Rocky

btw, I read books I buy from Amazon using the Kindle app for PC... most of the time.

https://www.amazon.com/Undertow-Escape-Fundamentalism-Control-International-ebook/dp/B06ZY8HVKS/

This can be helpful insight too.

Don't be too hard on yourself.

Of course, I reply NOT to contradict Raf's insight, instead to highlight it. From the linked definition: intransitive verb To explain or justify (one's behavior) with incorrect reasons or excuses, often without conscious awareness. intransitive verb To dismiss or minimize the significance of (something) by means of an explanation or excuse.

He was a good man. It was/is a great loss.

Whatever it is is MUCH bigger, IMO, than anything related to Victor Wierwille or his private interpretation ministry.

Perhaps some people will view this as heresy and/or blasphemy... but can research along these lines be stopped? What's the latest word from medical ethicists? Homo Deus

Remember what Albert Einstein said about how imagination is a bigger deal than knowledge... or something like that. Can you imagine this?

Apparently this is a different verse.

Are you experiencing a denial of service because you think I post too much?

For there is no creature whose inward being is so strong that it is not greatly determined by the world around it. —GEORGE ELIOT, MIDDLEMARCH Gordon, Deborah M.. The Ecology of Collective Behavior (p. v). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.

Well, he DID say I offended him. He even offered a bit of an explanation as to why he felt offended. Am I supposed to be offended by any of that? I am not. It doesn't even bother me that he called me names (i.e. Mike; and bullshonta). Are you offended by my use of my "voice?" (number of posts at GSC)? Gosh, I hope not. Chockfull wrote, "Just for one second stop constructing more random references." Are you asking for explanation/clarification of why I write somethings I write?

Worthy of respect. Certainly not the only approach worthy of respect, but yes.

Which you would likely get correct if you expressed it in the form of a question.

Things which offend you are not always (and probably never or rarely) are about you. "It is not our purpose to become each other, it is to recognize to learn to see each other, and honor him for what he is." Herman Hesse, German-Swiss poet, 1877-1962 "Love your suffering. Do not resist it, do not flee it. It is only your aversion to it that hurts, nothing else." Herman Hesse Today, while waiting with a friend who was at the office of an ophthalmologist, I sat (for 2.5 hours) reading Bart Ehrman's History of Heaven and Hell. His research into said history is extensive and well-documented. I was amazed at how different early Christians and also Jews viewed (or didn't) the afterlife. I surmised, after reading, that even though NONE of them believed in afterlife, the theology and doctrine evolved incrementally over many years. Regarding the passage in Joshua 10, at issue in the OP for this thread, which agree or disagree is legitimately about the subculture through which we have common ground, I have (so far) surmised that Victor Wierwille ignored or at least de-emphasized passages like this because he didn't want to deal with it/them. The variations in interpretations of the passage, as already expressed by people on this thread, illustrates the human propensity to rationalize in many ways each thing each reads in the Bible. Again, this is NOT any one picking on any of you. If you're offended by what I posed to you... well, you read it and you decided what you're willing to do with the narrative set forth. I do not have any authoritative interpretation of the passage. I only set it forth for your consideration.

Meant by whom? Are you really saying you have discerned my intent? That's silly. I made no indication that any response shocked me. I also not not surprised at the hostile reactions. None of which seem to actually address what I posed in the OP. Okay, it's a highly charged matter to challenge the foundations of one's belief.

Sigh... okay, I get that you find it offensive. But no longer tolerant of Christians? Really? I no longer have respect for the dogma Victor Wierwille pushed. However, presenting an argument regarding a passage of scripture that clearly contradicts what Wierwille taught is maybe a bit more than you're willing to tolerate. But characterizing "the site?" as intolerant seems like name calling. I would hope you have some insight on the scripture in Joshua I cited? Is this passage actually "in the original God-breathed Word?" or Is this a definitive forgery from a different age? or Is it simply an Orientalism or Figure of Speech? or Something else? Is this a STORY of a series of events told from the human perspective?

Yes, it IS about the Way. The question/issue is, how did or would Victor Wierwille deal with this passage of scripture. "If there is an All-Mighty God..." is a reframing of the philosophical question "can/could God make a rock heavier than he could lift?" There is NO logical answer to either. But thank you for adding your insight.

What would happen IF... on a day the sun stood still? Oh, wait, when did Galileo or Copernicus or any other scientist or mathematician figure out that it wasn't the SUN which would stand still, but maybe was the EARTH? The following passage from the Book of Joshua records intriguing events, including scientifically DUBIOUS ones. What was it Victor Wierwille said about scripture? Something about mathematically precise and scientifically accurate? Or was it mathematically accurate and scientifically precise? Or does it EVEN MATTER? Did he ever explain this one in light of scientific understanding developed long after the time of Joshua or even Jesus? Joshua chapter 10 So Joshua marched up from Gilgal with his entire army, including all the best fighting men. 8The Lord said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid of them; I have given them into your hand. Not one of them will be able to withstand you.” 9After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise. 10The Lord threw them into confusion before Israel, so Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. 11As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them, and more of them died from the hail than were killed by the swords of the Israelites. 12On the day the Lord gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the Lord in the presence of Israel: “Sun, stand still over Gibeon, and you, moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” 13So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on b its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the Lord listened to a human being. Surely the Lord was fighting for Israel! ----- Is this passage actually "in the original God-breathed Word?" or Is this a definitive forgery from a different age? or Is it simply an Orientalism or Figure of Speech? or Something else? Is this a STORY of a series of events told from the human perspective? How did Wierwille rationalize it, if he recognized the passage at all? How do we TODAY rationalize it, now that we have pulled our attention and recognition to it? ----- It seems the SUN, according to astrophysics as I (minimally) understand it, would NOT have been the heavenly body in question for actually scientifically figuring out what really MIGHT have happened on the day described in Joshua 10. Since we NOW understand our 24 hour daily time cycle to be a function of EARTH rotating on its axis, if we were to hypothesize what would really happen if the sun were to "delay going down about a full day," what would actually happen on EARTH when that occurred? Well, MY scientific knowledge, understanding, and imagination fails me when trying to figure it out... BUT, I now bring to you world renown astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson to draw the picture for you WITH WORDS.

This paragraph is from a blurb on Amazon. Could it be coincidence that author Paul Murray's main character is Claude Martingale? And the title's play on words with TWI's infamous slogan for shunning those who reject its overt effort to control cult followers' behavior and beliefs? The author is Irish and studied literature in Dublin. Could he have brushed shoulders with someone IN twi?