Oakspear

Wow! What a rebuttal!

Ooookay...throw out an idea that sounds interesting, but no one demonstrates any basis for the idea, but it is suggested that "those who are ready" will see it.

In so many areas, what Wierwille, Martindale et al said and what they promoted where not always the same thing. Umm...yeah, they didn't cut the verse out of the bible, but did their actions and words promote that verse? As WordWolf said, what I saw promoted was a mechanistic, or formulaic approach to God...do steps A, B, and C and God will jump through your hoops for you.

Bramble, the sickness thing brings up some memories: I raised 6 children. Sometimes they got ill, and sometimes they got ill and passed it on to another child or a parent. We were criticized by our WC BC for not "believing", since it semed like one of us were always missing fellowship due to a sick child. I thought that the fact that we had 8 people in our family just made it appear that we were sick more often than others, and said so. I was reamed for resisting leadership. For the next several months I kept a calendar. I noted whenever each of my family were sick, and when the BC or his wife were ill. Sure enough, the next time my BC "confronted" us about sickness, I produced my calendar, which showed that on average, each of my family members were sick less than either the BC or his wife :blink: That "evidence" was brushed aside with the observation that... ...I don't remember what the observation was!

...and another thing... The pressure referred to in the title to this thread was the doctrine that believing, if you were really believing, always worked. The whole "saint & sinner alike" thing. It's got nothing to with with whether miracles happened, or God talked to people or intervened in situations. I doubt that even the staunchest proponents of "the law of believing" can say that it worked every time in every situation. We were taught that it worked every time, for everyone, but were then taught explanations for when it didn't work. And it was usually our fault!

There's a "Believing" thread going on that your view might benefit from. Whether I or anyone else believe you is irrelevant, really. Actually you're one of the few on this board who talk about miracles that, if true, are a bit more miraculous than the usual "I found a parking space! Right out front!" variety.

The biggest difference IMHO between "believeing" as taught in TWI and plain ol' praying as taught in most churches is blame. Most people don't look to condemn you or cover you with guilt if you didn't see the answer to prayer that you expected, but in TWI "not receiving" was analyzed to death. And then there was the double standard: if you were one of the favored elite, bad things happened because the adversary was attacking you because of your great stand; if you were one of the peons, bad things happened because you weren't believing.

True, atheists see divine nonexistance as a conclusion. Some, do come to this conclusion primarily due to absence of evidence, while others come to this conclusion based on what they consider evidence of absence. My point was mainly addressing the position that atheisim is a lack of belief, like Wierwille's incorrect definition of atheism in PFAL (they don't believe, but they believe that they don't believe, therefore they believe... :blink: )

I don't see anywhere where JL suggested that what people posted here was "not of interest" or that there was anything that he didn't want people to see. He was simply giving additional sources for information.

Some within both the religious and the atheist camps insist that the other group conform to their own definitions: atheists refuting a version of god that the Christians don't subscribe to and Chrsitians insisting that any belief or opinion is a religion. While I disagree that atheism is necessarily a religion, I would agree that some atheists hold to the belief that there is no god with the same tenacity and refusal to reason as religious folk often do. You'll find the same single-minded tunnel vision and blindness to opposing evidence among followers of political parties as well.

QED. :) If I was being indirectly addressed hereA)I'm not an atheist B)Stating one's case and clarifying definitions isn't nitpicking and rationalizing If I wasn't being addressed....then never mind

Interesting about the letter to the prez of TWI. Igotout wrote one of those about 5 years ago (same prez) and it was not received well; I wrote one shortly thereafter to the sec'y-treasurer, and was passed down to the region coordintor. Shortly thereafter we were both out. As far as change goes, unlike, say 20 or 30 years ago, there are organizations aplenty to satisfy any vision of what a changed TWI would be like, ex-Way leaders run groups which are very much like the 'good 'ol days' TWI, complete with PFAL, others have evolved to include different teachings, while otehrs have gone in different directions altogether. In some ways, these groups are the "changed" Way International, without legal title to the name.

That part is often forgotten, as well as the fact that after the war immediately following israeli independence, Jordan occupied "the West Bank" until Israel took it over (I forget if it was 1967 or 1973)

atheism does not claim that it is the "belief that has no beliefs", but the belief that there is no God, or the opinion that the evidence does not support belief in God.

