position, Genesis 1:1 is an overview, and the rest of the chapter is exposition. There's a flat statement that God created the heavens and Earth, and then a partial breakdown of how He did it. Any such description will be " partial" and will leave out things that are not germane to the account. If we were doing a scientific breakdown, Genesis 1 would probably be longer than our modern Bible, and it would only be understandable now. ANY account of anything focuses on specific things, and leaves out things that seem not to matter to that specific account at that time. (" Tell me everything that's happened." " Well, first the earth cooled. Then the dinosaurs came. But they got too big and fat. So, they died and turned into oil. Then the Arabs came, and they bought Mercedes-Benzes...") So, there's a breakdown. First, Genesis 1:3 gives us the " creation" of energy. Then Genesis 1:5 gives us linear time. Genesis 1:7-10 gives us the " creation" of what we consider the Earth (including the atmosphere, etc.) Then Genesis 1:11-12 gives us plant life, " whose seed is in itself, after its kind". An interesting description, considering what we now know about plant life. Thousands of years later, Gregor Mendel originated the science of genetics, and made much the same observations about " kind". Well, I think it's interesting, at least. Genesis 1:14-19 give us some verses on atmosphere, astronomy, and things along those lines. Genesis 1:20 gives us aquatic life, and avian life- in that order, again, after their kind. If I were an atheist scientist, I might find it interesting that the Bible actually had the order right- plant life, then aquatic life, then avian life, all without archeologists providing the text. For a guess, it's a remarkable SPECIFIC guess and it's correct. (Or I might not. Since I'm not an atheist scientist, I can't speak reliably to what they think.) Genesis 1:24-25 gives us the land animals, later than the aquatic and avian life, also after their kinds. Finally, man appears in the account. Considering how " creation myths" go, it almost sounds scientific in description. I've read a story of how coyote " created" man and tricked all the other animals in doing so. That sounded like a tall tale in a manner this does not. (Of course, someone can disagree, and I am, admittedly, biased in favor of the Bible, so that can color my opinions, certainly.) To someone who considers this the correct understanding of the account, there's a lot to say in its favor. It matches the observations of scientists. It matches a reading of the Bible. Both seem to proceed in a linear fashion together. It's a sensible method that doesn't require any outside aid to support it, but it supports outside understanding. So, that's one position. I'll get to the other as soon as I can.

One of the things I find interesting about Genesis 1 is what it says, and how there's room for it to be understood more than one way. Although I like science, I do NOT currently hold to the position- taught by twi- that the Bible is meant to teach us science. I think the Bible was meant to give the plan of salvation and give light to the simple. I don't think it was meant as a scientific textbook that would have been opaque to readers for thousands of years until relatively recently, when we learned enough science collectively to understand it. Obviously, then, one question would be, what's Genesis 1 for, anyway? As I see it (this is my opinion, and, for the argumentative out there, I'm pointing it out because it's an opinion and not the last word on a subject), the Bible is meant to give us some basic ideas. In the case of Genesis 1, there's plenty to explain to us here, in terms of " WHY are we here" and " why is religion the way it is after Genesis" and so on. I think it speaks more to PURPOSE than to the exact MECHANICS of " HOW we are here." There's a creation, and there's a Creator. That's critical to understanding. One thing I find interesting about the specifics of the "days" is how different this account is from "creation myths". In some religions, we get a giant dismembered, and the giant's body parts are disassembled and made into the Earth. Others match this in colorful descriptions. They're interesting, but I find they lean heavily towards the fanciful. Is the Genesis 1 account similar? It is similar that it is an account of things happening, that are done by a God, and that they are big and miraculous. They differ heavily in how mundane they are. There's energy, then matter, then lower forms of life, then larger forms of life, and man shows up at the end. What a boring account compared to some of the others! Now, I find the next 2 positions I will address to be interesting, and I think that both offer much to consider for Christians who examine them, including those who disagree with a position. With one, we will discuss the " creative days" as periods of time, and with the other, " the gap theory" which most of us heard in twi. (Since I have a life outside this board, I doubt I will have time to run through all of this now, and will probably have to come back to do these topics justice.)

Something I learned after leaving TWI is that fundamentalists who cling to the non-negotiable notion that the gospels should not contradict each other (which comes from the belief in inerrancy) will come up with ludicrous interpretations like four crucified. They disregard the fact that each gospel stands on its own. And in case you don't know, each gospel was written loooong after the events it describes. And the gospels were written long after Paul wrote his letters, too. Sometimes I wonder how people woud view the N.T. if the order of the books were put in order of when they were written. That would result in the gospels coming AFTER Paul's epistles. If you're super interested in this topic, check out Fundamentalism by James Barr. And excellent books on the history of the N.T. texts are available by Bart Ehrman. They are easy to read, too!

He came to dinner at our house once. It was such a big deal and yes he got an envelope full of cash and Dambuie. He also did thtree things that would have put the rest of us in the reproof line; he drank and smoke at the dinner table, he had hus elbows on the table and was swearing his head off in front of my 5 year old wow sister, f bomb after f bomb. And we all smiled and thanked God for the privilage.

