lindyhopper

I'm with Waysider. "birthday party, cheese cake, jelly bean, prune juice" that pretty much says it all. It's the end of the world as we know it! Things keep getting different-er and different-er-er. Hopefully JC comes back before those damned dirty apes take over!

coo-coo ka choo!

We have a Toyota Sienna back in the State. Love it. Love the old dealer and service dept. It runs well, looks good, is comfortable to drive and can fit several 4 x 8 sheets of plywood in it with the rear door closed when the back seats are out. In Grenada we drive what probably 60 - 70% of everyone else drives, a Suzuki jeep. Most of the ones here are "reconditioned." Ours is an "Eskudo" which I believe is the Samarai in the US. It is a good little car. I never thought much of Suzukis, but I am impressed. The gas milage isn't great and gas here is over 15 EC which is over 5 1/2 USD. Good thing the island is only 133 sq. miles most of which is without roads. It runs well though, and puts up with a beating driving around here. ............................................ As Waysider pointed out, "american made" does not necessarily mean american made. IMO it is about design. Not just in terms of looks but in terms of engineering. They can put out reliable long lasting trucks but can't make reliable, long lasting, fuel efficient cars? BS. They could but haven't. The technology and engineering has been there but it hasn't been used. Did I mention they're the ugliest cars on the planet? It is all about design. Money won't save the Big 3, design will, inside and out. Great design thrives on budget constraints. The US consistently grows some of the best architects in the world. We're building amazing buildings, beautiful, cutting edge, efficient, buildings all over the world. On the other hand, we have not been keeping up with the rest of the world when it comes to industrial design. The greatest industrial designers are mostly coming from Europe and Asia, where all the best cars come from.

No it's like being 50 - 60 and never stopped believing in the tooth fairy. Yes, at some point that dental loving fairy started punching you in the face, knocking your teeth out, and taking them from you... but at least she still left you a couple bucks for them. I hear the fairy has gone back to doing it the old fashioned way... sneaking into your house and stealing them from under your pillow without you noticing.

You know I started this thread a number of years ago (whoa) and I thought that there was no way anyone I knew or people around me in twi would ever kill for twi. One of the first few responses brought up Waco. Now after reading through this again I think about that and wonder. What do you think would have happened had we been at the Rock, all fired up, and the US government and National Guard showed up surrounding all outlets. I tend to think now that things would have gotten ugly. I wouldn't have done anything but I think in a situation like that perhaps there would be quite a few people who would.

Excie, You have a cyber friend who has gone back to the Way recently, we all do, if we ever called him that. Apparently, xxxxx has gone back. At least he has taken the new class and I assume you have to go back to do that. He was around here for years, heard all the stories, defended VPW and others on numerous points repeatedly, and apparently thinks everything is better now. I guess the new class was "healing" for him. Good for him... that is until it once again isn't. You just never know I guess. Oh well. I think anyone who denies or dismisses the worst of the things that VPW, LCM, and the like did over the years will remain open to some degree to going back or staying in. Once the reality of those horrific acts settles in one seriously questions everything, if they hadn't already, and would never go back to a group that did those things. ... any reasonable and healthy person anyway. Edited by ModRocker to remove name of GS member who allegedly has gone back to twi. It's up to him/her to announce, if desired.

It is a long road but I think I have come to a point where it really is about the journey. I know, sounds cliche' but it is. Total "recovery" isn't a place or a destination but a process that I think is about learning and unlearning. Isn't that what we all do anyways? As long as it is done in a healthy, non-destructive way, it's all good. I think the "finding yourself" thing is not really what it sounds like on the surface either. You're still the same person you have always been, smart, funny, caring, concerned, compassionate, can't do a good kick-flip, and that won't change. It is more about sifting out all those TWI clumps. We can't change the past and we can't change anyone else, but we can learn and unlearn and make ourselves better. Wish I could be there and we could hang.

thanks for that. I laughed and then I locked my doors. The best part was when he punched him in the gut with his Bible. Brought back memories. Personally I don't think demons are in the blood line. I think they are passed on through and ride around on dust in your house. the mind is a terrible thing to waste.

