Raf

I got to wondering if there is a collection of these somewhere. Wouldn't that be handy?

The most famous, of course, is agape as "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation." I can confidently say these many years later that this definition of that one word is pretty much made up out of whole cloth. It seems to be a concerted effort to work the words "renewed mind" and "manifestation" into a word that implies neither. BUT that doesn't make it necessarily a bad definition. I just think it needs to be thought out more. There were some verses where that translation makes no damn sense. Like when God so loved the world. Did he renew his mind? I mean come on.

Explore. What were some of the others? I've long since discarded my TWI books, but I would be interested in exploring some of the others and analyzing whether they were accurate or self-serving.

Post em if you've got em.

10 hours ago, JoyfulSoul said:

This conversation has nothing to do with TWI.  Skepticism and critical thinking are basic life skills we employ everywhere.   Like most things, some are better at it than others.

Thank you for acknowledging that the thread has veered away from its original topic so much that it is no longer even in the right forum.

I would like to request some caution here: the topic of this thread is questioning TWI doctrine, but if we start getting into arguments for and against the reality of claimed supernatural experience, I am concerned the discussion will no longer be "About the Way" and would instead fall rightly under "Matters of Faith."

I'm trying to head this off now because I don't want people to come back later and say "why did you let so and so atheist say this and not let the Christian say that?"

And yet you are still here and haven't been banned, nor have I ever moderated your religious content except when it became explicitly political, as we explicitly articulated.

Do you have ANY examples to the contrary?

I remember when my sister was first diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 2007 and I had to explain to my mother that it was basically a death sentence (which, despite the existence of exceptions to the rule, it usually is).

I asked for prayers, but not once did I ask for a prayer for healing. I said I refused to rule out a miracle, but everything I said and did was resigned to the reality of the diagnosis. I remember at some point saying the only thing I wanted to pray for was her comfort.

But why should that have been? Why should I not have been expecting a miracle? 

In retrospect, I realize that my faith by that point had been shot to hell. Years of unanswered and underanswere prayers were taking their toll to such an extent that I was "moving the goalposts" as I prayed, making it all but impossible for God not to answer the prayer. So I didn't pray for healing. I prayed for peace and comfort. Because I could talk myself into thinking that prayer was answered, seeing as the only person who could contradict me...

A good reason to become an atheist is the realization that you don't believe this stuff anymore, that your prayers are hitting the ceiling if you say them out loud, and going nowhere if you don't.

When you realize the failure to answer prayers is better explained by His nonexistence than by your failure to believe, THAT is a good reason to become an atheist.

In my opinion.

[In case I'm not making it clear, I'm not blaming God for what happened to my sister. I'm realizing that by the time that happened, deep down, I had already stopped believing, even though I hadn't fully come to that realization and wouldn't until the week she died. What happened to my sister was not God's fault. I'm sure if he could have done something he would have].

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume the last two active moderators (at the time) had formed a "buddyship" after years being the last two active moderators.

What I find interesting is calling Modgellan's integrity into question based on his (?) association with me,after failing to document a single case of biased moderating or unfair treatment of Christians.

Also, I included Modgellan in my private message to show that I wasn't hiding anything. 

They were talking about Modgellan

Exploring point 5, I would go even further.

While Biblically defined "love" is only possible for Christians (depending on how persnickety you want to be about Agape -- its own thread, methinks), non Christians can certainly demonstrate an abundance of Phileo. We can experience and exhibit joy, patience, goodness, meekness, self-control, kindness, trustworthiness and gentleness. With the exception of Agape and possibly "trustworthiness" (again, we're depending on how persnickety we want to be about pistis), there's nothing about the fruit of the spirit that mandates Christianity.

I would suspect the proper Biblical position is that anyone could exhibit the fruit of the spirit, but for the committed, faithful Christian, it's inevitable. A Christian without it would be suspect.

It's almost like that's what you were looking for.

But that would be cynical.

Seems to me that's the only reason you're here.

But maybe I'm wrong.

Thank you for clarifying the point you were making.

If anyone actually has evidence of a double standard in moderating, please let us know.

You may contact me directly at this profile or contact ModSerling, Modgellan or Pawtucket to complain.

Or you could make a public spectacle like the last one did. Up to you.

Just be honest. If you're just here to instigate the moderators, just admit it.

I think the bottom line is, nothing Charity said amounts to a broad attack on Christians in general that warrants a pre-emptive retaliatory attack on atheists.

Same pattern.

Break the clear site rules.

Find out no one's going to put up with it.

Claim bias and persecution and run off pretending to be taking the high ground.

It was a nice try.

I appreciate your judgmentalism about how uptight people are when it comes to this site's moderation. It really keeps me up, sometimes, wondering what you think of whether and how we enforce site rules.

