Twinky

For those who were told by a certain leader that they should follow him blindly: Facebook

The following makes more sense to me. Suppose a couple live in ABC-land. Then they decide to move to another country, XYZ-land. They live in XYZ for a while and have children there. Their children are XYZ-ers by birth. And so also will their children be. And so on. The family consolidates its interest in being citizens of XYZ. Later children may never know anything about their ancestors' original citizenship of ABC. In many countries nowadays, citizenship / nationality rights can be passed down one or two generations. The first children, and maybe the grandchildren, may have a legal right to claim citizenship in ABC-land. (Such rights don't usually go down beyond grandchildren.) After that, legal rights to return to ABC as citizens by birthright is lost. Now suppose that ABC-land is a generous country that is willing to accept anyone who wants to live there, regardless of background or original associations. All the wannabe new citizens have to do is swear an oath of allegiance. And that's it! ********* Now, suppose that XYZ-land is not a country but a way of life. A life of criminality, of dependency on benefits, of some other socially reprehensible set of actions. Maybe illiteracy, not seeing the benefit of learning to read and write properly. This can tend to be taught to children: their parents may teach them to truant school, steal, rob, be violent to get what they want. They may feel that they are "getting something" by depending on state benefits (often coupled with a life of petty criminality), or end up with an attitude of "entitlement" to things they have not worked for. Such families may become socially ostracised, thus deepening the attitude of whatever started such a lifestyle anyway. It's "normal," or even expected, to get sent to prison for periods. This is the "sins of the fathers" coming home for generations of later children. And again, it can be cancelled, broken away from. It takes a change of mentality, thinking patterns, and a willingness, a desire, for something different. A new life can be chosen. ********* Your life now is a result of choices taken by your parents - and their parents. It's not your fault, or your good, that you live in the country you live in, in the circumstances that you live in. You live in a rich country, with educational and healthcare facilities? Great, your good fortune; enjoy it, but you didn't earn it. You live in a poor country, where education is expensive and healthcare is expensive or hardly accessible at all? Too bad, your mis-fortune; but again, that wasn't your fault.

Welcome, Edgar. Nice you've decided to join us instead of just peeking round the door! You are very welcome here, and you may find some genuine "release from your prisons" that were built by the iron strictures of TWI. Neurodivergent? Good, you bring a different viewpoint. We're all ready to hear, discuss, consider. Have a cup of coffee while you're pondering what to think.

Edgar, that was no environment for a young child. Not even a teenager. You should not have been exposed to any of that. If there'd been anything you needed to know, your parents should have explained it to you gently, in an age-appropriate way. LCM's rants were legendary - for their vileness, foul language, filthy content, abuse of anyone he didn't like, denigration of those who'd left. As a role model, he was everything NOT to be. It's not even as if he was accurate in things he said! When you realise how many lies he told - you can feel completely justified in dismissing everything he said. If anything lingers in your mind - check it out yourself against what the Bible says (and doesn't say) and against reputable commentators. Most sermons are about 20-30 minutes long; any longer and you've lost the attention of your audience. Most university lectures are about an hour, with notes, and require and encourage students to study for themselves and then discuss in tutorials and smaller groups. To go on an egotistical rant for 2 or 3 hours is just that - an egotistical rant. Not teaching, educating, building the hearers up. I hope you were able to build some happier childhood memories. The children in the Way were most sorely abused.

That never sat well with me. Even on the face of it, it seemed like nonsense. So I ignored his "interpretation" completely.

That was an interesting clip. What it doesn't discuss is the different regional accents that might also have come into play. Shakespeare was a Midlands man - probably, dropped "H"s and dropped "U"s, and generally a different accent from what there is in "received pronunciation." Also, as a Midlander, he may well have used words that were dialect words common to the local area but not nationally; or used words in a different way from "national" used. His vocab might also have included more "northern" words not necessarily known in provincial London. Why is that relevant to this thread? Because there is actually no telling how words might have been used in different parts of the Roman or Christian eras. Was the way a word was used and understood in Ephesus or Corinth the same as how that same word might have been understood at the same time period in Jerusalem, Rome, Crete, etc. Similar, maybe, Same, maybe, maybe not. What were the customs of the time, too? So what could that verse, that word, be referring to that might not be so obvious? Americans use some words right now that are different from how the same words are used in British English. And Brits use some words differently from how many Americans might use them. Sometimes they even mean something offensive in the "other" use of the language (what some, perhaps not all, Americans do to tighten a spanner is an offensive word meaning masturbation in British English and thus a big insult to hurl at someone). You cannot possibly read a Bible verse and tie a whole theology to it. That really is "private interpretation." You have to read in context with other verses relating to the same subject. If you're more widely read, see what commentators have to say (and why). If you're even more widely read, you might have studied ancient languages and you're smart enough to see how ancient Syrian, ancient Aramaic etc changed. None of us here have laid claim to that level of education or study.

Thanks, Waysider. Awesome voice and playing.

If ya know, ya know.

Might not this be better in the Matters of Faith > Atheist thread?

Hah, thanks, Oldies. I don't recall ever hearing that before, though Sedaka was big in the UK too. My intended has a big music background and has compiled lots of songs from 50s, 60s, not sure about 70s. Might be playing some as background noise for the wedding.

I think she's pi$$ed off about something: Facebook Try not to get seasick...!

He was ordained into the Methodist church and had theological differences. Left and retrained an Episcopalian minister. I think he is also having difficulties there. As we here know all too well, it's hard having to be in an environment that is so rigid to its own rules and forgets that the rules and the organisation are there to serve the people, and not the other way about.

There are some really innovative designs for RC cathedrals in the UK. Exciting to look at. Nicely done inside. A lot of Anglican churches are very old (older than the USA) (think, dating back to Norman times, 1066 and all that) and clunky outside. Might be light and lovely inside, though. FYI there is a Saxon church not far from where I live, not much altered from when it was built. Dates back to the late 600s (and no, I didn't miss off a digit). Still consecrated and still in use; though a more modern building (built around 1150) is just across the road. It's nice and modern inside. The congregation is very active in the community. As with all these buildings, it's not what the building itself is. It's what's taught inside. I have llittle truck with churchianity. What is the message, and how does it respect and work into daily life the teachings of the Bible? Is it wrapped up in dogma and church-made rules, or is it open to what the Good News really is? That's why i like this woman, Monte Mader, and also Rev Joseph Yoo (Facebook), who both challenge churchianity's entrenched and biased positions. I am coming up against churchianity at the moment. Getting married next week. The orthodox Anglican ceremony includes words and standard prayers that I really don't like. Our minister has allowed me to change some aspects but she is bound by oaths to observe certain rituals. So what do I "suck" and what can I reasonably challenge? Bless her, she is such a sweetie. It's not fair on me to compromise her oaths but she is not insisting on aspects I find naff.

Different take again, Oldies. Always we need to know something of the context, as best we can. It's very obvious that the early church recognised women as leaders too; just read the list of names of those who helped both Paul and Jesus. Stand-alone women, not adjuncts of their husbands. It's also very obvious that Jewish culture of the time was very patriarchal even though there were some powerful women. We get hints, in other prevailing regimes (Greek, Roman) but again, be careful not to read (say) Greek culture of one epoch into that of another time. Anyway, this isn't just about women in the church; I was interested in Monte Mader's (sometimes) outrageous insights into quite a lot of religious and especially Christian-nationalist hype. Especially on compassion/empathy for homeless, LGB groups, non-white groups, migrants, etc. I would love to set her on some of the TWI know-it-all "reverends"!

Faithful is only twice a month now? Did you mean that, or did you mean twice a week, more the norm when I was around.