oh that is funny. I can't wait to tell my friends that I was once apart of a super-specialized geek cult definitely a hermetic language in the case of TWI. It was almost as if they understood this when you think about the emergence of the "old wine skins" teaching in relation to the words or phrases that ended up being dubbed as "old wine skins." Also the fact that there were certain words that were pretty much not to be spoken because they didn't fit TWI's view of things, like the word "create" and many others. On one hand it did seem to be used as a egotistic Wayspeak, as in some sort of indication that we had the real truth, but on the other hand I don't believe it was used to isolate or keep others out of the loop. Instead it was used as a tool to talk to people about TWI dogma. I don't think it works though. Most people just think you are weird and don't want to explore what "believing to get" something really means. Oh and it is all "special knowledge." From the outside looking in it is all about "knowing God" whether that is through knowledge of "the Word of God" or through your experience or your "relationship with God" or however your group says you get to "know God" it is all super special.

Well, it's the key to power... like duh? Of course in the doctrinal forum and in other churches across the world there are different opinions on what Romans 12: 2 is referring to and who is doing the "transforming" and what "renewing" means etc etc. In TWI it was more or less as Tzala said. It was a catchphrase that was over used and abused both at top leadership levels and at lower interpersonal levels. It means to change the way you are thinking and think the way they say you should think. Don't agree? Well renew your mind. Don't think you can do something? RENEW YOU MIND! Don't like the way I just yelled at you? Renew your mind. Think your sick? Renew your mind. Confessing negatives? Renew your mind. Don't want to eat your vegetables? Renew your mind. Having doubts about TWI? Renew your mind. Think selling your house to stay a fellowship coordinator is a little overboard? renew your mind. Don't want to have sex with the Man O God? Renew your mind. Don't want to break dance in front of a captive audience? Renew your mind. You want to do the worm and the robot instead? Sorry, the present truth is all about poppin' and lockin'... renew your mind! It was the catch-all catchphrase that meant do as we say, not as you think. Something is seriously wrong when you see someone spanking a young child, who is tired, confused, and crying, while telling them to "renew their mind."

Rainbow Girl, to be clear, I was not calling anyone who believes the testimonies here gullible and stupid. I was just giving the other end of the spectrum from the "prove everything" guy. I believe the testimonies here. In part because of my experience with abuse and my experience with others who've been abused and my TWI experiences. It is also in part because in TWI it was a small world after all and I know a person that I believe is credible and they vouch for so and so and they know some other so and so that I know and on and on. The web is tight and I know all the Way teachings and the bigger picture presented here seems to fit for me, for the most part. I was also not calling any Christian gullible and stupid. I realize there is more to it, I just don't believe it is rock solid in terms of evidence as Geisha clearly does no matter how many smart people she quotes. There are smart people on both side and idiots on both sides. Intelligence and idiocy know no race, sex, creed, or political affiliation. Well maybe on the later.... kidding On the other hand, if we were to take our Greasy case to court today against TWI... I'm not sure we could win. I could be wrong. That doesn't make what TWI has done right or our allegations untrue. I never said anything about it being fair or unfair either. It is the reality of the situation, IMO. Lifted Up said it best. I was thinking the same thing a few weeks back when I deleted a very nasty post I was writing in response to White Dove. If you don't know that the person who is claiming to be abused to be lying, then hold your tongue, cause if they are telling the truth you are hurting them more than you can image. For all of us that have been hurt and abused by people and friends in TWI, in other groups, and relationships, I don't think not trusting is the answer. We learn from these experiences and hopefully we start to learn better ways to get to know people and better ways to approach groups and how and when and how much we allow them into our lives. Hopefully with all the finger pointing and blame laying and truth telling and conscience clearing we've learned something about ourselves in the process and are better off for it and can prove it by our interactions with others.

