chockfull

11 hours ago, Rocky said:

Are you experiencing a denial of service because you think I post too much? 

No that would be everyone on the forum.  DDOS attacks don’t single people out.

1 minute ago, Rocky said:

Well, he DID say I offended him. 

He even offered a bit of an explanation as to why he felt offended.

Am I supposed to be offended by any of that? I am not.

It doesn't even bother me that he called me names (i.e. Mike; and bullshonta).

Are you offended by my use of my "voice?" (number of posts at GSC)? Gosh, I hope not.

Sometimes I wonder if someone somewhere is doing an experiment with a chatbot.

It doesn't offend me.

It does resemble a bit of a DDOS attack though.  Flood the forum with random threads and contributions that to me and many do seem anti-Christian in overall character.  I mean they do seem overall friendly and not hostile.

If all these philosophical ponderings are here then the question I have is “ if you are ADHD enough is a squirrel connected to everything?”

3 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Things which offend you are not always (and probably never or rarely) are about you.

"It is not our purpose to become each other, it is to recognize to learn to see each other, and honor him for what he is." Herman Hesse, German-Swiss poet, 1877-1962

"Love your suffering. Do not resist it, do not flee it. It is only your aversion to it that hurts, nothing else." Herman Hesse

Today, while waiting with a friend who was at the office of an ophthalmologist, I sat (for 2.5 hours) reading Bart Ehrman's History of Heaven and Hell.

His research into said history is extensive and well-documented. I was amazed at how different early Christians and also Jews viewed (or didn't) the afterlife.

I surmised, after reading, that even though NONE of them believed in afterlife, the theology and doctrine evolved incrementally over many years.

Regarding the passage in Joshua 10, at issue in the OP for this thread, which agree or disagree is legitimately about the subculture through which we have common ground, I have (so far) surmised that Victor Wierwille ignored or at least de-emphasized passages like this because he didn't want to deal with it/them.

The variations in interpretations of the passage, as already expressed by people on this thread, illustrates the human propensity to rationalize in many ways each thing each reads in the Bible.

Again, this is NOT any one picking on any of you. If you're offended by what I posed to you... well, you read it and you decided what you're willing to do with the narrative set forth.

I do not have any authoritative interpretation of the passage. I only set it forth for your consideration.  

Hold on.

Just for one second stop constructing more random references.

Consider that perhaps just possibly the things that offend him could be about you?

I mean even Taylor can own up to her impact in “Anti Hero”.  Maybe you should listen to that on repeat rather than upping your post count by another 500 random agitated posts?

23 hours ago, OldSkool said:

Though this isnt a "Christian" website, many people here no longer have any respect for Christians or their beliefs. Bible bashing is a large part of what grease spot has become and frankly I find it offensive and seldom participate here as a result. It is what it is because Ive grown so far past the way international I have little left to say on them that I havent stated already, or has been stated by others. I feel this site is no longer tolerant of Christians and that includes me. Peace.

Yes it is interesting here as well as on the cult related Reddit channels I read that there are quite a lot of people whose fruit evidenced after being in a cult is to reject Christianity completely.

There are others like me who reject Fundamentalist approaches and retain faith.  I float around churches and mainstream Christians.

I guess the remaining would be in splinters with whitewashed statues of VP in their closets as they try to drum up participants for their latest version of Plaffy the new light which is old light.

That is going to be part of Christs return setting all these imbalances in order IMO.  One Lord one faith one baptism not all these clowns spouting hot air.

On 10/23/2023 at 2:26 PM, Rocky said:

Yes, it IS about the Way. The question/issue is, how did or would Victor Wierwille deal with this passage of scripture.

The answer is “poorly” for $5000 Alex

On 10/23/2023 at 12:48 PM, Rocky said:

What would happen IF... on a day the sun stood still? Oh, wait, when did Galileo or Copernicus or any other scientist or mathematician figure out that it wasn't the SUN which would stand still, but maybe was the EARTH?

The following passage from the Book of Joshua records intriguing events, including scientifically DUBIOUS ones. What was it Victor Wierwille said about scripture? Something about mathematically precise and scientifically accurate? Or was it mathematically accurate and scientifically precise? Or does it EVEN MATTER?

Did he ever explain this one in light of scientific understanding developed long after the time of Joshua or even Jesus?

Joshua chapter 10

So Joshua marched up from Gilgal with his entire army, including all the best fighting men. 8The Lord said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid of them; I have given them into your hand. Not one of them will be able to withstand you.”

9After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise. 10The Lord threw them into confusion before Israel, so Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. 11As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them, and more of them died from the hail than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.

12On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel:

“Sun, stand still over Gibeon,

and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.”

13So the sun stood still,

and the moon stopped,

till the nation avenged itself on ^b its enemies,

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel!

