This is an old point. Responses to it are pretty much predictable. Either it's an actual account of something that happened to that effect, or it isn't even close to anything that happened.
If it isn't close to anything that happened, then there's nothing else to discuss, the account is unreliable, the book is unreliable, and the codex is unreliable. This isn't news to anyone- anyone who says this already was saying those.
If it's an actual account, we have to take into account the ability of the then-contemporary readers and listeners to make sense of things. (That's clear no matter WHO wrote it.) I can easily posit that an All- Mighty God could pause the Earth and suspend all consequences, since He would have the power to do so. However, if asked my opinion, I think it's more likely that an All-Mighty God would produce the effect, and let the puny people understand it their way without any need to educate them to 21st century scientific understanding. I would posit that all planets, stars, etc continued as normal, and that what was altered was the light hitting the Earth. An All-Mighty God could certainly do so, which would lengthen, shorten, or abruptly begin or end a day.
Granted, this would certainly be on the high end of fantastic for a miracle, but that's not proof of anything by itself. If there is an All-Mighty God, He COULD do exactly this, and if there wasn't, then the account was simply cooked.
How would we know which was the answer? Everyone's answer to that is that this was a closed issue before they reached these verses. Either they already believed or they already dis-believed. It goes to the general body of evidence long before it gets here.
Granted, this would certainly be on the high end of fantastic for a miracle, but that's not proof of anything by itself. If there is an All-Mighty God, He COULD do exactly this, and if there wasn't, then the account was simply cooked.
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.
Though this isnt a "Christian" website, many people here no longer have any respect for Christians or their beliefs. Bible bashing is a large part of what grease spot has become and frankly I find it offensive and seldom participate here as a result. It is what it is because Ive grown so far past the way international I have little left to say on them that I havent stated already, or has been stated by others. I feel this site is no longer tolerant of Christians and that includes me. Peace.
Though this isn't a "Christian" website, many people here no longer have any respect for Christians or their beliefs. Bible bashing is a large part of what grease spot has become and frankly I find it offensive and seldom participate here as a result. It is what it is because I've grown so far past the way international I have little left to say on them that I haven't stated already, or has been stated by others. I feel this site is no longer tolerant of Christians and that includes me. Peace.
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 aSTORY of a series of events told from the human perspective?
"Sigh... okay, I get that you find it offensive. But no longer tolerant of Christians? Really?" \
I suspect OldSkool noticed that the initial post was only "About the Way" because of two sentences that look inserted to give the excuse to post this in "About the Way", and without them, the entire post is complete, but neither "About the Way" nor particularly respectful of Christians.
There's somewhere in the GSC you can post and be disrespectful of Christians and have that be expected or welcome. I wouldn't bat an eye if this thread was there. It appears to me that the one sentence on vpw was an excuse to post it in a more popular forum instead. That nothing will be done about it pretty much will make OldSkool's point that "Bible-bashing is a large part of what Greasespot has become" and that it's considered perfectly acceptable to shoehorn this into "About the Way" when it takes an excuse to do so.
Rocky: "How do we TODAY rationalize it, now that we have pulled our attention and recognition to it? "
WordWolf: "This is an old point. Responses to it are pretty much predictable. Either it's an actual account of something that happened to that effect, or it isn't even close to anything that happened.
If it isn't close to anything that happened, then there's nothing else to discuss, the account is unreliable, the book is unreliable, and the codex is unreliable. This isn't news to anyone- anyone who says this already was saying those.
If it's an actual account, we have to take into account the ability of the then-contemporary readers and listeners to make sense of things. (That's clear no matter WHO wrote it.) I can easily posit that an All- Mighty God could pause the Earth and suspend all consequences, since He would have the power to do so. However, if asked my opinion, I think it's more likely that an All-Mighty God would produce the effect, and let the puny people understand it their way without any need to educate them to 21st century scientific understanding. I would posit that all planets, stars, etc continued as normal, and that what was altered was the light hitting the Earth. An All-Mighty God could certainly do so, which would lengthen, shorten, or abruptly begin or end a day.
Granted, this would certainly be on the high end of fantastic for a miracle, but that's not proof of anything by itself. If there is an All-Mighty God, He COULD do exactly this, and if there wasn't, then the account was simply cooked.
How would we know which was the answer? Everyone's answer to that is that this was a closed issue before they reached these verses. Either they already believed or they already dis-believed. It goes to the general body of evidence long before it gets here."
Rocky:"There is NO logical answer to either. But thank you for adding your insight."
WordWolf resumes.
I included both major positions on how this is "rationalized." As to their being no "logical" answer to your questions, I suppose that depends on what you consider logical. For someone who has been convinced- beyond any reasonable doubt- that there is an All-Mighty God and He is the subject of the Bible, it would appear "logical" that He could easily perform this as written and prevent any side-effects, since He would have more than the minimum ability to perform this.
You asked how "we today" rationalize this, and I added my point of view as well, that an All-Mighty God could choose among how to perform something along these lines, could choose the least harmful method to accomplish it and spend less effort preventing damage, and have this phrased in a manner the people of the time could readily understand.
If that's categorically "illogical" to you based on your own presuppositions, then that's how it's going to look.
