Rocky

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

3 hours ago, Ham said:

Nowhere, is there Warmth to be Found.. no kidding.

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.  

13 hours ago, sirguessalot said:

Thanks. Yeah, felt like slipping in the back door and quietly pulling up a chair. Been lurking a bit. This conversation pulled me in. 

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.

8 hours ago, Twinky said:

Much as I'd like to read Undertow, it's only available in the UK with extortionate postage costs, presumably from USA.  I don't know how much those claimed costs relate to actual postage costs.

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

This can be helpful insight too.

22 hours ago, Ham said:

TWI seemed to attract DEEPLY damaged individuals ("nutcases", including myself).

Don't be too hard on yourself.  

1 hour ago, Raf said:

But He's LOVE! He couldn't have! So we invent an explanation RATIONALIZE to retroactively absolve him of responsibility for that which he explicitly wanted credit!

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.

On 10/27/2023 at 6:38 PM, Ham said:

God Bless you Skyrider Dear Friend.. I hope that you really can ride the sky.  I will ride some day..

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?

19 hours ago, Ham said:

If only you could read it in the original.. heh

Apparently this is a different verse. 

On 10/23/2023 at 10:23 AM, skyryder said:

On October 23, 2023 Lloyd Bishop died peacefully at home, surrounded by his 2 sons, daughter in law, and wife. I know he was a big part and huge support to many of your lives, and will be greatly missed.  I'm thankful that we know the whole story and will see him again. If you have any fun stories or he helped you in any way, please leave a comment.

THAT is very sad. But thanks for letting us know. I'm VERY thankful he shared much of his personal story on GSC, as skyrider!

This is a tremendous loss to the GSC community. 

50 minutes ago, chockfull said:

It does resemble a bit of a DDOS attack though.

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. 

7 minutes ago, chockfull said:

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

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?

1 minute ago, chockfull said:

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.

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

7 minutes ago, chockfull said:

The answer is “poorly” for $5000 Alex

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

10 hours ago, OldSkool said:

If hostile reactions are calling you out on your bullshonta then so be it.

 

You taking a page out of mikes playbook now?

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.  

1 hour ago, WordWolf said:

It was meant to take a shot at people who disagree with you.

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.

1 hour ago, OldSkool said:

Though this isn't 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 I've grown so far past the way international I have little left to say on them that I haven't stated already, or has been stated by others. I feel this site is no longer tolerant of Christians and that includes me. Peace.

Sigh... okay, I get that you find it offensive. But no longer tolerant of Christians? Really?

I no longer have respect for the dogma Victor Wierwille pushed. 

However, presenting an argument regarding a passage of scripture that clearly contradicts what Wierwille taught is maybe a bit more than you're willing to tolerate. But characterizing "the site?" as intolerant seems like name calling.

I would hope you have some insight on the scripture in Joshua I cited?

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?

35 minutes ago, WordWolf said:

Granted, this would certainly be on the high end of fantastic for a miracle, but that's not proof of anything by itself.   If there is an All-Mighty God, He COULD do exactly this, and if there wasn't, then the account was simply cooked.  

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

"If there is an All-Mighty God..." is a reframing of the philosophical question "can/could God make a rock heavier than he could lift?"

There is NO logical answer to either. But thank you for adding your insight.