Whenever vpw visited a place, they assigned people to buy his creature comforts out of pocket (like bottles of Drambuie as one poster reported- their first experience buying alcohol.) On top of everything else, they took up collections of nice, untraceable cash which was handed over to vpw in a bag. I'm sure he was happy not to report that to the IRS. He also made no secret that he could-and did- go to the twi treasurer whenever he felt like he needed some cash, and got it. ALSO, a LOT of things owned by twi were reserved for his SOLE use, and he called them "MY STUFF." If there is a "special hell" for child molesters and people who talk in the theater, I hope vpw gets imprisoned in its worst part.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/s/wt8jz3TFOc Recent statistics are showing around 50% of returning Mormon missionaries are leaving the church. It seems the most devout adherents to the rules are among the ones leaving first. Those who go through motions for political gain are advancing in positions. What a testament to the long-term adverse effects of using another individual to expand your organization via free labor and outreach programs. Did I recognize these patterns in how TWI uses their “Wow” TM Ambassadors? Or “Way Ambassadors”? Or Way Corps pressured to “get a class together”? I did these programs. They isolated me from family and friends and re-enforced the cult values over individual goals. They lead to ever increasing commitment to an organization and protection of everyone and everything they represent regardless of how evil the impact is. There is long-term isolation from support groups and replacing them with more devout and controlling support groups. There is the grooming for higher programs always. In those programs there is the climbing over each other to obtain position and status. The ultimate end of this is the BOD who answer to nobody and are treated like gods. Don’t let your life be used for another’s political aspirations and control. Regardless of what group it is, what pitch they have, the results will always contain consequences.

What a great video! Thanks RighteousRider. Perhaps the greatest mistake man can make is to think otherwise.

There used to be a front page and so on. The posted reason this place exists was "to tell the other side of the story." That is, when twi (and ext-twi) kept seeking to hide and conceal information, it was the purpose here to reveal that information. Has it worked? It worked so well that twi INSISTED on the GSC posting a letter they wrote! When they tried to conceal their behavior when Mrs W was moved from her home off-grounds to retire elsewhere, the news broke here immediately- and no matter what anyone says, ex-twi people checked here for breaking news- as did people CURRENTLY in twi because twi NEVER leveled with them- and got accusatory at questions. So, they logged in here and read what twi wanted kept concealed. In order to do damage control, twi insisted on a response posted here- so all the current twi and ex-twi could read it. When JAL kept trying to advertise whatever ex-twi church he was in that week, he did so here. Oh, he never did it directly, he insisted on doing it in a sneaky way. He had a ces person post his letters to everyone (hi, Jeff!) who tended to get a bit coy about whether or not he was told to post it here. (Jeff also went around all sorts of Christian messageboards, posting links to ces/stfi, and saying, in effect, "Gee, I just found these links to a Christian website, and I don't know what to make of them. What do you guys think?" In one case, he crossed paths with me, and I immediately posted a reply to his thread that made it obvious it was both an advertisement and dishonest.) Later he had people post letters here and pretended he had no plans for them to be posted here, and hinted at both here and his letters ending up here somehow. It's really hard for me to respect anyone who makes it standard policy to be so completely dishonest while claiming to understand the Bible and teach it to people. vpw succeeded largely because we didn't know he was dishonest and a fraud. So, as the clearinghouse for "the other side of the story" for both twi and ex-twi, the GSC, is, at least in theory, neither pro- or con- religious... unless one counts being con-twi. The GSC serves as "equal time" to all the time twi spends HIDING and refusing to level with its people. I'm sorry to say I've done more than my share in flamewars here- even though they were exclusively anti-vpw and anti-twi. When vpw adherents showed up, determined that vpw was some great one and we all forgot he was, I've let them have it. (To a degree, I've done the same with the ex-twi groups.) I hope too many innocent people didn't get caught in the middle, and the messages weren't lost about how dangerous it is to trust twi, vpw, and ex-twi splinter groups in general.

I think I get what you're trying to do here as far as getting people to think through something that may have simply been accepted blindly. I'm not going to offer a lengthy defense as to the authenticity of the Pauline Epistles because frankly, I'll doubt that I'll put forth anything you haven't heard yourself hundreds of times. A cursory study of church history will shed some definite light on these questions. Church history is fairly easy to study. I believe you will find there are others who give testimony as to the authenticity of Paul's writings. Not the least of which is the Apostle Peter who refers to Paul's writings as "scripture". The very fact that the early Christians valued Paul's writings enough to protect them is also testament as to how his writings were regarded. It was Luke who wrote Acts and gave testimony as to conduct of Paul and speaks loudly to his "personal credibility". How? By example to be sure, but it's clearly stated the Apostles respected him and offered him the "right hand of fellowship". Ya gotta drop all the rot in TWI about "The Rise and Expansion of the Christian Church" which IMO is an assassination on the characters of the other Apostles. You're correct about there being scholars out there who now believe that Ephesians was actually written in the 4th century. My only answer to that is that it's a "Johnny-come-lately" theory. This whole concept of "Man of God for Our Day and Time" is rubbish. Wierwille wanted to be considered that so he could fleece the flock and he claimed Paul was the MOG for his day and time. He wasn't. Paul postulated over and over again that Jesus Christ was the center of Christianity. I say all that to say that there is no evidence to suggest that Paul was the Wierwille of his day and time. He was held in high regard by the established church leadership and the church followers. The early Christian church was not a Way Tree. There were different areas like Asia, Galatia, and Rome, and Antioch and they pretty much stood on their own. They didn't get SNS tapes from Paul or from Jerusalem. If Paul had been a "loose cannon" and a womanizer he would have simply been rejected and run out of town on a rail.