Good gobbelly-gook goodness! Who was this Biologist? The blood of a person is determined by both the father and mother. Otherwise your blood type would always match your fathers, which would present another whole array of questions and problems. No blood is transmitted from mother to baby in utero, but what did we expect that there was father to child transmission? LOL The baby has it's very own unique blood. Just like virtually everything else about us, we are made up of DNA from both mom and pop. It gets a little complicated form there. Take this from someone whose wife just got an A in Genetics in med school. Why we bought this line of BS, I don't really know. I would have known this had I payed more attention in high school biology. "The life of the flesh is in the blood." What does that really mean anyway. Without blood you would not have life? Well, duh. Although, without lymph you wouldn't live either. Without Oxygen you wouldn't live either and that exists outside the body as well. If blood were the life of the flesh because it carried oxygen then the life of the flesh would be that oxygen. The blood would just be the vehicle. Anyway. Without Nitrogen, you would die. Without extracellular fluid, you would die. Without water you would die. Without salt you would die. Without a brian you would die. Without a functioning brain you would die. Without a normally functioning brain you could die and wouldn't know the difference between body and spirit, much less blood and pea soup. I could go on and on and on. The body is made up of systems and no one thing is the complete life giver... EXCEPT.... DNA. No living thing known exists without it. It is the basic component of all life. The life of the flesh is really in deoxyribonucleic acid. That is not just found in blood cells but in every cell in you body. When I hear stuff like this, the history/anthropological side of me itches. It sounds so much like ancient myth from so many cultures. Blood cleansing. Blood sacrifice. Blood letting. Yadda yadda yadda. Hey wasn't that "life in the blood" bit written in ancient times? Go figure! After reading you again, I think I understand your biologist friend's answer actually. If you asked him "does the BLOODLINE come from the man" then his answer would make sense (at least in a matriarchal society like our Judeo-Christian one). Yes, it is determined by the male. The only biological component to that is that the father's genes determine the sex of the child because of our weak Y chromosome. Bloodline is far from bloodstream though, or just blood in general. You can track your lineage through your mothers side as well using mitochondrial dna. When you get the facts straight Weirwille's bizarre ideas on the perfect half man, half god, son fall apart. There was no perfect blood if, in fact, Mary was Jesus's actual biological mother. If you want to get biological with it, it would have to be some sort of pick and choose spiritual test tube sort of thing, not one sperm and one egg. This idea of perfect blood (whatever that really means) making you a perfect person... without sin... is an interesting one. When you look at separated twin studies it makes you scratch your head. There have been studies of twins separated at birth or shortly after and they have found them liking the same music, having the same taste in women, having the same profession, even marrying the same number of times to women with the same names! That again is about genetics though and not just blood. An interesting topic though... nurture vs. nature. You did hear that the Jesus of any trinitarian church was a devil spirit. Of course, I've heard that from trinitarians about unitarian churches. "If you got the wrong Jesus you could be missing out on eternal life!" :blink:

When it comes to a court of law WD is correct. There I said it. An eyewitnessin a court of law is not proof, it is one perspective which might present evidence upon questioning and cross examination. The "over 500 eyewitness accounts" of Jesus are not actually eye witness accounts, btw. That is someone who was not there saying that there were 500 eyewitnesses. We don't know who Paul heard that from, plus he compares the other eye witness accounts to his vision... and doesn't include "those that were with him" that supposedly also saw Jesus at the same time, which doesn't jive with the Acts account. That is called hearsay. It doesn't mean it isn't true but it is not rock solid proof. In the end, one takes it on faith whether you realize it or not. There is a blind spot in there or two or twenty or five hundred. BTW, there is a life time of "eyewitness" accounts of seeing people that were supposedly dead. Morrison. Uncle Fred. Great Grandma Smith. Cousin Beavis. Elvis anyone? Thank you very much. Oh and No mas el probe-O pequeto verde hombre. The same goes for every day occurrences. I highly doubt though, that when one of White Doves friends comes to him saying, "Hey I was mugged and raped yesterday," that he says, "I don't believe you. Prove it!" Or that he questions the price of milk on the carton until it is rung up at the cash register. Or that some one isn't going to obey the traffic signals at every intersection. He doesn't trust you guys plain and simple. No matter how long WD and Ex others here have been friends.... he doesn't trust you. He said that already. Some friend. There are a lot of really interesting topics to delve into on the topic of eyewitnesses and perspective. I won't do that, but feel free to use the internets and/or your local library. There has to be a balance. You can't live your life like everything and everyone needs to be proven to a jury of their peers. People would think you were a d**k, and they would be right. On the other hand, you can't except everything because he/she/it says so. People would think you were gullible and/or stupid, and they would be right. Basic critical common sense. Some of us tend to know what it is like to be a victim of certain types of abuse and understand and believe the accounts. Some faith is involved.

