Oakspear

I checked my stack of Newsweeks, found that I threw out October 15th :o - but I did find the article on the internet http://www.newsweek.com/id/42454 It wouldn't let me copy, but one section asks who is most likely to cheat, the answer was "athletes, the non-religious and those who did not take AP courses". The article also states that 60% of kids cheat on tests ***************************************************** The Herod example can be used to make the other side's point as well. From what I can tell, Herod gave lip service to the OT law, rebuilt the Temple and considered himself to be the King of the Jews. He, as you said, certianly knew about the "do not kill" rule, but chose to ignore it. To use a modern day example, John Gotti, mafia boss, was as religious as they come, but that didn't stop him from ordering plenty of killings.

Sky: You cut my quote short...indistinguishible other than the worshipping God stuff was my point - but you knew that, right? Jeffrey Dahmer was an atheist? I didn't know that. Can you provide me a link to where you got your info? There are (at least) two discussions going on here. One is about whether atheists are any more or less likely than theists, specifically bible adherants, to be moral. In that discussion, whether or not the bible condones or encourages immorality is irrelevant, since we are talking about the behavior of those who claim certain standards of morality. The second discussion is about whether the bible in fact ascribes immoral acts to God. A good case can be made that it does, unless "morailty" is defined as "whatever the bible says that God says it is" It seems like you are confusing the two discussions. For example, Belle's example of Catholic priests raping kids is part of the first discussion, P-Mosh's list of immoral acts in the bible is part of the second.

I think you'll find that most atheists do, in fact, follow "moraility principles" that are indistinguishable from those in the bible, with the exception of those that tell people to worship God The difference is that they act ethically and morally because that's what they want to do, not because they believe God wants them to.

I'd bet your last dollar that she was intimidated into silence by an intimidating man

Theists see morality and ethics deriving from a deity. Atheists see morality and ethics deriving from the mind of man. Both are just as free as the other to follow or ignore morality and ethics. Most ethical system seem to end up being about the same, no matter what religion or philosophy they come from. *********************************************************** Johnj: You're attempting to define atheists in terms of Christianity, which is understandable, since you are a Christian minister and this is a culture where Christians are the majority. Atheism is an absence of theism, not an opposition to theism. In the Newsweek article that you mentioned, religious and non-religious folks were compared and contrasted. There you have made the error (maybe Newsweek did as well) of equating "non-religious" with "atheist". There are many people who grew up as a member of a church, had religious values instilled in them, attended services regularly but who no longer participate in the affairs of their church or even think too much about it. Most of these people would be surprised or even insulted if you suggested that they were atheists or even non-Christian. I have an aunt and uncle who left their curch over its stance against gays, since they have a gay son. This couple still believes in God, still prays, still looks forward to an afterlife in heaven etc, etc, but they are no longer religious in the sense that they participate in a church. Among the people that I know and work with, a person can say that they aren't religious and not draw a second glance, but say that you're an atheist, or even a non-Christian and you're a curiosity.

For all those who throw out the red herring that some of the women or girls consented: did Mrs. Wierwille consent to it? Did God?

Johniam: The similarity between the gnostics and the "-gnostic" part of agnostic is because they come from the same root, gnosis, i.e. "knowledge". I've found the following link to be helpful: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html ...and I don't think it's so much that agnotics (or atheists for that matter) consider that "the issue has been considered, weighed, and evaluated" so much but that they personally have not seen convincing evidence of the existence of God. Johnj: Any backing to your assumption that atheism = anarchy?

I think when he says "agnostics", he means we're born not knowing anything, which is true. I don't know whether or not we're born with an appetite to believe or not, but I guess your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. I'd be interested in your reasons for believing that.