 -----

Is this passage actually "in the original God-breathed Word?" or 

Is this a definitive forgery from a different age? or

Is it simply an Orientalism or Figure of Speech? or

Something else?

Is this a STORY of a series of events told from the human perspective?

How did Wierwille rationalize it, if he recognized the passage at all?

How do we TODAY rationalize it, now that we have pulled our attention and recognition to it?

-----

It seems the SUN, according to astrophysics as I (minimally) understand it, would NOT have been the heavenly body in question for actually scientifically figuring out what really MIGHT have happened on the day described in Joshua 10. Since we NOW understand our 24 hour daily time cycle to be a function of EARTH rotating on its axis, if we were to hypothesize what would really happen if the sun were to "delay going down about a full day," what would actually happen on EARTH when that occurred?

Well, MY scientific knowledge, understanding, and imagination fails me when trying to figure it out... BUT, I now bring to you world renown astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson to draw the picture for you WITH WORDS.

 

What if this was foretelling prophecy of daylight savings time? 

What if Rocky could actually stick to one topic in a thread without introducing God, scripture, Galileo, Copernicus, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson in one semi coherent rambling?

I mean the section that scripture I would file under the same as the really old guys in Genesis.

I always considered that scripture motivation in sports.  I could believe that God wouldn’t let the sun go down while we were whooping the other teams butts!

I guess “churchianity” would be an invented word an amalgamation of church and Christianity.

Substitute “church” for “Christ” and I guess that explains it all.  I do hear modern Christian pastors talking about the “unchurched”.

To me all that is more examples of building a Tower of Babel like in Genesis.

5 hours ago, Rocky said:

I get it. Of course, I will continue to do me. 

I appreciate your candor and that hopefully you will no longer find disagreement an attack on you or picking on you.

Indeed, there has been plenty from what was shoveled off on to us from Victor Wierwille's teachings and the fallout from his emotionally deficient subculture that was and has been woefully lacking in terms of logic.

I would wonder (out loud, but in no way solicit a response from you) if what helped you decide to leave the cult was more emotionally based than the deficiencies in logic.

Also, I have come upon a hunch that you and I may have been, for a long time, friends on FB but perhaps are no longer.

If that's the case, I still feel bad for having offended you, but am hopeful that both you and I will emerge more hopeful in this life. 

Decisions not only mine are based upon some blend of logic and emotion.  I guess the exact makeup of both would be different for me than you.

I have never been friends with you on social media that I am aware of.  

Thx for the response.  Different views to me aren’t offensive.  

14 hours ago, Rocky said:

The answer lies within your own mind, does it not?

How do YOU define paradox? Do you have any tolerance for paradox?

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

• noun A statement that seems to contradict itself but may nonetheless be true.
• noun A person, thing, or situation that exhibits inexplicable or contradictory aspects.
• noun A statement that is self-contradictory or logically untenable, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.

How much tolerance for ambiguity can you muster? 

Ambiguity tolerance is a fancy term for “operating in the gray.” It reflects an ability to accept unclear, uncertain, or novel situations and work effectively in this environment.

I hope your ambiguity tolerance is growing. 

I find “ambiguity tolerance” and flipping like a Teflon waffle iron between two opposite positions as different things. 

My lack of “ambiguity tolerance” helped to define what was improper about the Ways teachings on debt and “the household” and most of what they try to dissect from Corinthians.  It also helped me form the requisite logic that I could leave and stake my future on.

But you do you.

4 hours ago, Rocky said:

 

Another synonym for “telling stories” is “lying” in the sense of being untruthful and replacing a truthful story with a fictional or imagined story.

5 hours ago, Rocky said:

How so?? 

How is it not?

Do you magically gain understanding without any logical reasoning?

please explain coherently instead of posting a link underlined sunesis pointing not to any definition of the word but to Carl Sagans argument against religion.

5 hours ago, Rocky said:

Good luck with that. Please keep us posted.

There are, as I understand it, quite a few contradictions and/or inconsistencies in Christian scriptures.

I realize Victor Wierwille indoctrinated us with his PFLAP class to view scripture as something without error or contradictions or inconsistencies. I simply no longer believe him on that point.

For examples regarding stories I present this brief clip with Simon Sinek. Take it or leave it, I don't care whether you believe it or not. 

 

 

It seems that the best “luck” I will have with logical reasoning would be to avoid those without it.

I do not believe the Bible is an anthropological story telling novel.  I do not believe that aligns in the least with Prov 2:1-5 that you quoted as your underlying ruling principle.

Without the acknowledgment of some kind of divine inspiration influence or other synonym in the Bible then there isn’t much reason to spend reading it. 
 

I read the “Epic of Gilgamesh” and was entertained by that story.  I don’t view that as equal to the Bible.