Ya'know, it's not at all about writing styles, or "smoothness" of speech, IMHO. One poster that I can think of has the most atrocious grammar, and is extremely hard to follow logically, yet is always respectful of others' feelings and opinions; gives the impression that he wouldn't hurt a fly, while others speak very well, but use their skill with language to cut and hurt. Another thing that I have noted is we tend to cut some slack to people who we have met face-to-face, or know outside the forums...in "real life". We can put a face to the typed words and at least superficially know the person behind the screen. One way we can help keep these discussions more reasonable is self-policing. I'm not talking about more for the moderators to do, but "allies" in different arguments keeping each other calm. For example, if I am getting nasty on an agnostic or atheist thread, George Aar or Sudo might be the one to help point out that I am getting out of line, since I know that we have similar opinions. There have been many times when I have thought that people that I have agreed with were stating their case illogically, or needlessly attacking someone they disagreed with and stood idly by, figuring that "the other side" could defend their own without help from me. Hi, Mr. Hayes

If I remember correctly, Hebrew was not the language of the common people in Jesus' time, but more of an ecclesiastical language. I believe that Aramaic was the tongue that was spoken in Babylon and was taken up by the captives.

It's not just the name calling, it's the assumption that those who we disagree with are stupid or evil. Another thing that a fellow poster pointed out to me a few years ago was that often the forum discussions are nothing of the sort, but merely posters with opposing viewpoints talking past each other. How often is evidence ignored by those whose minds will never be changed? And how often do we mistake our deeply held opinions as "evidence"?

We all do it to a certain extent, even if only in our own minds: demeaning, minimizing, or disbelieving the experiences of others. It happens to a great degree here at our favorite ex-TWI hangout, GSC. Some posters accuse others of lying when they talk about their experiences of sexual or other abuse. Others accuse fellow posters of being deluded or exaggerating when they talk about positive experiences in TWI. When someone talks about something that they learned from TWI, do we have to attack them and accuse them of supporting a (fill in the blank for your favorite anti-Wierwille epithet)? When someone talks about something that was devastating to them, do we have to callously minimize it with "but he taught us the Word"? On the other hand, if someone sees something that is so far outside their TWI experience as to be almost unbelievable, why can't they question, as long as it's in a respectful manner? Some of the "feuds" that go on here seriously detract from the topics that we're trying to discuss. Would you talk to someone in person the way that you compose posts on GS?

Yup, you're right. It did sound that way. I think the only way that you'd find out (within TWI) that Estrangelo was just a script was by hearing it from one of the big research heavies, certainly not from the mouth of Wierwille or Martindale. I know that I knew it while still in TWI, and I didn't do any outside research back then. Towards the end of his reign, Martindale was telling the Corps that he thought that it was Timothy who had done the translating from Aramaic to Greek.

There is no mention in the bible of mountains or hills until Genesis 12. Saying that there is no record of any makes it sound like there was some kind of geological survey. There's "no record" of haircuts either

Where does it say that? :blink:

I see...your usual impeccable logic CK.

TWI taught that the NT was originally written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek. Estrangelo was the script that the Aramaic was written in.

An atheist, an agnostic and a "believer" walk into a bar. The atheist says "There is no such thing as beer, you are a charlatan for selling that which does not exist" The believer says "I believe in beer, but this beer doesn't line up with what I was taught beer should be, I don't think that I can drink it" The agnostic says "I don't know whether there is beer or not, so I'll keep drinking until I am convinced"

That still doesn't indicate that the word epiluo necessarily has to concern hunting dogs, just as the word "kick" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with @sses, even though it can be of "kicking foot" I'm sure that Xenophon and others used the word in other contexts. Anyway, my point is that the word simply means "to let loose", "to break open"...maybe even to unveil or reveal. It can be used to describe unleashing dogs or opening letters. Other uses of it in the gospels describe Jesus using it to expound: This whole things is a great example of how Wierwille copied from others without any real understanding and how many wayfers slavishly followed Wierwille without ever questioning him. It got to the point in the 980's where people were teaching the illustration and not the chapter and verse.