Oakspear

Or maybe I'll go to India, make .... up and put it in a class.

So it's not about what you do or believe (since believing is a form of works) it's about mercy and acknowledgement (themselves a form of works). This would be the opposite of the dreaded "doing what we want". This implies that the aforementioned mercy & acknowledgement are doing what the higher power (i.e. God) wants. If one has mercy and acknowledgement of the higher power within the context of Islam or Buddhism or Wicca, is that one still "doing what they want"? Or can one only escape "doing what they want" in the Christian context?

I don't know if you're intentionally lying, forgettful, or just can't keep track of who said what and when. The first use of the phrase "doing the truth" is in your post #52 ...which seems to be a response to post #40 in post #54 I asked you what you meant Just so I don't make any unwarranted assumptions about your position, what is "doing the truth" in your opinion? And is "doing what you want" not "doing the truth", or something else? You then, in the previously quoted post #54 denied using the phrase other than repeating my words...which I did not write To summarize: You talked about "the truth"; you contrasted this explicitly with those who "do what they want to do" in posts #'s 26 & 28. I commented that from an objective standpoint, you couldn't tell "the truth" from people "doing what they want to do" in post #40. You responded to post #40 in post #52 using the phrase "doing the truth", which was the first usage of that particular phrase. In post #53 I asked you what you meant by "doing the truth", including your usage of the phrase in quotes You respond in post #54 that you didn't use the phrase, but were only repeating what I said This may seem like a lot of trouble for one small point, but it's one thing to misunderstand another's point, but you consistantly misrepresent my points, and then mount an attack against those phantom positions.

You shouldn't have to clearify? maybe not, but I apparently misunderstood you awhile back and don't want it to happen again. You said that if you are right and I am wrong then my belief system could be a dangerous system (expanding upon what I asked initially: is my soul in danger). Assuming that you do believe that you are right, then you believe that my belief system could be a dangerous system. So what is this possibility of danger that you see in my belief system? And, with your use of the qualifier "if", this means that you consider the possibility that you might be wrong about your religious beliefs?

Bliss: I don't offend easily, but in my caped avenger alter-ego I fight illogic wherever I find it :ph34r: Anyway, maybe my omelet cooking friend Sushi (the man made breakfast for me once...I still haven't had its equal ) was speaking tongue-in-cheek. Okay now, this is a serious question: What does "caring about my soul" mean? It seems to indicate that my current beliefs put my soul in some kind of danger. Can you clarify for me?

..maybe JL can join papa gee for a cold one

have you ever read L.E. Moddessit's Recluce series? A "magical" world where the adept manipulate order & chaos. Fascinating stuff that has influenced how I think of the metaphysical I got that

That dead horse still has some life in it, unfortunately, as do some of its offspring. Threads like the Guitar Thread are fun, but let's not forget the main purpose of the cafe: GreaseSpot Cafe is a gathering place, bringing together people and information. We welcome all who have an interest in The Way International, including former followers, current followers, and those who may have friends or family members who are involved. Our mission is to provide information that tells the other side of the story about The Way International and its trustees. Our hope is that GreaseSpot Cafe serves as a place where those who have been impacted by The Way can make connections with people and information which will support their particular process of recovery. We want people to be able to make informed decisions regarding their past, present, and future affiliations with The Way International (TWI). Whether you are standing with TWI, thinking about leaving, trying to help someone else get out, or looking for support from others who have left, we believe the information here is highly relevant and well worth considering. Too bad if some don't like the "Way bashing". At pro-TWI sites you are blocked or censored if you say anything anti-TWI, or even ask questions. Despite the whining of those whose pro-Way views or rosy reminisces are heckled, you can post pretty much whatever you want here.

Heeee's baaaaaackYeah, who would expect "Way bashing" on a forum that seeks to present the "other side" of The Way?