But rest assured, if we ever REALLY need to know we'll ask you.

19 hours ago, Charity said:

I think you know that twi will have none of the preposterous, pretentious and extreme prophetic phoniness that ministries like Morningstar (and IHOPKC, Gateway Church, Bethel Church, and others) prosper in, but they all do share in twi's history of there being sexual abuse.    Now, do they all practice lovebombing like twi - that I do not know.  

So here's the exact wording Joyful cited. 

This was, of course, MANY posts after Joyful's broadside against atheists, so he can't honestly portray his comment as a response.

In any event, specific or even general criticisms of ministry practices are not nearly the same thing as bigoted comments about all or most Christians, and don't deserve to be treated as such.

Chockfull got tired of an imaginary persecution he/she could not document except by blatantly lying about multiple people's experience in this board.

I no longer have the books that demonstrate what concepts Wierwille lifted word for word. I would suspect Christians would care more about the content than the source when evaluating the doctrines, and that conversation, of course, belongs in Doctrinal (we have a new sub forum dedicated specifically to twi doctrine. Feel free).

The question of whether he plagiarized or made it up stays here.

I don't care much either way. Should we still? 

This is getting obnoxious 

Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

I think he was trying to say we can't prove Wierwille was an atheist.

He's right.

I clearly called it a suspicion and asked whether others think it fits the facts.

I'm an atheist.

I have lots of joy. I also exhibit the fruit of the spirit in much of my life and have been commended many times for doing "God's Work" (to which I respond: "I have to; He won't).

"Atheists are extremely without joy" is a statement of staggering ignorance and bigotry. I trust that is outside your character. Might be best to stick with a subject about which you actually know something 

WW kind of sideswiped a theory I've been working under for the past few years. I've brought it up before but it bears repeating.

I have a suspicion (not enough evidence to call it a theory) that VPW was an unbeliever at heart. In tribute to Mike's thesis about how Wierwille hid great truths in plain sight and we all missed it: He declared himself to be all but atheist after studying the Bible. He no longer believed the words Holy or Bible on the cover (which is grammatically and rhetorically stupid, but you get his point). Being educated about the Bible, its history and authorship caused him to all but lose his faith. He said so!

What if he never regained it?

Bear with me: what if, from that moment forward, it was never about getting God and His Word right, but getting while the getting was good? He got money. He got adoration, He got fame (relative to most of us). He got attention. He got sex. He got power. 

How much of what he did makes more sense if he didn't believe a word of it but knew how to manipulate people to get what he wanted from them? Every time he discovered a niche, he exploited it. "This book is not some kind of Johnny come lately idea just to be iconoclastic..." [if someone has the correct wording, please let me know. I'll be happy to fix]. Oh it WASN'T? Because it was so shoddy I would think that you were selling a title rather than a book. You have a doctorate. You know how to present and defend a thesis (stop laughing, you in the back row. @#$%ing Snowball Pete).

But he was an unbeliever. He KNEW the scholarship about the Bible that people like Bart Ehrman and Dan McClellan are popularizing today. He knew and he stopped believing. And THAT is when the bulls hit started.

The funny thing is, it doesn't negate anything he taught. Just his motives. If McClellan and Ehrman are right, the first Christians really weren't Trinitarians. They weren't what Wierwille espoused either, though some were. Jehovah's Witnesses actually got it right, if McClellan and Ehrman are correct. But even that conclusion presupposes a unified message from the New Testament writers. And they weren't unified.

Here's the problem Wierwille exposed that a lot of Christianity still gets wrong. There WAS NO FIRST CENTURY CHURCH. There were first century churches. Tons of them. And they disagreed with each other about EVERYTHING. 

Another topic for another time.

Bottom line, I'm increasingly coming to believe that Wierwille's rise and ministry can best be explained by the hypothesis that he was an unbeliever from the moment before he became relevant. 

I'm not aware of any such allegation. 

By the way, if you're interested in that kind of thing, Dan McClellan has a number of videos where he tears the Trinity to shreds as a Biblical concept. McClellan is a Mormon and a Bible scholar who appears to be quite honest about history (for example, he dismisses a lot of the claims the LDS church makes about Joseph Smith and the witnesses to the golden plates, etc. He has repeatedly called the story of Mormonism's founding "ahistorical" and admitted the data do not support the Book of Mormon's history of the Western hemisphere. I bring all this up to say just because he's a Mormon doesn't mean he's being dishonest with the history of the church).

Outside of TWI, I would recommend Anthony Buzzard's book "The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound."

While my overall mindset has changed and I no longer believe scripture speaks with one voice on this issue, I think Buzzard presented a strong case for the view Wierwille tried to espouse.