Nathan_Jr

If one is insulted by another’s observation, then the insulted will be the sole participant in the insult.

Mmmph

You’ve put some basic logical fallacies to good use on this thread - Ad hominem, red herring, strawman, false equivalence… Mastering these is foundational to the Advanced Class. You’re ready, friend-o!! TWI Today should fit you like a hand in a…

No one here ever claimed it was.

By definition Zionism is political. That there are theological arguments for the political movement doesn't make the movement any less political. I am not aware of any moderators ever revealing their thoughts regarding this political topic. I've never revealed mine and don't intend to. You could try with great care to start a topic in Doctrinal addressing your thoughts on what Romans 9, 10 and 11 mean for today... this, our day and time.

It's the beleefs. Every time. I don't know JoyfulSoul, but reading his last two or three posts brought forth a wellspring of compassion for him. Only from reading the words he wrote, I gather he suffers deeply because of his beleefs. And, sadly, he won't let go to be liberated, or as he says, delivered. My ex-step son (is that a thing?) has serious psychological disorders. He was clinically diagnosed in his teens, but because his mother and her wierwille-worshipping family are so vehemently opposed to a psychiatric diagnosis and treatment, his disease progressed and worsened. Today he is in prison. I was with him one night when he was having a psychic break. He babbled a bunch of nonsense about heaven and hell and the devil and Israel, etc. His own Corps grad uncle never got the green light or cookie or whatever to cast out the psychological disorders. Now the young man is spending the rest of his life in prison. Little children are more "spiritually mature" than all actors in this tragedy. They have yet to be conditioned to beleeve anything at all.

Is it human nature to expect a glove to fit every hand that arises? Words and their definitions are problematic, aren't they? Words like transcendent, numinous, sublime, even spiritual. They are pretty much all we got and religion can't claim exclusive rights to them. Transcendence has several meanings, only one of them religious. Numinous can mean awe-inspiring. Kant has a concept of the Sublime. Christopher Hitchens uses these words to make the point that you need to go beyond religion in order to fully appreciate reality, not just to understand it rationally but also to enjoy it, to be dazzled by its beauty and order, to exalt in its wonder. When Hitchens talks about "the transcendent and numinous," he's not referring to anything supernatural. He's also not advocating any type of worship or debasement. He's referring to an appreciation for the amazing insights and workings of the natural order as well as an appreciation for the greater aspects of the human experience. He's trying to make the case that religion doesn't own these words or concepts. He's also attempting to address the claim that science reduces everything to chemical impulses and nihilism. His position is that atheists are capable of having the exact same types of experiences as believers, and none of them require beleef in anything supernatural or anything unsupported by the evidence. He's saying that atheists are just as capable of feeling self-transcending love or connection to something greater than oneself or true awe. One doesn't need superstition to take part in any of these amazing human experiences. If you reject the notion that there exists a supernatural dimension, then all religious and spiritual experiences can be understood as purely, physical phenomena. Therefore, when someone experiences a moment of self-transcending love that feels all-encompassing or when someone goes into a desert and fasts for 40 days and 40 nights or when someone takes a pilgrimage to feel a connection to the divine or when someone learns about the natural order and feels an incredible connection to the universe or when someone experiences a piece of art that moves them deeply and inexplicably to feel as if they're part of something larger than themselves, all of these things can be understood as meaningful subjective experiences in a physical, natural universe with no supernatural or spiritual dimensions. It's difficult to illustrate how meaningful and impactful these experiences are without using language that is typically reserved for usage in explaining religious experiences. After all, people like Einstein and Spinoza weren't necessarily religious, but they definitely had beliefs that could be called spiritual. Not spiritual in the sense that it spoke of a spiritual dimension, but spiritual as in an incredible admiration for the workings of the natural order, the range of human experience, and the mysteries of the universe. One can reject the supernatural and absolutely still have a transcendent experience. Here are the Four Horseman talking about the transcendent and numinous. https://youtu.be/9DKhc1pcDFM?si=n2dsCndVCJviEYEn And here's Sam Harris on his use of the word spiritual. https://youtu.be/zLKNvBdUtZY?si=utS8kRZtcr7AX8Ka

I will second the motion for Joseph Campbell. Well worth it.