It seems that most people need a belief system to make sense of things. When someone decides to be an atheist the belief system is that a supernatural being is not necessary to make sense of the world anymore. As human beings we want to see causes to everything, we want to see patterns to events. An atheist is less likely than some to need see impose causes and patterns where there isn't necessarily any. Even when we experience something that is seemingly unexplainable, a "sign, miracle or wonder", it is we that impose the label upon it, it is we who decide that it "must be God", or if our belief system is different that it is Reiki, or magick, or aliens. We "feel a presence" and interpret it as God...or the Goddess...or our dead ancestors...or whatever else our belief system requires. Even if we experienced a Cecil B. DeMille technicolor miracle we would only attribute it to the biblical God if we were predisposed to that belief system. For those who have maintained Christianity through TWI and post-TWI days, obviously the Christian framework is the most comfortable and consistant and fits with their experiences. For those who haven't stuck with Christianity, the biblical model no longer fits for them, is no longer consistant with their experiences. When I was in TWI the framework that I hung my experiences on was the bible as expounded and explained by Wierwille and later Martindale in PFAL, WayAP and the other classes. During the last few years that I was involved in TWI, there were numerous errors that I found in Martindale's teachings. Errors found using PFAL's "keys". Later I began to find similar errors in Wierwille's teachings. Stumbling across CES's website showed me how using biblical research "keys" was no guarantee to coming up with the same answers. Still later I came to the conclusion that the bible itself wasn't any more reliable, and that there was no evident reason to accept that it was god-breathed. Although I have not "journeyed" to atheism, my belief system is not Christianity. I can see why some would find it appealing, but find no objective reasons to adhere to it myself.

Well said socks

It was Bush the Elderhttp://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mat...ments.html#bush

Geez cman, where's the need to insult George, just for offering his opinion? Part of his point is that non-belief in God shouldn't have to be justified. ********************************************************** Regarding "proof", or anything else that would convince one: Different people regard different things as sufficient evidence for the existance or non-existance of a god. Many people who believe in the biblical god would scoff at "proof" offered by a Hindu for a pantheon, or by a ESP practioner for mind reading, or by a UFO enthusiast for the existance of extra-terrestrials. What one views as undeniable "proof" is often completely subjective.

Not really Dan. It's a man judging what someone says is the actions of a god.

Where's John R? he usually has some photos of his old tags when these threads get started. Yeah, big events...makes sense. Branch meetings where everyone knows everyone else...not so much. I remember being reproved for wearing my green advanced class '80 nametag when I should ahve been wearing my blue Way of Abundance and Power Advanced Class tag

I also thought that it was interesting that the writer of the original article that I linked to speaks disparagingly of Heefner & Geer, saying that The Way Tree was a secret in New York.

Regarding the appropriateness of charging for "the Word" or for a minister's services: how many twig coordinators received payment for what they did? For that matter, leaders at the other levels of the "Tree"?

Some of us remember stuff that we no longer believe.

That wasn't me. I didn't say that. That was my quote I'm just going by what I remember, which may be incorrect. I used the word "admitted" for two reasons 1)I wouldn't have expected him to provide an in-depth list of anyone who he had allowed to teach the class live and 2)He had a habit of acting like people who left his organization didn't exist

The only people I ever saw that Wierwille admitted taught PFAL other than him was Mal George and Donnie Fugit. Right...except when they need something for newly graduated Way Corps folks to do and they demote you from being branch or twig leader.

bump

For some reason I can't get the specific page to link...after linking to Family tables, click on "personal stories" then go to "Into the Fray" part 2

Having got involvd in TWI in 1978 when the Way Tree structure was up and running and fully fleshed out on Long island, I didn't question the assumption that it was always a part of TWI. The other day I saw this quote http://www.familytables.org/ Interesting. The story that I'm quoting takes place in 1971. Apparently there was a Way Tree in Ohio, but not New York. Anyone have any insight as to how things developed eraly on?

The TWI model wasn't in and of itself bad or unbiblical IMHO, and wasn't really all that different from a big church that had home fellowships or home bible studies as part of its setup. In the areas where TWI saw large growth you had your twig that met in the home several times a week, then you had your branch meetings that met once a week or once a month, Area/Territory meetings a few times a year and your annual limb meetings and the ROA; you weren't cut off from the larger body of your denomination. Of course as TWI started to shrink numerically a whole state could meet in one living room. The regular home fellowship combined with periodic meetings with a larger group sems to me to be a biblical model, how it was administered in TWI (especially in the 90's and later) is another story.

Kind of off topic, but this is a good example of Wierwille twisting things. How does he know that God "would have said best"? and what God meant? Wierwille decided what words meant and what God was saying and that was that. That's working the Word, Wierwille style.

In case there is any doubt that "stanley" is connected to family tables, he also posted this link: http://www.familytables.org/times/