Thank you Bramble, that's a pretty good primer. Most neopagans, even those who follow a "tradition", believe and act on what they have personally experienced, and do not adhere to a prescribed set of beliefs written in a book or handed down by a leader. I could argue (and often do ) that the "revealed" religions are experiential as well. What is the Book of Romans but the apostle Paul experiencing revelation from God to write down what he wrote down? What is the Book of Joshua but the experiences of the Hebrews in conquering the future land of Israel? And many modern believers, when asked how they know that the bible is true, resort to personal experiences such as answered prayer or a "personal relationship with Jesus" to validate their belief in their written scriptures. Pagans tend to be an eclectic bunch, if some aspect of whatever tradition they're involved in doesn't suit them, they change, or add something, or take something away to make it their own. My own beliefs change as I learn new things and unlearn others. Something that I believe today may prove to be unworkable tomorrow. It seems evident that there are things that are beyond my understanding, and may always be so. Perhaps part of what I can't perceive and understand is spiritual, or perhaps it's just physical laws that are too complex for me to grasp. Even if there are spirits or gods, I don't believe that there is any one or any group of them that is directing my life or pulling the strings or deciding what is meant to be. Some pagan friends of mine routinely say things like "the universe wanted such and such to happen". One of them said that to me after I was turned down for a promotion that I really wanted. My response was that the universe could d*mn well ask me next time! I observe the wheel of the year (Happy Ostara Bramble ) and study shamanism. Everything that I believe and do is what is right for me in this time and place to the best of my knowledge and ability and may change before I finish this post as information and circumstances change. I claim no universality for what I believe.

Natasha:I think people did become more "fluent" in tongues, because they thought that they should. Still, if God is supplying the words, wouldn't it be God practicing to become more fluent? Wierwille always said it was "perfect", so when you first start, it must be less than perfect? Ever notice that the interpretations didn't get any more intricate when the tongues did? And I've been practicing breathing for coming up on 49 years, but I think I pretty much had it down the first day and haven't got any better at it! Dueling analogies

Oh, it was you that God was talking to...I thought it was me. No wonder I got divorced!

That's t&O...T&A is something else entirely

Right :huh:

Do you even know what a strawman argument is? One use of quotations is what is called the ironic quoation. This is when one says something like The are many different versions of "The Truth". The quotations in this case are not there for emphasis, they are there to indicate that I am using the word truth ironically, that I don't really believe that it is TRUTH. My point all along has been that there are many people who claim to have The Truth exclusively, but that there is often no way for those who have different versions of "truth" to prove that their version is better or more true than anyone else's. Perhaps I can amend my characterization to "a subjective perception of the truth" (those aren't ironic quotes). There's a lot of details that make up life, the universe and everything. people view them through many different lenses: cultural, personal, etc. There's room within the big picture for differing perceptions. I thought I had made that clear, but apparently not. My apologies for lack of clarity. There are lots of folks out there who claim the status of The Truth for their beliefs. I'm glad to hear that you're not one of them. Just so I don't make any unwarranted assumptions about your position, what is "doing the truth" in your opinion? And is "doing what you want" not "doing the truth", or something else? Please look up what a strawman argument is! I went through your posts and my responses to them. I can't find anywhere that I made any assumptions. Basically my responses to you where comments on and questions about your remarks in your posts, specifically your remarks addressed to me. Again, to avoid unwarranted assumptions, is that sattement equivalent to "doing the truth" versus "doing what you want"?

This isn't a rule in the doctrinal section (actually, I think the only rules are that we pick up after ourselves and refrain from human sacrifice) but down here there's usually has traditionally been a little more discussion and challenging of beliefs than upsatirs. "Discussion" as in an actual exploration of different positions, "challenging", not as in telling someone that they're wrong, but in requiring them to explain why they believe or think the way they do as part of the give and take. Folks who say "I believe ABC or XYZ" without offering much in the way of "why" are assumed to not want to have a doctrinal discussion and are directed to the Prayer Forum or the Guitar thread <_< Even threads that focus on particular scriptures can get pretty heated. I participate in a few of them myself and can manage to discuss the relative merits of different doctrinal positions and maintain the premise that the bible is "god-breathed" for the sake of the discussion. Discussions in the doctrinal forum have caused me to rethink my position on more than one occassion, and have forced me to sharpen my position on others due to the questioning of others. It's part of what Doctrinal is.