I probably would have ended up as a very wealthy, man on mystery, with multiple families around the world. I would have spent my teen years as a pro skateboarder, experimenting with drugs and sex as I traveled the world signing autographs and racking up frequent flier miles. In my twenties I would have still skated but the multiple broken bones over the years would inhibit me from doing so professionally. Instead, my money and connections would have allowed me to pursue my other interests... in a semi-successful indie rock band... started my own chain of restaurants, infusing different tastes from cultures of the globe... the occasional cameo in obscure films... finished my education at Yale... and at my low point, sponsored a late night infomercial for the latest greatest piece of exercise equipment. Later in life my polygamy would be realized and I would be publicly humiliated. I would then loose my fortune in court and blacklisted among all my former colleagues except Hollywood. After turning away many movie offers I wold write a little known book of memoirs and died cold and alone in a mountain cabin somewhere in the Wind River Range. But you know, that's just guessing off the top of my head.

I'm not totally sure the idea of "programming" is completely accurate either, but perhaps conditioning might be. I'm not real sure on all the phycological definitions and possibilities, but there was definitely something to the structure and teachings that hooked us and played on both our good intentions, fragility, and our paranoia. I was brought up in this as a child so that also seems like a different set of circumstances. I didn't really know anything else until I got into my late teens and early twenties. The foundational class was exactly that... a foundation and the acceptance of that made it much easier to accept the next bit of info and the next. Keep in mine NYU, we have the luxury of hindsight. At the time the next class was a year or more away. Each day was an incremental step in our personal evolution, with a meeting virtually every other day through the late 90's (when fellowships switched to 2 times a week), and you were encouraged expected to attend. Plus for the most part the local people were usually genuine caring good hearted people. By the time the AC became an option for you (1 or 2 foundational and intermediate classes, the DTA class, CFS, maybe something else, the criteria changed over time), you had been thoroughly indoctrinated. The AC definitely raised the bar. In terms of commitment to TWI and, in turn, your own personal safety and commitment to the "competition." It was for many the next step in the direction of becoming a leader in one form or another. Whether that be a fellowship/twig coordinator or going into the corps, or doing more teachings in fellowship. It was also a step in the general direction of service to TWI. Again it was somewhat expected of you but I don't think many of us were complaining at the time. We knew it was expected of us and we were committed to serve and put up with the increasing amount of crap shoveled your way. I think most would agree, the higher up you went the more crap you had to deal with. That was in part because TWI thought that the more you were taught, the more you were "entrusted with", then the more responsibility you had to do it and uphold it. That was not an unspoken concept. That was taught from the podium on Sundays... and we accepted that responsibility. Why? Again the reasons vary to a degree. Some have clearly come from troubled pasts. Some bought into the secret knowledge idea and the superiority/inferiority complex. Some had shopped around and in spite of all the questionables they may have thought of, it was the best thing they knew. Some of us were rasied to accept it with little question, while thinking we were actually thinking things through. Some of us put our friendships and experiences above the questions and doubts. The list goes on. BUT There was the doctrine as well and we accepted that early on for whatever reasons. There was the negative believing = doubt, worry, and fear teaching. There was the "fall of man" teaching in which Eve's first sin was to consider something else... then she made small changes... then she no longer had the "Word of God" and she was deceived. Then there was Adam's consideration and acceptance of her sin. There was the private interpretation teaching in which we were basically taught not to use critical thinking in reading the Bible, but let it tell us what it says. That really was just saying accept what we were being taught. There was the Job teaching of Job 3: 25 in this context. The thing which he greatly feared "came upon him." That was of course, framed in a positive light of "from victim to victor." (I wonder if that title was stolen or if VICTOR Paul Wierwille came up with it.) There was also the recommendations of replacing your negative thoughts of doubts, worries and fears with verses from the Bible. There was also encouragement and expectation of memorization of specific verses of TWI's choosing and their definitions of the manifestations. These were all foundational teachings. Plus you weren't supposed to ask questions until the end. Mixed in with that were some genuinely decent things to learn and some nonsense that made it look like TWI understood the bible better than any other group around (the four crucified, "today(,) you shall be with me in heaven," the day JC was born, etc). That was all capped with the 12th session in which we received our "proof", which was speaking in tongues. It was a finely crafted class, no matter who actually came up with it, with a specific purpose. Of course, there were plenty of people that didn't make it through the foundational class. Attrition of students was high at times. Other times 100% made it through to session twelve. At this point I would think that attrition is low considering that most of the new students are Way kids that are coming of age. I would think that until "the fog years" and then later in the mark and avoiding of the nineties, that most of the Adv. Class Grads stuck around for a long time. That is because it was the biggest step in one's commitment, before the corps, to TWI (the ministry that taught you the rightly divided Word).

