waysider

Sometimes these verbal gymnastics remind me of that old kids' game, "Mother, may I?" "Take two steps forward." (takes two steps forward.) "Ha!... you didn't say "Mother, may I?". edit: "Yeah, but permission was implied." re-edit: or was it? :biglaugh:/>

John, you're playing a silly semantics game with this one. And you're not very good at it. You don't have to declare that something is your opinion every time that is the case, especially on a discussion forum that specializes in opinion.. It's implied. Nor do you have to preface every belief with an "I believe" disclaimer. If you state it, it's implied you believe it. That has nothing to do with faith. Faith, as the word is being used here, connotes a belief in something for which no logical proof exists. It's not "not believing" in something for which no logical proof exists. If you're really concerned with the rules of the English language, take a few moments and learn about logical fallacies (begging the question) and double negatives.

As a youngster on a weekend camp-out, I once took the "warm pan of water" challenge. The results were somewhat less than charitable.

The posters I referred to were members of RRF, had first hand exposure to Barnard and offered opposition at RRF as well as on GSC..

It seemed like almost everything was caused by devil spirits, in The Way. The Advanced Class syllabus even devoted several pages to identifying and classifying them. Got a drinking problem?...devil spirits. got cancer?...devil spirits. Suffering from mental illness?... devil spirits. (*Lying spirit*, by the way, is item #21 on page 11 of the syllabus.) "Are we even allowed to quote from the bible at all on this site anymore?" Of course you are. Did someone say you're not? "However, the person is using the bible and religious authority to be able to have sex with under age girls. I am giving my view that the bible opposes this" I don't think you'll find many who disagree with that. In addition to being contrary to scripture, it's illegal to use one's authority in such a manner. It's rape. "I am amazed that people around this person did not see this and oppose this person at all." People, in fact, did see through him and voiced a good deal of opposition right here on GreaseSpot Cafe. (JeffSjo and Granddaughter, for example) If you look back a few years, you'll discover it occupied quite a bit of bandwidth here.

Really? Devil spirits are the source of lies? That sounds like something straight out of PLAF (The Advanced Wonder Class) Everyone lies, to one degree or another. So, draw the conclusion, if you must. I, too, hope they catch him and bring him to justice. My sentiment on this, however, is driven by more "old school" reasoning.

" ....there are few things that drive people away from Christianity as much as the approach taken by johniam..." I'll second that sentiment. Please note: I'm not attacking johniam, I'm criticizing the approach.

I think whoever decided to call the disease "depression" did a poor job naming it. It's much more than just feeling depressed or blue. We all feel that from time to time but we don't all suffer from depression. And sometimes people who have the disease don't feel blue. Adolescent boys, for example, often feel intense anger, rather than an emotional low. It's a complicated illness. It can be very difficult to successfully treat it.

It was meant to be "tongue in cheek" JAL released a youtube, a couple years ago, denouncing "the law of believing". How does one NOT sound like an idiot when denouncing a concept they spent decades promoting? LINK

"We'll return to our regularly scheduled programming after this brief musical intermission." ARF! ARF!

demonically influenced vomit - eating dog I wonder if there were 2 of that variety on Noah's Big Boat.

No need to study the whole book all at once. Just pick one simple example of something that seems to be impossible but has a larger back-story. Ya gots ta start someplace, ya know?

I am of the opinion that it wasn't the doctrinal minutia that damaged Way followers..Does it really matter whether there were 4 or 2 or 27 at the crucifixion? Or whether there were really 17 quasi-denials of Peter? What damaged us (in my opinion) was a lifestyle that was centered around the magical powers of believing and SIT....to name just two. It instilled a mindset that, outside of discernible figures of speech, we were to accept everything as literally true (and then some). There was no room for individual critical thinking. Genesis is a great place to re-examine the concept of inerrancy because the (apparent) flaws are so glaring.

"And so it came to pass that Adam and Eve ate of the tree of inerrancy and a great darkness befell the earth.."

The side discussion has been enlightening but I'd prefer to resume a discussion of Genesis.

This would be a good launching point for discussion. Select something that appears to be an error (the flood account, for example) and compare it with the contrasting "truth".

The primary objective of The Way Corps, FellowLaborers and now S.O.W.E.R.S is this: 1. Acquire an in-depth spiritual perception and awareness. What sort of success rate can a venture expect when it's #1 goal is to capture a unicorn?

More meta yada-yada-yada: "Reading The Bible as a source of truth" is not what this forum is designed for. It's designed for examining and discussing doctrines. (primarily, but not exclusively, those that relate to religious/spiritual matters) There are many cultures that have, as a collective belief, doctrine that is based on the same basic story presented in Genesis. Why restrict ourselves to only those cultures that are Christian? That seems rather limited and self serving.

WARNING!! Meta discussion may ensue. Should a doctrinal forum be limited to only Christian/Biblical doctrines? That seems a bit restrictive and counter-productive, in my opinion.

That's fodder for a good old-fashioned circular reasoning festival. :B)

Is it possible for something to be true without being a "spiritual truth"? Like the common sense advise in Proverbs. If you read the same thing in a bubble gum wrapper, would it still be good advise? I wonder about stuff like that.

Aside from scientific details, Wierwille had a flawed concept of the purpose of evolution. Evolution has no "end goal". It's a simply an ongoing process of survival. The specimens that are most adept at adapting to change are the ones that survive and propagate. The idea that Man is the highest form of evolution is deeply flawed. This, I think, is the aspect that frustrates deniers the most. edit: This may constitute an "actual error" because Genesis states that Man has dominion over everything. That's a lofty sounding concept but it's not founded in reality.

For whatever it's worth, The Way used to tackle evolution by teaching it was lateral rather than vertical and could not cross genus boundaries.

There are tons of things we can learn if we accept it to be allegory. The problem, however, is that fundamentalist thinking insists it is historical. That approach brings the learning process to a grinding halt.

....having sex is hardly any different than sticking your finger in someone's ear. Fortunately, I never had to chose between the two.