Leaderboard

Karl Marx studied politics, philosophy, and economics, each to varying degrees. He was neither a student of theology, nor pharmacology, nor sociology. In other words, he was neither an expert in religion, or opiates, nor the masses (except in how to control them). So, forgive me if I don't subscribe to his statement.

To me lately it has been opposite of the Way Burn the Chaff. All those things they said to get rid of, I think are worth collecting. Childhood memories, old vinyl albums, family and time with them, good friends in the community who are not Christian, hobbies, relationships at work where you are not witnessing, neighbors, and in general the story of my life. I've got an artifact from cub scouts in my office because it makes me feel good. All those things they said to prioritize, I think are worth getting rid of. For example, Sunday Teaching service tape collections. Bye Bye. Boring the first time you heard it live, it doesn't get more exciting on tape. Way magazine articles and boxes of them. Bye Bye. You don't need them anyway, as all personality and authenticity in the teachings have been surgically removed. Besides, before long they will be further cleansed and regurgitated on a ministry website. Next, Ministry notes. Bye Bye. Somebody's rantings and personal commentary on a book of the Bible aren't worth re-reading. Ministry Bibles and all their stupid notes - also's marked, color coded to way classes with underline, whatever. Bye Bye. I'd rather read a non-annotated Bible in modern English thank you. I could give a flying rat's @$$ whether or not the italics in a Bible say somebody "changed a word". HA!. VP changed more words with his literals according to usage than any Bible scholar did anywhere with a translation. Besides, I'm not a fundamentalist anymore. I just read the Bible for positive inspiration, and sometimes for the crazy stories, and sometimes for comfort. You say it contradicts itself? Well, so does the entire human f'ing race. So what? So you know Way ministry, you were right and you were wrong about Burn the Chaff. You were right about the concept. It is nice to travel light. In modern times this concept has gained ground under a different name. Minimalism. But you as usual were wrong about the execution of it. That's because you, Way ministry, are The Chaff.

It was literally the subject of the very first reply and addressed immediately. Not in those words, but in those themes. "Different laws for different cultures..." Yeah. Times change. But that is the POINT: Why would objective morality change? That's like saying "the objective chemical formula for water changed." No, it doesn't. The chemical formula for whatever stays the same. But "morality" as a system of mutually accepted principles DOES change. I dare say it tends to improve, at least in the long run. The problem you're not seeing is, understanding how religion evolves contradicts the Biblical principle that Yahweh, by the Bible's definition, does not change. Therefore, what he declared to be moral in 2017 BCE should be the same as what he declares to be moral in 2017 CE. Note, I said what HE declares to be moral. I've seen theists (not fundamentalists, but Christians) argue that when God ordered the children of Israel to kill women and children of foreigners, the people most harmed were the Israelites who did the killing. That's how twisted people become justifying atrocity because it was ordered by a God. Let ANY OTHER GOD order a genocide and Christians would cite it as evidence of that God's cruelty. but Yahweh gets a pass. Relating the question of this thread to the real world requires an acceptance that Yahweh is real [which can be done as a hypothetical for the sake of exploring the issue without accepting it as a reality] and that the Bible is a source of information about his attributes. As such, you don't get the privilege of saying "that's a fundy approach" because to do so is to eliminate the Bible as a source of information about God's attributes. People somehow think it's perfectly fair to quote a verse saying "God is Love," perfectly okay to cite a verse where God says murder is wrong, usury is wrong, etc, but it's out of bounds for me to point out this same God never, anywhere, condemned the ownership of one human being by another, that this same God ordered executions for the pettiest of reasons, that this same God saw fit to punish rapists by making them compensate the victim (that girl's father: the girl's FATHER was considered the victim in a rape case) and having the rapist MARRY THE GIRL! That was his PUNISHMENT! It's out of bounds for me to point that out, because that makes me fundy. But it's okay to point out that God is love. The evolution of God is proof that the premise of this thread is correct: Yahweh was indeed a moral monster, and over time his reputation was overhauled by people who wanted to market him as something more palatable. But Yahweh never changes, according to the Bible, so we have a problem. Something's got to be incorrect. Either he evolved or he didn't. Nonetheless, the overarching point is simple: it is impossible to reconcile the depiction of Yahweh as the source of objective morality with the Bible's depiction of Yahweh, a most immoral character.