That is where my logic begins - with the acknowledgment there is something spiritual going on in the Bible.  If you don’t believe that than it makes sense you would waffle on your position not use logic and change your beliefs with every passing cool breeze:

4 minutes ago, Rocky said:

History of humankind is ALL about stories. For example, I consider the bible to be an anthology of stories.

How do I piece together ideas? Sunesis.

I read. Any and all subjects in which I become interested in.

Further, my guiding scripture verses, which I have cited multiple times on GSC, are Proverbs 2:1-5.

If, however by chance, you might be looking for a way to catch me in contradictions or inconsistencies, more power to you. For I view any such thing that may arise as an opportunity to either or both broaden and deepen my puny human understanding of "things." 

I don’t have to even look for that it seems to show up in successive posts - contradiction and inconsistency.

I am seeking to logically reason through ideas presented in scripture or derived from scripture.

Is not sunesis a logic based reasoning?

On 10/17/2023 at 9:33 PM, cman said:

So....when Christ forgives, is it for himself?

In Luke 23:34 it records Christ not forgiving people himself but rather praying to the Father to forgive them.

Why?

On 10/18/2023 at 2:18 AM, Rocky said:

Why would/could that be the case?

Philosophically, the entire premise of Christianity is wrapped around the concept of redemption, isn't it?

From my perspective these days, it seems early homo sapiens probably developed awareness of humanity's emotional and behavioral awkwardness and frailty. They had to come up with both an origin story or (myth) and a way to overcome the human tendency to hurt other people they cared about.

Jesus wasn't the first or only person or character to meet that need.

IDK, I'm just thinking "out loud" so to speak.

If Christ is a man who is the son of God only, then Jesus forgiveness from him would not be involved in redemption in the least.

It is his life sacrifice on the cross that redeems us.  And enables God the Father to forgive and redeem.

If Christ has divine elements like many Christians believe then his forgiveness would be involved in redemption indirectly.

On 10/18/2023 at 2:34 PM, Nathan_Jr said:

Is forgiveness liberating? For whom?

If I have hurt my brother, but I repent and I change and I seek to amend and I seek forgiveness from him, but he still won’t forgive me, who remains in bondage?

This would depend to me on what you mean by “hurt”.

Did you “hurt” me by calling me a name on an online forum?

Did you “hurt” me by murdering a family member?

While liberation from the first is easy and forgiveness would be inconsequential, saying I would be in bondage for giving that second account to God to settle is ludicrous.

On 10/18/2023 at 1:20 PM, WordWolf said:

Apples and oranges.

Rocky, there was a legitimate point there- you didn't make a distinction between two things that can sound similar but are very different things.  Please spell out the differences for those following along at home.

So Jesus forgiving people is an apple, but me forgiving people is an orange?

Perhaps you need to explain your botanical classification.  How are these two things that sound similar but are very different things?

22 hours ago, Rocky said:

Logic is a framework for thinking and analysis, sure. I don't see it as chains on a person's ability to understand life. So yes, I contradicted something. But I tried to explain why I believe it was warranted.

Was Einstein always correct in everything he believed and propounded?

 

If logic does not form boundaries around our discussions, what framework do you suggest for exchanging ideas?  If logic does not form a basis for how you understand life, what does?  How do you piece together ideas?  Or is it more you just respond off the top of the head with whatever comes into mind at the moment, then justify it later?

7 hours ago, Rocky said:

Why would/could that be the case?

Philosophically, the entire premise of Christianity is wrapped around the concept of redemption, isn't it?

From my perspective these days, it seems early homo sapiens probably developed awareness of humanity's emotional and behavioral awkwardness and frailty. They had to come up with both an origin story or (myth) and a way to overcome the human tendency to hurt other people they cared about.

Jesus wasn't the first or only person or character to meet that need.

IDK, I'm just thinking "out loud" so to speak.

Well it seems like the next logical premise after you stated your confidence in how forgiveness was for the individual.  If that is true it should logically extend to the purpose for Jesus forgiving people would it not?

But instead of following that logic now two posts later you contradict what you were confident in previously.

13 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

I heard someone say, “Forgiveness is the forgiver absorbing the price…”

(Usually, the phrase is absorbing the COST. Cost and price are not the same.)

Any thoughts on this? The forgiver absorbs the cost/price. 

Yes.  As Way Corps I always absorbed the cost.  The cost of paying rent on a church that people can act however they want in multiple times a week.  They can destroy my property, criticize me, treat my family members poorly, then complain to leadership and I get in trouble.

I absorbed the cost of having to quit jobs and find new ones in short periods of time.  Of moving across the country but they wouldn't even pay for a motel to spread a trip out after a flunkie says “God wants you rested”.

I absorbed the cost of being Way Corps where a large percentage of your group you are in charge of is former dropped Corps or alumni who feel it wasn't fair so have to target you with all their killed dreams.

