Raf

Tee hee. He thinks he's the first pro-TWI voice on GSC. Tee hee hee. Ok, some history: MANY posters are QUITE pro-TWI in terms of doctrine and appreciation for Wierwille and the things he taught. We are quite capable of distinguishing between what he actually taught and how he lived. Even when we accuse him of plagiarism (of which he was TOTALLY guilty, by the way), that is never presented to discredit the doctrine itself. So what if Kenyon said it first, largely in the exact same words? Was it true? Or at least, was it Biblically accurate? So no, you don't get piled on for defending TWI. You get piled on for excusing abuse. You get piled on for idolizing a selfish opportunist who feasted on our love for God to satisfy his lust for money, women and power. But you don't get piled on for accepting Jesus Christ is Not God. You don't get piled on for distinguishing between Holy Spirit and holy spirit. You don't get piled on for praying or for giving or for believing in the rapture/gathering together. "Stick together in your anti-TWI rhetoric"? But we don't. Each of us draws a line, and I would venture to say that no two people draw the line in exactly the same way. "Plan to exclude said individual"? Not one person, not one, has criticized you for a view you've expressed. Not one. Every criticism leveled at you has been about how you are addressing us. It is, as I said elsewhere, a tad condescending. Perhaps you don't see it that way. Well, that's why we're pointing it out to you. Excommunicated? No way! Where would this site be without people like Oldiesman, Johniam and others who are unafraid to stand up for what they believe in? They're not excluded in the slightest. I'll admit, most people who are defenders of some parts of TWI are long gone from the GSC. But that's to be expected: Most posters are long gone from the GSC. Very few remain. We have, as stated elsewhere, moved on. I stick around for three reasons: 1. I'm a moderator, and there's not a lot of us who keep checking up on the place. 2. I have recently "come out" as atheist, and I find value in exploring/defending that position with people who knew me as a believer. And 3. The game threads are nifty and fun. You're not getting excommunicated unless you get abusive. You have not been. Far from it. I think any missteps you've made are easily the result of enthusiastically trying to introduce yourself to a group whose dynamics you do not know very well. Personally, I think you're the most interesting thing to happen to this forum in a long time. I'm glad you stopped by, glad you figured out how to find me, and glad you're posting. Sir!

Your assumption here is a false one. While I'm sure there are some who dismiss any research coming from a TWI background, there are others -- a majority, I think -- who evaluate arguments on their merits, not basing our conclusions on the source. Though I am no longer a believer, there was a time I went to great lengths to sort out what was taught in TWI and considered whether it was Biblically accurate or not. My conclusions were highly debatable (and hotly debated), but my goal was pure and appreciated even by those who disagreed with me. It had nothing to do with the source of various teachings (I focused on Wierwille). I never rejected a doctrine because it came from CES/STFI, or from any of the other various offshoots, or even from TWI itself. And I think I speak for many people on GSC, perhaps even a majority, on that point. If you accept the Bible as God's word, you are obliged to accept or reject a doctrine based solely on its conformity to the Bible, regardless of who taught it. Even with my present beliefs (or unbelief), I find it possible to weigh whether a doctrine is Biblically consistent. The only difference is, I no longer make the leap from "Biblically accurate" to "true." If you do, that's good for you. I don't. Would you be able to accept my views on what the Bible actually says, knowing that I do not believe Yahweh exists? In other words, if you have a bias against my position, can you make an unbiased comment about the conclusions I reach concerning the Biblical accuracy of certain statements and doctrines?

