Nathan_Jr

Ahh. Yet another meaning of faith: it is assurance/conviction WITHOUT proof. Hmmm… I wonder if one might say to the author of Hebrews, “Either Paul's writings are a great lie or he's talking about something you know nothing about.”

I don’t want a different answer from you. I got your answer - faith is believing what has been proven. Got it.

Another assumption. I don't know if I like it or not because I don't know how you define faith, or, at best, I'm unsure how you define it. You said: Faith is believing what is proven. Is that correct? If not, could you phrase it another way? If I got it right, fine. I accept your definition, and I neither like it nor dislike it. STL provided a definition from Britannica and I provided my own very simple definition. I even contrasted faith with belief. Your definition makes three. Great! Victor said faith is what you have and belief is what you do. This may tie in with the Pistis Christou debate -- objective or subjective genitive? (Gal 2:16, Gal 3:22, Rom 3:22...) I imagine others posters might define faith differently, still.

Witness testimony is evidence, but class or sermon transcripts would be great. Do we need documentation of rapes?

It has been said that birth control was discouraged or forbidden for women involved in The Way, Inc, but abortion was approved, even encouraged and mandated, effectively making abortion a form of birth control. Does anyone remember how or why the prohibition of birth control was doctrinally justified?

Mmmph

I believe what has been proven to me, also. Until, of course, a new, stronger, more convincing proof is presented. But this is not the question. You said the Britannica definition of faith is laughably wrong. I knocked, asked and sought your insight. If you can’’t or won’t answer the question, fine.

I'm asking for and seeking your definition of faith. I'm listening.

You said that dictionary is laughably wrong. What would be a satisfactorily correct definition of faith? Claims have been asserted. Assumptions have been made about people's understanding. I am asking to advance understanding and discussion.

Would you provide a more fitting or personally agreeable definition? I realize the theological definition is more complicated than Brittanica’s. And it depends on which theologian or charlatan you ask. Victor wierwille certainly endeavored his own creative, ever-changing definitions. In the context of spiritual matters, I usually define FAITH as a letting go, a complete openness, a complete trust, which is the opposite of white-knuckled, clenching, clinging BELIEF. What definition works for you, cman?

The opening two paragraphs to her story…or account… or examination… or observation… or whatever one needs to cal it: The experiences related in this story are mine. This report is based on my personal recollections supported by an archive of contemporaneously written notes, journals, and photographs*. Most of the information about The Way’s beliefs and practices I either witnessed firsthand or were reported directly to me by members of and recruiters for The Way. This report is highly factual, and like every report may contain an error. I apologize for any such errors, but they are few and most likely superficial in nature. The truth is that this high control group still follows many of these spiritually and financially abusive practices in one form or the other. They have never apologized or publicly acknowledged responsibility for any harm that has come to their followers. And that is a true shame. My recounting is corroborated by hundreds of reports and articles about the Way online. In addition there are thousands of personal experiences recounted in social media posts that echo my memories and validate many reports of extremism, sexual and financial abuse. At least three books have been written about the fake scholarship, traumatic experiences and abuse in The Way. These authors and myself all fell victim to The Way under Victor P. Wierwille’s direction.

Presumption is the only kind of reasoning which supplies new ideas, the only kind which is, in this sense, synthetic. Induction is justified as a method which must in the long run lead up to the truth, and that, by gradual modification of the actual conclusion. There is no such warrant for presumption. The hypothesis which it problematically concludes is frequently utterly wrong itself, and even the method need not ever lead to the truth; for it may be that the features of the phenomena which it aims to explain have no rational explanation at all. Its only justification is that its method is the only way in which there can be any hope of attaining a rational explanation. — Charles S. Peirce

Thanks, Cockfull! A quote from the linked substack: It was constantly reinforced that women were inferior in teaching and treatment and we were told not to use any birth control, leading to many unwanted pregnancies. The Way would then support and pay for abortions, which were not a sin according to their teachings. So, abortion is the only form of birth control endorsed by TWI. What accuracy! What mathematical exactness! What scientific precision! Mmmph! (A perfect dovetail with another presently active thread.)

Mmmph

Mmmph

Throughout all (without exception) of victor’s writings and sermons, hundreds, even thousands, of contradictions like this are NOT merely apparent. They literally leap off the page to stand unassailable on their own, above all.

Mmmph

Yoda?

She's a critic of Christian fundamentalism as a prevailing political force in America today, right? She is a critic of the "toxic masculinity" embodied by political leaders who can just grab women by the *****. Her book is Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. My understanding of what she is saying in this disjointed interview is that she is STILL a Christian in spite of all the ***** grabbing justified by so-called Christians; and she remains a Christian in spite of being personally attacked by right wing Christian fundamentalist evangelicals. She makes a distinction between mere "proclaimers of Christ" and "followers of Christ," implying that she is the latter. Amid the backlash from her book, she says she questioned her own faith and identity as a Christian, but she had a "religious experience" and is now at peace with calling herself a Christian. She talks about becoming more tolerant of Christian traditions outside her own (Dutch Reformed). Though she was raised to look at all other denominations as wrong (sound familiar?), she now looks to learn from other traditions and even re-examine her own for errors. She claims to confess the Nicene Creed. Someone earlier said if you don't confess the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, you aren't a Christian. Well, it sounds like she's covered, if that's a fundamental metric. When asked what it means to be a Christian, she offered two points. One was community. I don't remember the other. I don't think she gave a strong answer here. Sounds to me like she's a Christian, but it doesn't really matter to me. We agree on at least one thing, though: grabbing women by the ***** is not very Christ-like.

What are the missing pieces?

Yep.

The claim certainly can be asserted. And the assertion may even be sincere. But on legal grounds? Here are some other asserted claims: ”Cocks crowed differently in Bible times.” ”Four were crucified with Jesus, not two.” ”I invented the hook shot.” ”It snowed.” Is this a discussion of doctrine or of history?

It's one of the risks of AI. How does one know? But heuristics and epistemology have been problematic for ages. Someone asserts a claim of fact. How do you know? I saw it on (insert social media of choice). "John 10:10; therefore, there must be keys." Huh? Yeah, victor paul wierwille said so. Oooooohhhhhh.... well, in that case...it MUST be true. Quick! Someone post this non sequitur to Facebook! Post it twice to establish it. IDGAF how TWI characterizes that website or this one. I characterize TWI and victor paul wierwille as terrorists. Hey! I didn't write the book.

On what grounds would their lawyers try to take it down? It’s not the only website/blog/podcast/stack/archive that makes the demonstrable claim that TWI, founded by the charlatan victor paul wierwille, is a cult. Also, First Amendment. I admit a failure of imagination on my part, but I’m open-minded. If the key word is “try,” then yeah, lawyers might gladly bill for hours to try.

Oh. There's probably a "teaching" about that.