I absorbed the cost of fools in high places making idiotic business decisions that affected me and never apologized but just continued to expect unquestioning obedience at every subsequent idiotic decision.

I absorbed the cost of following megalomaniacs for decades.

In fact if you had to sum up my experience in Twi it could be done with the words “absorbing cost”.

Forgiveness?  Like being in a relationship with a narcissist it is a one way street.  

34 minutes ago, TLC said:

Apparently our time (and definitely our experiences) at HQ and with research dept members didn't overlap.  
Do you mind if I ask if you think anyone's belief regarding the Trinity has anything at all to do with salvation? 

The way I look at it I do not think it is logical that God would have an obscure interpretation of salvation verses that prevents a percentage of seekers from becoming born again who desire that.

So no I don't think any ones belief regarding the Trinity affects salvation.

I do think Wierwilles Trinity explanation and book served to effectively erect a barrier between followers of TWI and all other denominations and community churches that has never been effectively broken down.

Twits are seperate and do not collaborate with other Christians at all.  This is isolationist and contributes towards the climate of small groups of dictators running everything, the lack of voting privileges in the leadership body, and the general cult like feel of the group.

I feel that they live in doctrinal and practical error and are living examples of the eye saying to the hand “I have no need of you” as found in Corinthians the books they purport to be expert in and teaching the world about their take on it.

6 hours ago, cman said:

i think forgiveness is bigger than forgiveness, it's about making us greater than we can be without it

like yeah great you are forgiven, so what, what now

 

If forgiveness is a self inflating balloon then you can fly until your walls explode.

1 hour ago, TLC said:

Well, that sure doesn't fit with my experience while at HQ and some number of discussions I had with others in the research dept. (But, perhaps it did with others involved in the ministry, that I was unaware of.) 

What part doesn’t fit?  In my experience it was all assumed to be “handled” at the foundational class level and not discussed past then including at HQ and with research dept members I spoke to.  Did you interact with people there that covered these 7 points  in your research and discussion?

Expanding this discussion again.  The major concepts involved with the trinity are:

1. **Monotheism**: Christianity is fundamentally monotheistic, meaning it believes in one God.

2. **Three Persons, One God**: The Trinity teaches that God exists in three distinct persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. These three persons are co-equal and co-eternal, each fully and equally God.

3. **Unity in Diversity**: While there are three persons, they are not separate gods but one God in essence. This is often summarized with the phrase "One God in Three Persons."

4. **Relationship**: The Trinity emphasizes the eternal and loving relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They exist in a perfect, harmonious communion.

5. **Incarnation**: The doctrine of the Incarnation is closely tied to the Trinity. It teaches that God the Son (Jesus) took on human form while still being fully divine.

6. **Role Differentiation**: Each person of the Trinity has distinct roles in the work of salvation. The Father is the creator, the Son is the redeemer, and the Holy Spirit is the sustainer and empowerer.

7. **Mystery**: The Trinity is often described as a divine mystery because it goes beyond human comprehension. It's something that Christians accept on faith, even though it may not be fully understandable.

These concepts are foundational to Christian theology, and the Trinity is a central doctrine in most Christian denominations. It's important to note that different Christian traditions may emphasize certain aspects of the Trinity differently.

So the Way and VPW mischaracterizes a number of these tenets prior to attacking them.

1. One God - so TWI basically tells mainstream Christians they worship 3 gods not one.  They sold bumper stickers saying honk if you worship one god not 3.  This belittles the concepts of the other person and causes division.  Christians believe in one God despite namecallers.

2. The Way does not accept co equal and co eternal.  To TWI the father is greater than the son and the spirit is a gift just an object.

3. Unity in diversity - a completely foreign concept to the Way who wants everyone uniform and Stepford.  This concept is beyond their comprehension.

4. Eternal loving relationship - the Way scratches their head as they mostly are responsible for division in the body of Christ, in families, friendships, leaders.

5. Incarnation - again beyond the concepts of the Way who are mostly uneducated as student loan debt is evil.

6. Role Differentiation - again in practice not understood by the Way.  You have the caste system in the way.  BOD->Clergy->Way Corps->twig coordinator->Adv class grad->layman.  Each stays in their category and are not permitted in higher categories.  Equality and function differentiation are foreign concepts.

7. Mystery - the Way accepts no mysteries but has to replace them with catch phrases. Fundamentalists project a know-it-all attitude and the Ways noses are 10 degrees higher in the air than fundamentalists impressing themselves with their mental gymnastics.

So in summary the trinity as a theological concept and interpretation of scripture is largely unknown by the Way as they discuss it only in the elementary school terminology of VPW and never stray far from his so called “revelation”.

Why would they not sell the FBoi motor coach after all the lawsuits?  I mean everything gives off something right?  I mean that coach gives off Drambuie Kools and perversion.