I just read that section in John 11 and I don't see exactly what you're getting at. The only verse that got my attention was v. 26 "and whoever lives and believes in me will not ever die in the Age to come. Do you believe this?” Other translations read a variation of: "and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?" So the issue here is the apparent addition of a qualifier: "in the age to come." Did Jesus mean to say that people who believe in him would never die? Or was he saying something more realistic, that they would die temporarily, but would someday inherit eternal life? I think our presumptions go a long way toward interpreting this verse, but the most important thing to evaluate is the actual language used, which I do not have the inclination to research. Which is the more accurate translation? If the traditional translation is more accurate, then Jesus spoke something that is quite obviously not literally true. However, it is reasonable to conclude that even if he spoke the traditional sentence, he meant what is recorded in the REV. Clearly Jesus knew that believers would die. He said as much elsewhere, didn't he? I'll have to check. But I can't imagine he did not know that people who believed in him would someday die. The alternative is preposterous: Jesus literally believed that people who believed in him would live forever, uninterrupted, never to die. This interpretation is possible only if Jesus was not too bright. He would have spoken a false prophecy, and would therefore lack credibility as a spokesman for God. So I think, whether it is literally an accurate translation or not, the REV articulates a Biblically true statement by adding the words "in the age to come." If Jesus didn't mean that, his statement is a false prophecy, regardless of the actual words used. If you DON'T presume Jesus must have been right, the absurdity of his literal statement (assuming it is an accurate translation) becomes evidence that he was not who he claimed to be. That would make him a cocky, arrogant so-called prophet with no more credibility than Benny Hinn or Oral Roberts. This presumption entails that he is not the Son of God and that the Bible's stories about him, by extension, are not reliable. I won't explore that further because I don't think such an examination is the purpose of your question or your thread. It is an alternative way of looking at the Biblical record, but I suspect it's a view you did not intend to explore or entertain.

In the Line of Fire

MRAP, respectfully, it's a tad condescending to come onto a board where you don't know people and assume you know more about our journeys than you do. Is it hard for us to look beyond ourselves...? What a backhanded insult! (Yes it is). Can we see something new in the word? Gee, none of us ever thought of that until you came along! You came here expecting us to be something and, upon learning we are not what you expected, you have done nothing but berate us for not fitting the mold you presumed for us. Well, sorry to disappoint you. Nonetheless, if you actually want to talk about the things you say you want to discuss, some of us would be more than happy to approach your questions from a variety of perspectives. And if you don't like our approaches, please bear this in mind: we didn't ask you. We think for ourselves around here. We don't get pushed around by military, police, reverends, fathers, brothers, elders, imams, yogis or booboos.

A Time To Kill

Not Othello. Not even close.

That was correct

Looking for the role: Sean Patrick Flannery Corey Carrier George Hall

Yes, I think religion stifles the development of morality by taking a snapshot of morality at a particular time and asserting that it is objectively moral (which in my view is an oxymoron). Thus, religion teaches us that stoning a non virgin is ordained of God, and God is always right, so stoning a non virgin is right. Suddenly, I cannot argue that stoning a non virgin is wrong unless I question the second premise, that God is always right. If you're unwilling to entertain the thought that God can be wrong, you have no basis for saying it's wrong to stone a woman to death for the crime of not being a virgin on her wedding night. But you KNOW it's wrong because you're reasonable. The morality thread I started tackles that issue head on. Our morality IS more developed than Yahweh's. So yes, you can be moral without believing in a god. In fact, believing in a god gives you a firm foundation for condoning actions and laws that reason would lead you to believe are IMMORAL. The other thread proves that point. (I'm expressing an opinion, not declaring victory).

The question of whether we are more moral than an earlier culture is interesting, but not the thread topic. I apologize for the derail. I think we ultimately derive morals from reason, which need not be an overly sophisticated concept. Seeing morality in the animal kingdom indicates that animals have some capacity to reason. Less sophisticated than our capacity, but present nonetheless. The more reasonable we become as a people, the more our morals develop.

Married with Children of the Corn?

Peter Cushing?

that is an awesome clue TAXI

I disagree. I think we are absolutely more moral than anyone who thinks stoning is an appropriate punishment for Sabbath breaking. However, I understand your point a little better now. Thank you.

I don't mean to be a pain, but we are absolutely more moral than anyone who would stone a sabbath breaker to death in any era. That shouldn't even have to be argued. Different time? Yes! But if God is moral, the morality of his law should transcend time, not surrender to it!

So their survival depended on God ordering sabbath breakers to be stoned to death?

So because they lived in a different world, we're supposed to gloss over the fact that God ordered a BRUTAL death sentence for sabbath breaking? if that's not what you're trying to say, what is?

Oh yeah.

Click around that site, WW. It does indeed have John 1 in it. I think it has the whole NT. And yes, it was NASB I was thinking of. Thank you. I seem to recall being the first to bring it to your attention, but I could easily be wrong about that.