Thomas was skeptical. Because Thomas was skeptical, he was given a spiritual awareness not given to the others. The others had to believe. Thomas found out.

Check it again. Re-search the transcripts. It's there. If it's not in the '71 or '79 transcripts, it's in another one. It may be lost or hidden. But I believe one day it we'll find it, along with those ancient manuscripts needed to prove other asserted claims.

Kinda, but not really. You can watch the whole thing at Internet Archive. Advanced Class transcripts can also be found there.

Have you taken the Advanced Class? It’s all about devils. I believe the counterclockwise method Waysider mentioned is explained in the AC.

Mmmph

No one is being combative with you. You asked questions and answers were provided. You've accused people, at least implicitly, of crying and not moving on. I tried to help you understand that your dismissiveness is not merely a childish cop out, it's a form of gaslighting. Perhaps my showing you this caused you discomfort, causing you to falsely accuse me of trying to start a forbidden topic while blaming you for it. After admittIng the possibility of my own failure at communicating, I offered a different illustration. Now you 're gaslighting again accusing people of being combative. This is how you react when you are challenged and corrected? It's a discussion. You aren't the only one allowed to take a passionate position for or against an idea.

Of course not. Just shedding light on darkness.

When someone so wildly misses the point, it seems to me there are at least three reasons. 1. They are incapable of understanding. 2. They willfully ignore the point. 3. I failed to articulate. I always assume #3 first. You asked why people are here at Greasespot. Rocky said to shed light on darkness. Then you said, "I can kind of understand that for awhile but then I'd be moving on. Once I've talked something out I'm looking for fresh." I attempted to illustrate a parallel to a familiar, yet vague, concept to encourage you to examine your own dismissiveness of the value people derive from this board. Try this. You've already talked out your views on the trinity. Yet, I assume, you still talk about it, you still make your case against it. (I'm not a trinitarian, btw.) What if someone told you to quit crying about the trinity and move on? Can you not see you dismissed and minimized in the exact same way a reason why people are here at Greasespot?

Do you not see a parallel with a certain religiopolitical ideology to which you are so fervently opposed? You haven’t moved on from that, even though you’ve got it all worked out. What if someone told you to quit crying and move on? See? It’s kinda like that.

lol. I almost forgot how privately interpreted this was.

Raf can answer for himself, obviously, but I read his post as just showing you around - what's available, how to get it, and what to do with it once you've got it. Different forums for different topics. Discuss whatever you want. Only politics is out of bounds. Avoid politics and you're good.

“The Word, the Word, and nothing but the Word.” -vpw Nothing. But. The Word. NOTHING. So, what is the Word? It’s whatever victor paul wierwille says it is. I was “taught” victor did all the “research” so I wouldn’t have to - oh, how he toiled 18hrs/day for years. Such selfless sacrifice on his part, I was “taught.” I should be so grateful. Oldies is right. It’s like any other religion. (TWI is indeed religion, no matter what they claim.) They are dogmatic, yet call themselves a “research ministry.” This is one of many contradictions illustrating their mathematic inexactness and scientific imprecision. No doubt they are nice. Super nice, I bet. Friendly, I’m sure. Be friends. Go to their church (yes, it’s a church), fellowship with them. Whatever. If anyone in TWI came on this board wanting to talk, I suspect they would be welcome. Wierwille apologists have always been welcome and free to post inexhaustible platitudes. Some here might have questions for them. I know I do.

My fellowship commander, an eternally committed Corps grad, did not "teach" me to follow Jesus Christ. Instead, he "taught" me to stand on the shoulders of victor. Jesus Christ was merely a name to be uttered - the name of a bastard Jew far away in absentia. The one who claims to speak for God is surely the one who does not. No one can jump over a barn.

I wonder if TWI today still “teaches” crowing cocks had different habit patterns in “Bible times.”

Welcome, Lulu!

Or at least JoyfulSoul’s god?

Mmmph