I see it as a sorta forerunner to science and the scientific method. Life was a short and brutal affair when most religions came about. Real knowledge about how the earth worked was very sparse and so superstition immediately filled the void. Your brother got eaten by a lion on his way to work one day, so you, in a desperate attempt to avoid a similar fate, devised some code to help minimize your exposure to that danger. You noticed that when you wore a garland of garlic, or your chartreuse toga, or paid homage to The Lion King, that you DIDN'T get eaten, so you start doing that every time you need to travel near lion country. Pretty soon it becomes mandatory for you and yours to do it all the time. And so it goes. Then you have to devise a regimen to avoid poisonous food, diseases, and dangerous sociopaths. Some of it may even have a trace or two of wisdom in it. Before too long you and your decendants have cooked up a whole plethora of rituals and beliefs to subscribe to. Then it's a matter of which clan has the most power and influence or maybe just writes the most eloquent mantras to have your particular mythologies carried on. That's how I imagine it having happened anyway. Maybe not quite poignant, but I think it makes sense...

Well, why would one use the "aforementioned criteria" to draw a conclusion? That ship has sailed. I am confused? Is VP's standard for inerrancy what we use to evaluate Paul as a con man? We are confronted with a collection of ancient documents. . . the most well preserved of ancient documents BTW. We use certain criteria to evaluate their validity . . . including, but not limited to what they say about themselves. We give them the benefit of doubt. That is not just given to scripture, but we do look to see what all ancient documents say about themselves. We also know a great deal about the practice of letter writing during his time and beyond. These things were not just put in a letters, these guys went around and preached at these churches. These things were known and believed on . . . . . .and by many who knew Jesus. I am missing something here. . . . where does this hypothesis about Paul come from? What is the basis for the possible conclusion? "I would that ye all spake with tongues"? VP said that meant every Christian. . . so, Paul was a con man? VP was an a$.. The same "Rap sheet" we have on Paul which we conclude goes to his credibility is found in the same document which we learn of his conversion. So we accept one and not the other? Setting the supernatural aside. . . . say Paul's rap sheet is true. He had some influence. . . . he spoke. . . people jumped. If his rap sheet is true, we can assume his pedigree is true. . . So, this con man gives up this kind of affluence and authority within his beloved faith. . . to be imprisoned, beaten, nearly stoned, and ultimately martyred because he gained . . . . what? He was a very lousy con man. . . . He could have had a motor coach had he remained a Pharisee. Instead, he was on trial before the Sanhedrin. His head probably ended up on a chopping block. The joke was on him if he was lying. Just to add: Most gnostics adhere to the Pauline epistles to the exclusion of most everything else. Marcion for example. There might be a bigger picture here. The nature of what we were part of in TWI.

Speaking with my pastor... with a real doctorate. I told him I had trouble enjoying reading the Bible, so therefore I read books about the Bible, i.e. Smith Wiggles worth etc.... He investigated me. It was THIS he found so destructive Wierwille argues that the Bible as a whole is not relevant to all people of all times. Every word of Scripture is equally inspired by God, he says, but different books were addressed to different audiences. The Old Testament and the Four Gospels are for the Jews and Gentiles; the rest of the New Testament is for the "Church of God" of "born-again believers." Next, the fear of the "Jesus spirit" and not understanding Jesus. Thus, taking away our conversational fellowship with him. Then, the misleading our focus... Such as we read Romans and we focused on Jesus being the creation and people worshiping the created more than the creator - even though all the verses around it condemned the behaviors going on in TWI. Then, VP had us focus on the GRACE administration - because all his sins could be forgiven as he twisted that up in his favor. So VP, took away the Bible, the savior, and had us focus on GRACE - this ladies and gentlemen - was a false prophet. For to loose intimacy with God always leads to sexual sin. Then, the erroneous teaching to NOT SAY THINGS OUT LOUD or the devil will hear it! The Bible does NOT teach that, as a matter of fact, the POWER of God is unleashed in SPEAKING - from Let there be light to the LOUD voice you hear in Revelations... So, we had our Bible taken, our Jesus minimized, our focus redirected, our speaking the word/prayer power diminished, GRACE to sin exhaled - and we wonder why (for some) it is hard to read the Bible? WE WERE LIED TO STOLEN FROM DECEIVED

I guess I'll probably catch hell for saying this but here goes... As much as I agree that the higher leadership in TWI was and is still corrupt and hypocritical, I don't think it's a good idea to publicly ridicule any of them on this forum. I'm no expert here, but I would think that the children of these folks would be negatively affected by hearing their parents constantly spoken of in such derogatory terms. Anyone else have any insight into this?