I try to live pretty much the way that prayer went. I hear what you're saying, though, JJ. For me it less about being "holy in the eyes of God" than it is about my own sanity and personal peace. That guy that cut you off might be the same damn jerk that cut me off and they do it all the time. But whether we scream to ourselves in our car, "YOU JERK," as if they could actually here us isn't going to make that person more or less of a jerk and it isn't going to make that single mom running home to take care of her handicapped kid any less stressed or any more of a jerk. All it does is raise our blood pressure and our stress levels and our level of anger. Fact is we probably unknowingly cut people off on occasion, as well. So letting it slide keeps us cooler and happier and safer (when it come to the highway), which by all accounts from health studies and accident statistics helps us live longer as well. So, not a bad attitude to take, IMO. If it makes us the shizznit in a god's eyes then kudos to us when the big day gets here, if it actually happens. If not then you and I probably lived a happier and longer life. When I do get upset with people like crazy drivers, I have words or names I call them that are funny to me so that I am less angry and I usually crack my self up. Like: "YOU MONKEY SPANKER!" That usually makes me laugh or at least makes my wife laugh, which in turn cools me down too. edit: Sorry I didn't read this page before posting.

I would say no. In part because grasshoppers have six legs not four, but for many reasons. Mmmm cake. Sorry, what were we talking about.

There definitely is something to the rituals. We used to have our kids in a Waldorf kindergarden. They had rituals for all kinds of things through out the day. I have never seen a better run daycare than that one. The rituals were usually also transitions during the day and the kids loved them. Like Bramble said it gave them pause from the craziness of playing and whatever else they were doing to focus and appreciate the next part of the day. We still do some of them at home. They would light a candle at every meal and sing a song... "give me a light to light my way, truth is the light, the man say." The candle captivated them and was mesmerizing. They sat there at the table respectfully until the candle was blown out and they said, "candle candle burning bright, thank you for your golden light." Then off to play or read or whatever. I've got to say having my kids there was a great thing for me, as well. Going in I was still rather unsure about the whole thing, but now we really miss that place. It changed my view on rituals that is for sure as well as other things like different teaching styles, toys, etc.

