Nathan_Jr

Four crucified is emblematic of man’s gullibility, stupidity and dishonesty. As long as it is “taught,” as long as it is regurgitated, I will stand against it. As long as charlatans like Victor Wierwille (not a real doctor), Loy Martindale, Chris Reed and Kat Kerr are defecating into the mouth of God, I will stand against them.

"Whipping Post" Allman Brothers Band Not really playing, so I'll make it super easy, a virtually free post. Duane Allman played on a certain cover of this song. Bonus points for naming the cover artist with whom Duane played. "...don't make it bad Take a sad song and make it better Remember to let her into your heart Then you can start to make it better"

He's Rick James, Bitch!

1 - 4 are non answers, but we agree on #5. Not sure why you are confused.

Maybe. On which of these do we agree? TWI believes four crucified. People no longer involved with TWI still believe four crucified. Four crucified is stupid and refutable. Wierwille was a charlatan fraud. Music is more fun than all the above.

People believe four crucified and flat earth. TWI still teaches four crucified. People who reject TWI still believe four crucified. It's a stupid and easily refuted belief. Wierwille was a charlatan fraud. That's an observation, not hate. Music is more fun for sure. Carry on.

Conspiracy theories came up earlier. That reminded me of flat earth, which reminded me of Bullinger, which reminded me of four crucified. An ironic digression to redirect the discussion away from conspiracy theories and politics and back to the stupidity of wierwille.

Flat earth and four crucified and intellectually dishonest and stupid claims. They require lies to overcome the evidence against them. Ultimately, to argue for either will require conspiracy as a premise.

Four crucified and flat earth are the stupid pieces of bread holding together the bullsh¡t sandwich.

I didn't say anything about a Bilderberg Group. Another red herring.

I should have been mathematically exact and scientifically precise. STUPIDITIES and LIES should be disputed and refuted whenever they arise.

Right. Conspiracy theories are not good. The stupidity of conspiracy theories like four crucified and flat earth should be disputed and refuted whenever they arise.

Waysider is right. Bullinger was wrong. Both of those statements are true and easily proven.

It's not bait. Flat Earth is a conspiracy theory. Seems on topic.

I am reminded of The Universal Zetetic Society of which E.W. Bullinger was a member. Bullinger was a flat-earther. (Knowing this can aid in understanding why and how an otherwise intelligent, educated man could be so stupid as to assert the easily refuted claim of four crucified.) Flat-earthers are a zealous bunch.

Such a sophomore.

"Working this topic...working the word...work the word..." -- VPW/TWI "If it doesn't fit, ya gotta MAKE it fit." -- VPW

"Since the 1970s, The Way International has been engaged in a Biblical study of the Greek word pistis...Many on the ministry research team continued working this topic..." *exasperated sigh* More Information Part I-OVERVIEW The Green Noun pistis Believing (pistis)-Positive or Negative Believing Renewed-Mind Believing, the Manifestation of Believing, and Fruit-of-the-Spirit Believing. Faith (pistis)-The Faith of Jesus Christ and the Family Faith Faithfulness (pistis) Keys to Rightly Dividing the Word pistis The Verb-pisteuo The Adjective-pistos Part II-BELIEVING AND FAITH Summary of Occurrences Faith, Believing, or Faithfulness-pistis Believe, to be Entrusted with, or to Entrust-pisteuo Faithful, Trusting-pistos Summary of Usages Table of Usages 1-8 Part III-UNBELIEF/UNBELIEVING Little Faith (Believing)-oligopistos Unbelief-apistea Believe not-apisteo Unbelieving, Faithless, Infidel-apistos Unbelief, Disobedience-apeithea Unbelieving, Believe Not-apeitheo Disobedient-apeithes Table of Usages 9-15 Occurrences and Usages of oligopistos, apistia, apisteo, apistos, apeitheia, apeitheo, apeithes APPENDIX Number of Occurrences in the King James Version https://store.theway.org/store/bible-kinds-of-faith/

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