Leaderboard

nothing wrong with dumping or keeping religious beliefs-doesn't matter that much anyway get in touch with yourself, whatever that means to you, grow a garden or get a dog, spend some time with nature, release yourself from everything to get connected to everything in newness of your spirit

Hebrews 11:6 NIV 6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. I underlined the words which I believe shows that God expects believers to have absolute certainty in him and in the "word" he has given them. It doesn't matter whether we agree on what this verse is saying. The point of my post was to show the dilemma that bible-believing Christians find themselves in when it comes to God. Unless there is a verse that proves differently, there is no room for uncertainty when it comes to him. Being between a rock and a hard place happens because even when a Christian is certain that God exists and therefore earnestly seeks this all-powerful and all-loving God in a time of need, it is never certain that he will show up and reward you for the trust you placed in him. (Apparently there are legal loopholes attached to his promises.) In other words, God expects certainty from believers when all the while, he is an uncertain God. It's one of the main reason why I think this concept of god as shown in the bible was thought up by men for whatever reason. Here's to peace (an alternative for beer in my case)

In the foundational class, you're told you have unlimited power to do whatever you can imagine. By the time you get to the advanced class, you're walking on eggshells, looking over your shoulder, making sure the adversary doesn't creep up on you and snuff you out for moving the word. Power for abundant living indeed. Don't leave, though, unless you want to end up a greasespot in the road by midnight.

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."

Early blood testing showed my grandson was born with a rare gene deletion which caused him to require life-saving surgery when he was a day old and two subsequent major surgeries to completely correct a physical abnormality. We were told that as he grew older, autism may also be a possibility because of this deletion. Fundamentalist beliefs can cause people to refuse medical intervention for themselves or their children because it meant doubting god's ability to heal. I knew the physical reasons for my grandson's health issues but still fell a few times for the doctrine that certain illnesses can be caused by devil spirits. Not anymore now.

socks I really enjoyed reading your post and logic and reasoning. I love the conclusion arriving at serendipity as a common goal. Polar opposites to force feeding a new Plaffy down the worlds throat with a trademark.

Hi Rocky, I've been thinking a lot about this line you wrote. At first, it seemed as if you misinterpreted what I had said because I've always had great compassion for my grandson's health challenges. But apart from this assumption about you, there was still something really bothering me, and so I googled "is there fear in compassion" and the website below came up. In it, compassion was defined as having two parts: "Sensitivity to the causes of suffering in one’s self and others” (Part A), combined with the “commitment to try to alleviate and prevent it” (Part B)." It also said: "However, when there are FBRs (Fears, Blocks & Resistances) regarding giving Compassion to Others, this is often due to fears such as: “I will lose something” / “Others will take advantage of me” / “I cannot tolerate others’ distress”. And this was exactly the thing that was bothering me. During those times when I thought my grandson might have had a devil spirit, it was very frightening because I didn't "belieeeve" I could cast one out and in that sense, I could not tolerate (handle, help with) his distress. And that's when, I realize now, that although I was with him physically, mentally I was on some fricking Luciferian planet far removed from the earthly reality that a sudden electric surge had disrupted neurons in his brain causing him to have a seizure. With that kind of delusional mindset, I wasn't as effective with the second part of being compassionate as I could have been. It is very distressing to admit this, but it's important because it's one way that the bible, which teaches there are devil spirits, is harmful. I'm learning that there are many other biblical teachings that cause harm mentally and emotionally. It isn't just the way twi taught "the word," it was parts of the bible itself. I'm reading a good book right now titled "The God argument : the case against religion and for humanism" by A.C. Grayling. One last thing, I want to share about the joy that my grandson has brought to my life. His way of being is unique to him and I have come to value every part of him - his way of finding pleasure in certain things, his desire to interact with us, his growth and development, how he loves to have his long hair brushed when he used to hate it. There is so much more I could share, but most of all, I love his smiles. The other day he was laughing with his mouth closed which I think was a new experience for him by the look on his face. You could tell he was enjoying doing it and the longer he did it, the more my husband and I began to laugh out loud with him. He actually had us in stitches before he was finished. https://mi-psych.com.au/fears-of-compassion/

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.

And Greek, Roman, Norse and any other mythologies. Myth noun A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society. Genesis contains the Judeo-Christian creation myth. It's all about stories. Stories around which, for X number of years (sometimes fractions, sometimes whole years) many of us based our values and morals and that which formed the bases of how we made decisions and around which we guided the direction of our lives. Clearly, there are MANY stories that have formed bases of how societies (and cults) organized individual lives and groups. I rejoice with you (if you're rejoicing) for the new found freedom that enables or enabled you to view your grandson with more compassion and reality. I'm also glad there's a place called the Greasespot Cafe allowing you to write and process what you're going through on your path to freedom of mind and heart.

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.

"I wouldn't argue." Because it's not worth it. Chockfull thinks my answer fails to consider a possibility. I think Chockfull's position is batcrap crazy [heh heh heh]. Nothing to argue. We disagree and neither will budge. Who wants tea?

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.

Where do I start?

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.

genesis, like every book gives the readers certain info to process, to each their own you know like 2 things can be true at the same time even if it contradicts each other so a story with a lot in it reveals more as we grow there is no 1 interpretation of events

WOW. I honestly never heard this joke throughout my time in TWI. But it does not surprise me in the least. When people get to the point of crafting metal images of VPW for their clergy desks and teaching centers then the next logical step is to deify his words. All of the little stories and jokes that are told behind the scenes and off stage are really vital in maintaining the hoax. Like this one. And other tall tales of VPs prowess. Most of them were told by him but many by his sycophant followers. This reminds me of the only record of VPWs “revelation” and snow on gas pumps. It is not recorded anywhere in sanctioned TWI material. So they hid the story and just tell rumors of it behind the scenes to dupe the unsuspecting. I mean is the book “Lifelines” with quotes from VP still sold in their bookstore. They elevate VPs words to a level above scripture. You have to ask VP for the “literal translation according to usage” or VPs metaphor for “my interpretation”

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

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

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.)

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?