Was thinking of a celebrity look-alike But I guess he'll do...then we can re-title our little TWI play as "Make My Cult Great Again"....and given the chaos of folks in and out - we might see a few more try-outs in casting from folks out of work.

Adults also tend to search for meaning, particularly during times of uncertainty, research suggests. A 2008 study in Science (Vol. 322, No. 5898) by Jennifer Whitson, PhD, and Adam Galinsky, PhD, found that people were more likely to see patterns in a random display of dots if the researchers first primed them to feel that the participants had no control. This finding suggests that people are primed to see signs and patterns in the world around them, the researchers conclude. People also have a bias for believing in the supernatural, says Barrett. In his work, he finds that children as young as age 3 naturally attribute supernatural abilities and immortality to “God,” even if they’ve never been taught about God, and they tell elaborate stories about their lives before they were born, what Barrett calls “pre-life.” “What we’re showing is that our basic cognitive equipment biases us toward certain kinds of thinking and leads to thinking about a pre-life, an afterlife, gods, invisible beings that are doing things — themes common to most of the world’s religions,” says Barrett. From A Reason to Believe

Telling an atheist to take it up with Jesus... Seriously people. Take it up with Javert.

I shouldn't have to. You are moving goalposts, misrepresenting my positions, deliberately obfuscating from the points being made, distorting the logical premises of the discussion.... Honestly, to expect me to come up with rational responses to arguments that do not accept reason as a rhetorical value is too much to ask of anyone. The best I can say is that you guys have proved my point by being so transparently dishonest in your efforts to refute it.

We were to Burn the Chaff - get rid of any identity regarding our families, our interests, talents, individuality. Yet, the Wierwilles were all about Weirwille Weirwille.

One of the life lines was "Life in the Fast Lane". Hmmmm really original, where have we heard that. Maybe they figured since we didn't listen to that evil natural music we wouldn't know.

It's not just people that say it. Scripture itself says that God is good. But simply equating morality to that which is "good" and attributing the cause (or source) of it to the law (and then equating the law with God Himself) is a false premise, something which Jesus himself appears to point out several times in the gospels: Mark 3:4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. Luke 6:9 Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it? In fact, Paul rather plainly states that the law is not made for a righteous man (1Tim.1:9.) So, why suppose or portray God (who the scripture so clearly declares "good") as intending for the law to make Himself - or anyone else - appear "good"? Furthermore, along this same line, why would Paul acknowledge his own lack of good (see Rom.3:12) while at the same time tell us that concerning the righteousness of the law, he was without fault (Phil.3:6)?

That's true. I used to marvel at some of the people that would be put in leadership. Many, and I mean many, had a distaste for such things as ethics and even having an education. There were a few times people were mocked for possessing such attributes. The narrow-mindedness of some was astounding.

TWI was enamored with authoritarian leadership (w/Bible verse 'proof') to the point they could not distinguish between bullying and 'leadership.' There were no checks and balances, no concern about the abuse of power, no concern about mental health or the safety of their followers. Hierarchy of needs would just irritate them as being a devilish influence--people should just obey and get blessed. And we all know how well that worked!

There are two ways people define themselves: One is to lookoutward. You let the world around you define you. That's why some people always need friends around: to reflect back who they are. The other way is to look inwardly and define yourself that way. Most people can't do that. It requires looking over the edge and asking what am I capable of? How do I define ethics and virtue? What do they mean to me? I'm of the latter. Inwardly directed. In my life I've left my home town several times: I've just pick up and moved to Cleveland, Ohio, Saginaw, MI, and Kissimmee FL. When I move to the town, I usually don't know a soul. Several times in Kissimmee, people were shocked that I could just pick up and go to a town where I'm a total stranger. Not so shocking to me. I know I don't change and no matter where I go I'm still me. SoCrates

We were salesmen (and ladies), working without commission, even paying for the privilege of hawking Wierwille's Super Elixir. What did we lead people to? We lead them to a pyramid scheme that duped them into joining our ranks. And so the monster grew and multiplied. (I hope that doesn't sound too bitter.)