...if only we had all the time in the world... I find Pascal a little dark. I assume, since I mentioned "the Wager", you mean a quote like this: Please, don't restrain yourself so much. If it seems obvious to you, it probably is. Of course, Pascal's Wager, is only so obvious from a very closed Christian perspective. I hope for his sake he was right. He died before he was 40, right? The problem, as I'm sure you know and "get" (but I'll say it anyway), is that this horse race is huge. Almost all are guaranteeing a BIG win... "and to the slaughter house with the rest of ya!" If you're a betting man or woman, and you want to win, and you're staking your life on it... then you better bet on all the horses. Cause there's a chance you could be wrong. Of course, it sucks that some horses only let you bet on one horse. Damn screwed up rules! Their looking for a big "return." Cha-ching! Fact is we all make wagers on things. It's called faith. I displayed a great amount of faith today in engineering and aeronautics as I flew across the country. Lots of things could of happened and my knowledge of airplanes doesn't get much past the ones made of paper. The odds were on my side, I guess, and I made it safe and sound. There is no total certainty in any god. Certainty doesn't exactly fit into faith. There isn't even total certainty outside of faith. That's what it's there for. So, you have just as great a odds of being right about your god as I do about the possibility of there not being one and if there is that said god will appreciate my deeds and the use of my noggin. Don't worry, I think said god will appreciate your efforts as well. You don't even have to bet on my possible god if you don't want to. My possible god will understand and accept you for what you've done and who you are anyways. Possible God will even take Pascal, as pessimistic as he was. Pretty sweet, right? What's not pretty sweet is that our personal affinity for things that are good and right does not determine the reality of an actual god. There is the possibility that the God of the universe is not that nice. I mean just look at what Pascal wrote about God's greatest creation (at least I assume we are). In his eyes, we humans are pretty pathetic... but at least we know it. We are a screwed up people. Thanks a lot Mean God! You get the point. You got the point before I made the point. The Wager isn't a two horse race. Indeed, The Wager is not optional, not because we must, but because we do regardless.

Good stuff, Abi. My wife and I often discuss the best ways to instill moral and ethical behaviour into our kids. Number one of course is acting in the exact ways we want them to, as kids tend to imitate their parents and family. We have also talked about going to religious services of different faiths to help spur thought and discussion on the views of right and wrong from differing perspectives. We still may do that but they are a bit young at this point. One of the benefits of having married into the family that I have is that they are not afraid to discuss issues of faith or politics or social issues at breakfast, lunch, or dinner. My brother visited recently while we were at my in-law's and he says his favorite quote from the visit is my wife exclaiming, "can we not talk about genocide at the breakfast table!" My mother-in-law replied with a smirk, "Yes, lets wait till lunch." I think this family tradition lives on to a degree in our house and will more so as the kids grow up and form more opinions of their own. I think simply having the conversations about important issues of life as a family is as beneficial as anyone preaching to you, if not more. Problems come about when you don't talk about it and when you don't help your kids develop a voice and an opinion on moral and ethical issues. As long as we too show by example the benefits of living a good and healthy life I believe our kids will grow up with a respect for the idea of bettering themselves not just for their own good but for the good of others. As we discipline and teach our kids I find more often than not that golden rule (which at my core I feel is the most reasonable way to live) is what you hear repeated in our encouragement and direction. Sounds like an interesting read.

edited for the purposes of editing... duh!

I'm looking at the posts to Danny's Marcion posts and seeing a lot of the above and little objective debate over the topic. Can you see from the post above and many others that perhaps you yourself have a biased view of this, a "big dog in the race"? Can you see that I can just as easily make the argument that since you were apart of a religious group that was so horrible that you see all similar views from other sources as just as horrible and might want to run in the other theological direction? I see this all the time here frankly. That, because I was in a cult, I am now agnostic or atheist or give Marcion credit. Because I was in a legalistic cult, I sought out a less judgmental group. Why doesn't it seem to work the other way around? Objectivity is never 100% but give us a little more credit, at least as much as you've given yourself. Wouldn't it be more objective to look at Marcion and realize first that most of what we know of him is from his detractors and keep that in mind when we read what the "church fathers" had to say? Was Polycarp's claimed insult as the "first-born son of Satan" (Antichrist?) true or just an insult? Seems like just an insult to me. You can't imagine how long it has taken me just to get this little bit down. I keep have to get up and do and deal with other things. Alas I have to go again. I'll try to spend more time on this later.

