Rocky

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.

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?

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.

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.

This paragraph is from a blurb on Amazon. Could it be coincidence that author Paul Murray's main character is Claude Martingale? And the title's play on words with TWI's infamous slogan for shunning those who reject its overt effort to control cult followers' behavior and beliefs? The author is Irish and studied literature in Dublin. Could he have brushed shoulders with someone IN twi?

Is this Pitty motivated by fear? Certainly not as shown in this clip.

And there are times, places, situations in which it is EASIER to set aside social fear.

Is THIS logical?

From Michael Meade and mosaic voices (note, I'm NOT recommending his anything paid, just that I saw something on FB a friend posted): The world as we know it is already gone. The point now is to inhabit a bigger, unifying living myth in which the words "we are all in this together," have genuine heartfelt meaning. From ME: the myth that we are separate from "the world" may be at the heart of polarization and hate that has engulfed so much in and of the world these days. That mental framework did not originate with Wierwille, but he sure did his best to amplify it. To me, "we are all in this together" flows more naturally into a loving view of our neighbors, no matter how alike or different each may look or sound from each of us. IOW, despite one's best efforts to love those who do not look or sound or believe like each of us, there ARE (ravenous) voices suggesting we should be afraid and unwelcoming to any person or group different from us. The MORE different, the more afraid. Fear doesn't play well with love. Inherently, fear stokes survival instincts and causes us to bypass our logical reasoning mental processes. Therefore, I tend to believe it's easier to forgive when we set aside social fear.

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.

Fair enough. And thanks for further clarification you provided. If I was not clear, let me clarify. I used the word churchianity as a mechanism to draw a particular contrast. If I implied or explicitly replied I had perceived you as having been triggered, I apologize. However, from the emphatic nature of your quick response to my use of the word, I perceived some aspect of triggering. As to whether YOU SHOULD regard any word as a potential trigger word, it seems to me the key would be awareness/recognition of emotional responses the word or expression might elicit from one or more reader/listener. IOW, I don't see "churchianity" as a word or concept or notion that any of us, absent the potential for eliciting such an emotional response, can arbitrarily put into the category of "trigger word." Put another way, perhaps more important than devising rules for considering any given word or expression as such, is one's own recognition and awareness of the impact of our words on others. Given that awareness, would come responsibility for choosing our word(s) with both love and authenticity. Which, may not always be easy.

Neither do I. I believe it's an anthology of stories. I respect that you disagree. You obviously have a right to disagree with me. Okay. I, again, respect your declaration of belief about motivation or lack thereof for reading the Bible. That is, I respect it without judging it.

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.

Since you started this thread for the purpose of discussion, I want to share something I received this morning in an email from a psychologist named Guy Winch. Dr Winch was born and raised in England, I think. He moved to NYC to study and to practice his profession. What We Get Wrong about Getting Triggered Getting triggered means having an immediate strong emotional response (e.g., anger or distress) to content or events that evoke a past traumatic experience. What get's triggered, therefore, is the trauma--the feelings and reactions that are associated with the traumatic event. Trigger warnings were initially instituted (in college campuses) to warn people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that the upcoming media or class includes certain themes, so that the person may either opt out or prepare themselves in order to lower their emotional reactivity to it. Today, some people use the term 'getting triggered' more broadly to include reactions that are not necessarily associated with past trauma. Indeed, in last month's poll, 46% of people said that getting triggered means they weren't able to control not just their emotions but their thoughts and behavior too. What we often fail to acknowledge is that if a person gets triggered but does not have PTSD, their sharp emotional response is likely due to an unhealed emotional wound. This distinction is important because PTSD requires treatment by a mental health professional, while many emotional wounds can be treated (via therapy or self-help) and the sensitivity to them reduced as a result. The second thing we get wrong relates to trigger warnings. We assume they're both useful and effective. But many recent studies have found that neither is necessarily true. Are Trigger Warnings Useful? A variety of studies have found that trigger warnings have a downside for people who have PTSD--they can reinforce a survivor's view of the trauma as being central to their identity--something that is counter-therapeutic and potentially damaging to their mental health as it gives the trauma an even bigger place in their lives than it already has (reminding them, suggesting they can't handle exposures, etc...). If the upside of trigger warnings was substantial, that would be one thing but as you'll see below, research has found they have only meager benefits. Does that mean we should do away with trigger warnings? Not necessarily, as some people with PTSD might use them to opt out and the issue is still being studied.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree. No skin off my nose if you don't agree with me. Thankfully, I'm not dependent on your approval. And I would hope you don't need mine either. That way, we wouldn't need to view disagreement as one picking on the other.

How so??