Longhunter

On 10/6/2020 at 8:47 PM, Grace Valerie Claire said:

Long, where will JYDL go, now that he is out of TWI?  

He's not out of tWI, just demoted. I think he was placed out west in the northern rockies/plains like in Montana or Idaho or somewhere like that. I can't remember the exact place.

At tomorrow’s STService (March 8, 2020) The Way will announce that they are replacing Jean-Yves De Lisle as President of TWI. 
 

As many of you know, 4-ish years ago there was a huge push back against Rosalie and she “stepped down” as President, but retained a new position, she controlled everything from this shadow office. She had hand picked De Lisle to do her bidding, but she has been upset that he’s spineless with others (he’s only supposed to be that way with her). This week Rosalie instructed  him to resign and he will be leaving HQ for another role. They will, of course, spin this differently during the announcement. 
 

His replacement has not officially been selected, but the name I believe to be at the top of the short list is Vern Edwards of Columbus, OH who runs the state here. He worked in the Architecture and Engineering Department at HQ during the 1990s. He’s probably their best pick in that he’s fairly competent and genuinely a decent guy. I guess we will see if he loses that under Rosalie’s thumb.

At this point, it’s safe to say RR is a megalomaniac and has no checks and balances and is really in a bad place mentally. I think we will see either another wave of fallout evacuees (reaction to her loose handle antics) or some major push back against her internally that results in her full removal or a splintering of leadership (more offshoots). It’s just not looking good for them. 
 

I can update as available.

On 10/18/2005 at 9:48 AM, Belle said:

I have a bunch of tapes of craig's ranting and raving......does that count?

Can I get copies? haha

LOL

I personally know everyone on that panel. Wish I could've pitched 'em some fast balls on live stream.

Any plans for another 6th reunion? I'd try to get my Dad to go, that was his corps.

Here's a much better debate. I'm not just saying that since I've done show with both individuals. In my opinion, they are the best debaters in the world for their side. 
 

I grew up at HQ and our 8th grade Washington DC trip was not allowed to visit the Holocaust Museum per Way instructions, that was 1998.

2 hours ago, Bolshevik said:

If I look at this cup in front of me and someone refutes my claim that it exists, I'm still getting a cup of coffee.

 

That doesn't address anything I've discussed.

Several problems:

A liger may share some properties with a tiger, but is not a Tiger. There is no middle ground. Similarly with a God. You can define it how you want, but it is either A or not A. 

Please demonstrate an alternative to A or not A.

Atheism is not an assertion that God does not exist, merely not accepting the claim. You are conflating theism/atheism with gnosticism/agnosticism. 
I'm using the true dichotomy of accepting the claim and not accepting the claim. There is no middle ground. There may be diferent concepts of God, but far any of them, you either accept it or do not accept it, without middle ground.

that may be an example, but the direct analogy would be" Something is either a Tiger or not a tiger".
There is no middle ground.

You are either a theist or not a theist. 

No, something is either A or Not A. 
You either accept a claim or you do not. That's a direct negation of the statement. It is by necessity and by definition a true dichotomy. To deny that is a formal logical fallacy.

This is a basic fact of logic. You are claiming a middle ground in a dichotomy, that's a logical violation.

Law of Identity

Law of Non-Contradiction

Just now, Bolshevik said:

Interesting.

I used to see it that way as a Wayfer and as Atheist.  

I disagree with the lack of middle ground.  

 

What's the 3rd option between accepting a claims as true and not accepting a claim as true?
 

No, that's what a true dichotomy is, by definition. This is basic logic.
There is no middle ground between accepting a claim and not accepting a claim.

4 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

I am neither theist nor am I atheist nor am I agnostic.

 

You can't be neither. They are a true dichotomy. You either accept the claim that a god exists or you do not accept it. There is no middle ground.
Also, if you are not agnostic, that is a claim that you do know weather a god exists or not.

A fun new error I noticed last week:

"Moses" wrote the account of Abraham 500 years after and called a location of Abraham as "Dan". Then after Moses died, a new account occurs where the land is finally named "Dan". How did Moses call it "Dan" for Abraham despite it being named that not until after Moses died?

Genesis 14:14 When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

Judges 18:1 In those days Israel had no king. And in those days the tribe of the Danites was seeking a place of their own where they might settle, because they had not yet come into an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.

Judges 18:29 They named it Dan after their ancestor Dan, who was born to Israel--though the city used to be called Laish.

3 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

(by oral I assume you mean immoral)

Good another player lol  (Raf put me on ignore)

What is your definition for gods?   Raf takes a fundy viewpoint.

 

Yes, "immoral".

I don't posit a definition since I don't hold the belief that they exist. The theist should define their terms, but the character of the god of The Bible is typically the classical definition (transcendent being, creator, etc). 

