Rocky

oh, okay. So you're okay with others listening to Kristin du Mez' explain why she's still a Christian, I suppose.

I don't see any reason why it would be deleted. Have you had posts deleted before that you thought should not have been? The person in question apparently IS a public figure who has been credibly accused. IHOPKC also posted a video on FB. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=172641609261928

Is that why YOU, Ham, are still a Christian? Or is that your assessment of Kristin Du Mez' declaration of faith?

Historian Kristin Du Mez responds to the question from the Holy Post podcast. Kristin has written Jesus and John Wayne.

Well... plenty of warmth available, perhaps you have to give to someone who might need it. Not so easy to have regenerative conversation with you, however, since your posts seem entirely, since you re-emerged, to be excessively cryptic. I suspect there might be others willing to share warmth with you if you were to be less cryptic. Take care friend.

As my manner is, I picked up this book from my local public library today. You're Not Listening: What You're Missing and Why it Matters. To some, this may seem off topic, but I submit it goes somewhat directly to Twinky's concern AND to the noticeably cerebral post our good friend sirguessalot interjected. I mean that in a positive way. And I am almost certainly as lacking as anyone in effort put into "listening" to my fellow GSC posters.

btw, I read books I buy from Amazon using the Kindle app for PC... most of the time.

https://www.amazon.com/Undertow-Escape-Fundamentalism-Control-International-ebook/dp/B06ZY8HVKS/

This can be helpful insight too.

Don't be too hard on yourself.

Of course, I reply NOT to contradict Raf's insight, instead to highlight it. From the linked definition: intransitive verb To explain or justify (one's behavior) with incorrect reasons or excuses, often without conscious awareness. intransitive verb To dismiss or minimize the significance of (something) by means of an explanation or excuse.

He was a good man. It was/is a great loss.

Whatever it is is MUCH bigger, IMO, than anything related to Victor Wierwille or his private interpretation ministry.

Perhaps some people will view this as heresy and/or blasphemy... but can research along these lines be stopped? What's the latest word from medical ethicists? Homo Deus

Remember what Albert Einstein said about how imagination is a bigger deal than knowledge... or something like that. Can you imagine this?

Apparently this is a different verse.

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

For there is no creature whose inward being is so strong that it is not greatly determined by the world around it. —GEORGE ELIOT, MIDDLEMARCH Gordon, Deborah M.. The Ecology of Collective Behavior (p. v). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

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. Chockfull wrote, "Just for one second stop constructing more random references." Are you asking for explanation/clarification of why I write somethings I write?

Worthy of respect. Certainly not the only approach worthy of respect, but yes.

Which you would likely get correct if you expressed it in the form of a question.

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.

Meant by whom? Are you really saying you have discerned my intent? That's silly. I made no indication that any response shocked me. I also not not surprised at the hostile reactions. None of which seem to actually address what I posed in the OP. Okay, it's a highly charged matter to challenge the foundations of one's belief.