Nathan_Jr

“…only sharks swim at midnight”

Reminds me of that charlatan.

What's a millennial specialist?

Published May/June 2024. BOD addition Effective August 2024.

2024 began five months ago. Simple math. I’m not very good at it, either. 

The article simply says he’s its newest member in August.

It doesn’t say he is replacing an outgoing member, though he likely will, if such is the structure of the trust or corporation. 

Add Mel Privette to the list. 
 

https://www.theway.org/blog/board-of-directors-addition-2024/

1 hour ago, modcat5 said:

So... have we heard from anyone who has taken this class? Or the intermediate?

Speculation aside?

Someone on Reddit told me the class is 18 hours, registration is $100, includes syllabus and books. He didn't say which books, only that they are revisions of old books, as the class is a revision of the original, errors and all. (He didn't know what I was talking about when I asked about error corrections.) He said they were holding classes "all over" and would try to connect me with one in my area, if I were interested.

I asked if "the class" was available for purchase on Blue-ray or DVD.

He said, "It's a class you can take, not something available for sale. Registration is $100..."

An answer like that should tell you all you need to know about how old the new one really is.

Someone said “GSC grads.”

A gloveless concept.

Reminds me of that charlatan.

Oh, Irony. Back so soon? Bless your little heart. 

He said ‘one eyed.’

Reminds me of that charlatan. 

"Did Abraham actually sacrifice his son Isaac in the earliest versions of the story we find in Genesis 22?"

This is the question Dan McClellan asks at the start of this fascinating 3 minute video. Apparently, according to ancient and medieval Jewish scholars, the answer is YES. And textual evidence points to a story changed over the centuries to hide the infanticide.

McClellan is scholar of the Bible and a believer. He hosts the podcast Data Over Dogma. This is his latest upload. So timely for what we've been discussing. A miracle!

Right, but he welcomed all comments.

Taoists and Buddhists are atheists. Beleef is not part of these traditions as I understand them.

8 hours ago, oldiesman said:

This all is well said and well taken.   The (let's say) hundreds of bible claims and stories, bring a once-believer in miracles to come to the place of not believing ANYTHING spiritual?   Not to mention that personal experiences of the miraculous?   It doesn't work with that VPW "mathematical exactness and scientific precision" but they do happen don't they?   All of that should be thrown in the trash can like it was all a silly accident?    All comments welcome, thx.

Atheists are not precluded from an experience or conscious awareness of the transcendent, the mystical, the “spiritual.” Nor are they precluded from “a walk endowed with power from on high.” I use these terms and phrases for convenience, in spite of their insufficiency.

28 minutes ago, Raf said:

So my adaptation of Jonah gets nothing?

I almost forgot! (It was a long post.) Your treatment of Jonah is gold.

“…according to the book Born Again to Serve by the American Christian Press, Pillai and Wierwille worked through every orientalism in the Bible from Genesis through Revelation over a six-week period in 1953.”

—K.C. Pillai’s Wiki page

Six weeks? Worked through every orientalism in… the… Bible!?!? EVERY? In six weeks?

Yep. The ”work” checks out.

*exasperated sigh*

I should remind everyone that those gloves, shrunken by a thorough saturation in blood, merely appeared not to fit. In fact, Nicole gifted those gloves to OJ and he wore them the night he slaughtered her and Ron Goldman.

Pillai and victor hope you won’t read Leviticus 1, but the writer of Judges and his character Jephthah surely had read it. They knew exactly what a burnt offering meant.

Jephthah may have hoped and beleeeved for a goat to bolt out of his front door to meet him, but no, it was his daughter! What luck! Jephthah made a vow and a gamble. A reckless gamble.

If Jephthah wanted to purchase that military victory by committing his virgin daughter’s life to service in the temple, he would have said so, but he didn’t. He gambled and he lost.

As the lesson of Isaac is about commitment, intention and obedience, the lesson of Jephthah is about honoring one’s vow to God - keeping one’s end of the bargain, integrity of the deal, and honoring bets made, no matter how horrific the cost.

2 hours ago, Raf said:

Let's not confuse TWI with Christianity.

This morning I regretted writing that sentence "I had no idea how polytheistic Christianity was until I took 'the class.'" It was too late to edit the post. Thank you for calling it out. 

I should have written something like:  I had no idea how polytheistic Christianity or pseudo-Christianity could be, until I took the class. 

2 hours ago, Charity said:

Where did the idea of Satan come from in the bible?

This is as labyrinthine a rabbit hole as how El became Yahweh. There should be plenty of books, articles and videos on the  subject. I suspect someone here has an answer, but I think you are on the right track.

It seems to me, if I remember correctly, the contemporary Christian idea of Satan is an evolved amalgamation. The ha-satan of Job is not the god of this world Paul writes about, and different still from what people mean today when they say Satan.

————

I had never heard so much daily talk about the devil until I married into that Way family. The adversary received more credit than God - no joke, no hyperbole, no figger of speech. The power of God depended upon beleeef, but the power of the adversary depended on nothing and was an absolute factual certainty.

According to them, the devil was everywhere, especially over your shoulder - Look out! God and Christ were absent in another realm.

I had no idea how polytheistic Christianity was until I took “the class.”

Well, it was a test.

"How far will Abraham go? How deep is his commitment? I've got to find out. Hmmm... a test... a test... rock ridge... rock ridge..."

"I've got it!! I'll tell him to make his precious Isaac a burnt offering to me. We don't want him to actually go through with it and slaughter the lad, we just need to see if he would. It's a test, remember? Tell you what, if it looks like he's going all the way, pop up at the last minute and stop him. I'll make sure an animal appears nearby, a goat or sheep or something. Keep your eyes peeled for movement in the thicket. Now, let's get to work..."

Over the years, posters here have said victor paul wierwille is The Man of God, The Seventh The Man of God, and The Teacher.

Consider for a moment how offensive those words must be to those who love God and to teachers. How offensive? N-word-with-hard-R offensive, that's how!

No one has ever asked those posters to self edit in order to mitigate the risk of offense.

8 minutes ago, Raf said:

Nathan,

Because you have incomplete info. I am going to invite you to self-edit so the offending party does not feel the need to respond.

How you proceed is up to you.

Thanks for the invitation, Raf. Kind of you to consider me, but I must, on principle, decline the invitation at this time. 

I can't offend anyone. The offended must choose to participate in the offense. Without that conscious participation, how can one be offended?

50 minutes ago, Raf said:

Ken is an idiot of the highest order, and I could see taking offense if you think he's right,

To say Ken Hamm is an idiot of the highest order is not an insult. It is an observable, demonstrable fact. How idiotic is the highest order? It’s at the level of flat-earth and four-crucified stupidity - the highest level.

That someone would be offended by another’s description of a third person is difficult for me to understand. I can conceive of it, but it’s hard to understand.

I don’t mean to invite discussion of this. I missed some posts. Not sure what’s going on and it doesn’t really matter, but I couldn’t resist another opportunity to write “four-crucified stupidity.”

Ken Hamm was mentioned.

I never assumed he was anything other than a literary figure.

Mmmph

Opinions and interpretations arise at anytime and forever. Everyone has them, even Pharisees, especially Paul. 

What does the text say, when it says it, how it says it, and where it says it?  Read the text. Resurrection is not mentioned, nor is it implied.

Abraham's faith, trust, fidelity, obedience was tested. (His beleeeving was NOT tested.) Would he slaughter his beloved, precious son if he was commanded? Turns out he would.

And the commander couldn't be bothered to stop his obedient servant from going all the way. He had to send an angel instead.