Leaderboard

Don't know. She's considering having a friend of the deceased move in and be a caretaker of the place and do work around the house to pay off his rent.. This guy apparently lived there before and wouldn't mind moving back in, and he's also a handyman. Then once that is arranged, have one of the floors rented, and that income going toward taxes and expenses. Its seems like it could all work on paper.

My plan is working perfectly... Just kidding. I strongly recommend each of you exercise prayer for guidance and wisdom as you explore these issues, because in my experience the observations you're making are A. absolutely accurate, and B. part of a progression that can but need not lead to a loss of faith. I said after the great S.I.T. arguments that one need not abandon Christianity to agree that something was Biblically wrong with how Wierwille taught it and how we practiced it. Some of you agreed with me. Some did not. I'm not aware of anyone having a crisis of faith over it. Same with the observation that the Bible is not the Word of God. It's just not. It never says it is. It is not even aware of its existence as a collection of documents. Why would it be? No matter how you parse inspiration, you can't seriously believe Paul knew we would be reading his thoughts on slavery 2,000 years after he wrote a the Philemon letter. Scripture? This goes in the same collection as Leviticus? Dude, I wasn't even sober! Ok, just kidding again. Once you realize that the Bible is not the revealed Word and Will of God, some things fall into place rather easily. First and foremost, contradictions and errors no longer need to be explained. Whew! What a load off! "Given by inspiration of God" no longer has to mean "God-breathed" in the manner we were taught, but rather in the manner defined right there in the verse: profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. That's the point of reading scripture. It's not without error. It's not without contradiction. It is for doctrine, of which reproof and correction are subsets. It is very easy to reach that point in understanding and take it a step further, from the position that it has no authority to it has no inspiration at all. I did not arrive at that conclusion (through that process). Neither should you. My rejection of the authority of Scripture did not lead to atheism. Rather, my atheism led to a rejection of the authority of scripture. I guess the relationship is symbiotic, but bear with me. For me, the progression was not "scripture has no authority, therefore Yahweh does not exist." It was the other way around: "I no longer believe Yahweh exists. As a consequence of this belief, scripture no longer has authority to me." YOU do NOT need to go down that path. You can have an entire denomination with a hundreds of millions of followers, let's call it "Catholicism," without believing that the Bible is a perfect book that is error free. The Bible is not the Word of God, but what is IS depends on where you stand. Even as I was writing this post I came to an amusing realization: If one were to accept the proposition that Weirwille WAS wrong about what it means for the Bible to be God-breathed, then you could conclude that the PFAL writings are God-breathed without suddenly having to explain dozens of actual errors and contradictions in the canon. In any event, that the Bible is not what the Bible is talking about when it talks about The Word of God should have been self evident to all of us years ago.