I don't think there's a Biblical promise that would support that test, Tzaia, though you can't rule it out. That is, if it worked, it would establish pretty clearly that the speaking is from God. But then, the others present would have to know enough English to convey the verification to the speaker, who does not know their language. However, if it did NOT work, it wouldn't tell us anything. Drop me in a group of Russians, I speak in tongues and produce ancient Peruvian, and it would look like your test failed even though it was genuine SIT. (When I say genuine SIT, I mean it produces a language. Not tongues of angels, which is nothing but an excuse for why language is not detected. Not computer code, which would be remarkably easy to verify. An actual language). My challenge still stands: Show me A PERSON who speaks in a language he's never learned. And not just an anecdote from my best friend's cousins sister who spoke in tongues before a delegation of indigenous Phillipinos who understood it all and went back home, never to be seen again. With the vast number of samples available of people performing so-called genuine SIT, getting someone to verify that a language was produced should be easy. Why doesn't it happen? I have a suggestion.

Now, now. We spend all this time telling him it can get rough in here, so he probably just overcompensated. Cut the new guy a break.

Mark, I think you misunderstood me. I wrote: "I actually agree with Mark there. We're talking about what the Bible says, not anyone's unsubstantiated claims to have reproduced it." You apparently thought I meant "not anyone's unsubstantiated claims to have reproduced what the Bible says." Your post makes sense if that was your understanding of my comment. But what I intended to convey was, "not anyone's unsubstantiated claims to have reproduced the practice of speaking in tongues as described in the Bible." I was agreeing with you (at least, I think I was) that questioning your practice of SIT, indeed questioning ANYone's practice of SIT, is off-topic on this thread. It is on topic for me to ask you whether you believe Biblical SIT produces a language. It is off-topic for me to challenge YOUR practice of SIT. You say you do it. That's fine. In doing so, you are saying that you produce a language when you SIT. (That is a logical extension: "The Bible says SIT produces a language. My practice of SIT is consistent with the Bible. Therefore, when I SIT, I'm producing a language.") If anyone wants to challenge that assertion, this thread by design is not the place to do it. My point is, I wasn't trying to comment on the accuracy of the modern translations of the Bible. I was merely agreeing with you concerning drawing the on-topic/off-topic line.

MRAP: Over the years I grew particularly fond of the American Standard Version (I think), which I found accessible to modern readers. I was grateful that it largely retained the use of italics to signify when words were added that were not part of the original text. Most of the time, the inclusion of such words was an innocent attempt to clarify what the verses meant to say. Are they biased? Sure. They assume the inclusion of the added words provides greater clarity, which is a judgment call. All judgment calls are subjective by definition. Having said that, I'm curious to know what you think of the REV. Perhaps if we start looking at particular verses and translations, we'll get a better conversation going. For example, do we really think the writer of John 1 intended to use the pronoun "it" throughout the chapter rather than "he"? There are multiple ways to approach that question. First and foremost, we need to analyze the language itself. What word is used? Is there room to make that change (from "he" to "it") while being faithful to the text and not reading into it? Is it fair to impose the Biblical Unitarian Christology on a text that was written nearly 2,000 years ago? What is John really meant "he"? Does that signify that non-Trinitarians are wrong? Or does it open the door to the Jehovah's Witness interpretation (that Jesus existed as an angel before his birth, but was never God)? The REV makes no apologies for the fact that the bias of the "translators" played a role in the translation. In that, I think they're just being honest where previous translators have feigned objectivity. But what would an unbiased translation look like? Please share some of your thoughts? And I'm certain others would love to chime in. P.S. There's a fine line between seeking to understand the original intent of the writers of the Bible and calling its divine inspiration into question. I am deliberately not addressing the matter of divine inspiration. Getting at what the writers originally intended to convey is one thing. Getting to whether they were correct in the grand scheme of things is quite another.

This came up in the SIT confession thread. The way I see it, Biblical SIT makes a testable claim. But practitioners bend over backwards to make it untestable. They get emphatic that the Bible says NO ONE understands. But at the same time they want you to believe their brother's third cousin did it in front of some people visiting from the Congo, and they understood it. That's PROOF! Suddenly the No Man Understands requirement doesn't apply. It only applies when the Man seeking to understand is a linguist.