Ouch! Sounds painful. :blink: I would say that anytime you get true believers of differing sides in discussion about their opposing views, when they are inherently at loggerheads with eahcother, we will find some hurt feelings... at least if we want the discussion to be raw and honest. I think when we sugarcoat everything we loose some of the honest truth behind one's beliefs. Not that we should be flinging reactionary insults around, but that we should be honest and at the same time have thick skin. If we are going to take one's views about god as an insult to your family, like saying a "your momma" joke, then perhaps we're in the wrong place. We can all say things more politely, but we can all let things slide off our back a little more, as well. We could also take those perceived insults and turn it back into conversation material rather than the first strike of a war. Most of those times, IMO, the "insulter" was just being honest not inciting things.

I don't have a lot of time to get into the details at the moment, but Geisha, your outline for a defense of the Bible is not so strong when you apply it to other non-canonical gospels, apocalypses, and letters of the first to third centuries. Many claimed eye witness accounts are considered not accurate and fanciful. Once we don't just take their word for it, things get a little murkier. If your claim for the reverence of holy books was as you say it is, what of these other writings? Perhaps it wasn't as you say or perhaps these weren't considered holy writings when written or perhaps as Oak said different groups had competing doctrines but in the end one group had their say. The others were squelched. I could go on but I've got to go. I'll be back

I know Oak has been through this thoroughly and like me and many others here has looked at the evidence, weighted the probability and possibilities, worked the Bible, worked other material (online, in books and in person) viewed it from more perspectives than just TWI eyes, challenged ourselves on every angle we come across and have come up with little other than doubt. Personally I feel, my view as an atheistic agnostic, is the most honest view I can have. That is not a religious POV. It is more fluid than that. In fact, it has changed since I first started posting here a number of years ago. I know Oak's has changed considerably as well. You seem to be relatively new here and probably don't know those things about us. Quite frankly, though, your recommendations come off as a little condescending, IMO. I realize you didn't intend them to be such, but I'm just being honest. Be assured, though, our road to our current world view was not without twists and turns and our decisions were not made lightly or out of ignorance or naively and were not reactionary. I realize that as well. As you must know, though, there has been and is much debate over what constitutes "a history", whether any one document is wholly historically accurate, whether history itself is true or truth, concepts like mythistory, the methods of historiography, whether history is a science or a liberal art etc. etc.. There can be, to varying degrees, a faith in History. IMO, one should always look at the evidence, both sides of the coin, or each side of the die as the case usually is, and make their own decisions while staying open to, but critical of, future discoveries and viewpoints. This is what I have done and still do with my view on religion and God. In my experience with atheists and agnostics this is virtually never a factor in their pursuit of... whatever they are pursuing. In fact, I can't think of anyone who has had this attitude. For most of us, doubt has accumulated over time and a lack of sufficient answers to those doubts eventually outweighs the former beliefs. It is not a simplistic journey as I'm sure you must know. As to your last post to me, I have no ill will towards you. I'm sure we can relate and empathize on many levels and maybe we might like each other in person... maybe not. This is the doctrinal forum though, and I come here to debate and discuss and to learn and at times be amazed and not necessarily to make friends. That being said, I am not perfect, I may offend at times, and my tone seems to be in the ear of the beholder, but most of the time my responses and comments are not "heated" or out of anger or disdain and I never stomp my feet or shake my fist in the air. I would welcome a debate on the Bible's historicity as part of the proof of it's doctrines and it's more fantastic claims. Although, we have been down this road quite a few times here over the years and it always seems to end in the same place. This is why many of us just tend to let things lie, instead of exhausting everything down to subjectivity and faith (which is slightly redundant). The other reason is that it usually gets a little heated and nice people like yourself tend to get upset with nice people like myself and Oak and many others here. I'm not sure of the existence of the "good ol' doctrinal forum days" that Oak and Abi have spoken of. This seems to be worth exploring to me. Because if you or anyone is as good as this in the religious community it would seem that the rest of us non-believers are either missing something, blind, or just stubbornly unaccepting of the obvious. OR People are believing for other reasons other than objective proof and reason. That has not been my experience, maybe you are different.