Well, Bliss answered for herself, so I'm saved the trouble. You expressed an opinion about it, so I asked you Oh, so you do have an opinion about what it means. Actually, that's my point. Then why did you get involved in the bickering yourself? Right. Didn't say they were proselytizing. Actually, a robust discussion is fun, doncha think? If we all agreed, it would be pretty d*mn boring. I'll not be able to get back to the computer for another day or two, so if anyone responds, or wants to beat me up, I'll be back on Thursday

Bliss: I can't speak for anyone else, but I understood that you were responding to the history lesson. You clearly believe that what you believe is in stark contrast to what the perpretators of the abuses in the history lesson believe(d). Perhaps I mentally combined what you and T & O where saying to come up with a misrepresentation of your position. So you don't believe that I, who does not believe that Jesus is my savior and does not believe in the god of the bible, am following the "doctrines of men and devils"?

Well T & O, perhaps I did miss your point, as obscured as it was with strawmen that it was in danger of becoming a fire hazard. :B) I can't say truth is subjective and then say some actions are wrong? Sure I can. Am I saying that only some truth is subjective? Yes I am. The "truth" that I refer to is the "truth" that can't be verified. One person's truth is that they "know" that a god exists and communicates with them. There's no way to show that this is false, but there's no way to show another person another's inner feelings are true either. If all you're saying is that there is some "truth" that is not fully knowable or understandable Okay, so what if we agree that there is some "truth" and a right & wrong, but if nobody has it 100%, or can have it 100%, then what's the practical difference between that and there not being an objective truth? Not much of one, if any. You keep bringing up the contrast between people doing what they want to do, and this "truth", but my point is that from an objective perspective, you can't tell which is which.

Hmmmm...not sure why you attached the terms subjective and objective to the two types of guidance. Especially where what you call objective guidance refers to the spiritual, which cannot be independently verified and is therefore subjective. Can you elaborate?

T-Bone, I have no beef with Christians like yourself, who see faith as a personal thing; I do have a problem with Christians, as well as Muslims and Buddhists and Pagans who insist that their personal experience applies to everyone. If a belief that Jesus rose from the dead helps one to be a better person and is a comfort during the tough times, I'm all for it, I have no doubt that this works for the individual. When one insists that ones personal subjective experience negates my own, then I have a problem.

Suda: So what is the term "doctrines of devils" referring to in Bliss' post then?

Partially, yes. I disagree. While there may be atheists who elevate their position to that of irrational belief, many simply choose to be atheists because they see no compelling evidence to believe Religion is different in that it is a choice to believe despite a lack of physical, objective evidence Agreed There's a actually a pretty lively debate about this, The New York Times magazine had a great article on it. Do you believe in Santa Claus? If not, is your lack of belief a religion? Even with a God, it's still subjective, if it was objective, then their wouldn't be the arguments that there are. Yup. That's what they thought, and thankfully the Allies defeated him and did not allow his beliefs become reality. Good point. My position is that those records are fiction, yours is that they are true. Since it doesn't appear that those kind of showdowns are happening these days, you and I both have our opinions.

What's your point here, you do what YOU want and believe what YOU want to believe too What is this referring to? I can't have a non-Christian belief system without "ignoring everything else in life? Only if your vision of God is so small that it can't incorporate muliple viewpoints This is a point in which we disagree. isn't this "begging the question"? A logical fallacy where the way the question is phrased assumes the answer One might argue that man was always this way, that there wasn't some golden age where man was pure and uncontaminated. Sure, including whether to beleive or not believe in any given religion. Free will. Maybe, but I don't feel qualified to decide what it is for anyone else, unlike, say...you. The question still remains, who decides what "truth" is, and if the answer is "God", who decides what version of "God" is right?

Wow, sarcasm and a strawman argument all in one post. Good job. If it wasn't clear enough, I'm talking about religious beliefs. Some actions are just wrong. Somebody can certainly believe that it's okay to steal my stuff, but I can also believe that there's a law against it or believe that I'm going prevent him in some way. Do you really think that this is what I'm saying, or are you taking religious equivalence to ridiculous ends thinking it makes your point? Again, I have the right to complain, and act if someone's beliefs encroaching on me and my life.