On 11/12/2014 at 7:46 PM, Mark Sanguinetti said:

Jesus Christ IMPROVES God's Law

Jesus endorsed the OT saying "No jot or tittle shall be changed"

He also passed up every opportunity to denounce things such as slavery, but decided not to. Instead the NT uses slave/master analogies as a positive example. 
Also, Jesus' "best" examples of morality, found in the Sermon on the Mount, are terribly flawed. 

Lastly, to say Jesus "improves" god law is an admission that God's morality meter is flawed.

On 11/12/2014 at 1:04 PM, Mark Sanguinetti said:

Different laws for different cultures.

^God's moral relativism. 

There is no context wherein God's approval or endorsement of child abuse, rape, murder, genocide, human sacrifice, slavery, misogyny, condemnation for crimes of other parties, etc is moral. Those are always immoral.

Peter: Peter was a lowerclass fisherman from Galilee, one of the most illiterate places in the world during a time when literacy was very low in general, even among town notaries. He could not write. He didn't write. There are a half dozen similarly dated books of Peter (Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc). Writing books in the name of Peter was a cottage industry.

Paul: Only 7 of the Pauline epistles were penned by the same person (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon), the remainder are either likely forgeries or certain forgeries. At any rate, Paul was not a witness to the acts of words of Jesus and never met Jesus. He saw him in a vision much later. 

John: John had his own competing ministry according to the earliest manuscripts. He is not named as the author of the gospel in his name. The only mention within the text of an author is "the beloved disciple" at the crucifixion. The only person who was referred to as that anywhere was Lazarus. The book of John dates no earlier than c. 95 AD and has a very different view of Jesus than the earlier texts, including Paul's letters. It has a different trial for Jesus and the only "high" view of Jesus's divinity. Anything that might suggest Jesus was divine, or rather, claimed to be divine, comes from this very late book.

In short, I would be cautious of basing any belief on the latest, most dubious, most different texts of the modern New Testament alone. It's ok to say "I don't know".

On 1/19/2017 at 0:59 PM, T-Bone said:

I’ve been looking into some older threads….Nate, good post/link on foreknowledge – thanks.

vp offered an absurd explanation of the Greek word pros in John 1:1 …in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with [pros] God… vp said:

    The word pros means “together with, yet distinctly independent of.” That is exquisite semantic accuracy. Jesus Christ in the beginning was together with God, yet He was distinctly independent of Him…How? In what you and I would express as “in the mind of God. God in His foreknowledge knew of the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

(page 102 of Power for Abundant Living, the chapter titled In the Beginning Was the Word)

== == == ==

To unravel vp’s nonsense – let me restate his explanation another way: Jesus Christ was only a gleam in the Father’s eye. However God’s foreknowledge of Jesus Christ existed independently of God - - -  God’s own foreknowledge of Jesus Christ was apparently separate from His own mind.

ok - back to speaking sensibly...If you ask me that makes no sense (vp's explanation and my rephrasing it). If someone told me they have thoughts that are independent of their own mind I would probably recommend they seek professional counseling.

According to real scholars of biblical Greek, the preposition pros implies not just proximity, but an intimate personal relationship (see The Expositor’s Greek Testament Vol. 1 page 684 discussing the word “with” in John 1).

VP had almost no knowledge of Greek, Biblical customs, or manuscript history. 

He read mostly 19th century High German hermeneutics, studies homilies (story telling) at Princeton Divinity, never attended Moody (he lied, you can check their public records), and got a fake "doctorate" from a weekend class at a house in Colorado. He was phony. 

Establishing the null hypothesis is important when determining who has the burden of proof when addressing pre-existing claims or historically accepted. 

This is why the null hypothesis is important:
1. It can be falsified
 (Validation is less useful because "consistent with" doesn't tell you anything about the the accuracy of the given came.)
2. You don't accept conflicting claims on the outset.
3. You can't prove a negative
 

On 3/5/2017 at 10:20 PM, timlee said:

In   Dr, Wierwilles defense , all of his books contain great truth. Truth is where you find it.to say he stole others ,ideas, thoughts on the subject as big as God and his word is false. Dr found truth from others and built on it. 

I don't agree with a single word if this. Such a wild claim requires a big burden of proof.
His theological claims are unsubstantiated, his Greek was lousy at best, and his Biblical studies were fraudulent or a century out dated, although none of that is surprising since his credentials were artificial and he didn't allow review of his work and he didn't cite his sources. He was a phony though and through.

Let's not forget that Linder was a willing henchman for his participation. He won't implicate himself by releasing a tell-all. I had several negative encounters with him while in is role as LCM's enforcer.

I don't know if LCM still receives funds, but I do know (thanks to voter registration) that he lives in a crappy apartment. 

As for Linder, if he won't write you a book, maybe he'll tell you his story in a banjo ballad.