HOWEVER,
as I pointed out in my initial response....
None of this is news.
You knew very well what the responses would be.
So, posting to ASK only to dismiss them isn't in the spirit of a DISCUSSION, let alone a DISCUSSION BOARD.
It was meant to take a shot at people who disagree with you. Don't be shocked OldSkool saw right through it as well.
I don't think that was nice,
I don't think that was in the STATED intents of the GSC,
I suspect OldSkool noticed that the initial post was only "About the Way" because of two sentences that look inserted to give the excuse to post this in "About the Way", and without them, the entire post is complete, but neither "About the Way" nor particularly respectful of Christians.
There's somewhere in the GSC you can post and be disrespectful of Christians and have that be expected or welcome. I wouldn't bat an eye if this thread was there. It appears to me that the one sentence on vpw was an excuse to post it in a more popular forum instead. That nothing will be done about it pretty much will make OldSkool's point that "Bible-bashing is a large part of what Greasespot has become" and that it's considered perfectly acceptable to shoehorn this into "About the Way" when it takes an excuse to do so.
Exactly. So if the moderators choose to let their bias rule the roost here at GSC and allow posts such as these then its pretty much a given that I will not participate here. Its intersting how others demand tolerance in their atheistic view points, yet Ive been very tolerant, yet that tolerance is used as an excuse to bash my Christian beliefs. Fair enough.
I didnt realize about the way section on grease spot cafe was made to "challenge the foundations of one's belief." I thought iit was to tell the other side of the story. Im not here for that and neither am I here to challenge the foundation of anyone's beliefs unless those beliefs tie into "About the way".
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.8TheLordsaid 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.10TheLordthrew 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, theLordhurled 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 theLordgave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to theLordin the presence of Israel:
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 theLordlistened to a human being. Surely theLordwas 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.
What if this was foretelling prophecy of daylight savings time?
What if Rocky could actually stick to one topic in a thread without introducing God, scripture, Galileo, Copernicus, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson in one semi coherent rambling?
I mean the section that scripture I would file under the same as the really old guys in Genesis.
I always considered that scripture motivation in sports. I could believe that God wouldn’t let the sun go down while we were whooping the other teams butts!
If hostile reactions are calling you out on your bullshonta then so be it.
You taking a page out of mikes playbook now?
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.
Though this isnt a "Christian" website, many people here no longer have any respect for Christians or their beliefs. Bible bashing is a large part of what grease spot has become and frankly I find it offensive and seldom participate here as a result. It is what it is because Ive grown so far past the way international I have little left to say on them that I havent stated already, or has been stated by others. I feel this site is no longer tolerant of Christians and that includes me. Peace.
Yes it is interesting here as well as on the cult related Reddit channels I read that there are quite a lot of people whose fruit evidenced after being in a cult is to reject Christianity completely.
There are others like me who reject Fundamentalist approaches and retain faith. I float around churches and mainstream Christians.
I guess the remaining would be in splinters with whitewashed statues of VP in their closets as they try to drum up participants for their latest version of Plaffy the new light which is old light.
That is going to be part of Christs return setting all these imbalances in order IMO. One Lord one faith one baptism not all these clowns spouting hot air.
Yes it is interesting here as well as on the cult related Reddit channels I read that there are quite a lot of people whose fruit evidenced after being in a cult is to reject Christianity completely.
There are others like me who reject Fundamentalist approaches and retain faith. I float around churches and mainstream Christians.
I guess the remaining would be in splinters with whitewashed statues of VP in their closets as they try to drum up participants for their latest version of Plaffy the new light which is old light.
That is going to be part of Christs return setting all these imbalances in order IMO. One Lord one faith one baptism not all these clowns spouting hot air.
Worthy of respect. Certainly not the only approach worthy of respect, but yes.
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.
Hold on.
Just for one second stop constructing more random references.
Consider that perhaps just possibly the things that offend him could be about you?
I mean even Taylor can own up to her impact in “Anti Hero”. Maybe you should listen to that on repeat rather than upping your post count by another 500 random agitated posts?
Consider that perhaps just possibly the things that offend him could be about you?
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?
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.
Sometimes I wonder if someone somewhere is doing an experiment with a chatbot.
It doesn't offend me.
It does resemble a bit of a DDOS attack though. Flood the forum with random threads and contributions that to me and many do seem anti-Christian in overall character. I mean they do seem overall friendly and not hostile.
If all these philosophical ponderings are here then the question I have is “ if you are ADHD enough is a squirrel connected to everything?”
I wonder if anyone here has lived "in the moment". Time and space kind of irrelevant, just melting away- it happens to people with absolutely zero drugs involved at times.
I wonder if anyone here has lived "in the moment". Time and space kind of irrelevant, just melting away- it happens to people with absolutely zero drugs involved at times
This makes the most sense out of everything in this thread.
Recommended Posts
WordWolf
This is "About the Way"?
This is an old point. Responses to it are pretty much predictable. Either it's an actual account of something that happened to that effect, or it isn't even close to anything that happened.
If it isn't close to anything that happened, then there's nothing else to discuss, the account is unreliable, the book is unreliable, and the codex is unreliable. This isn't news to anyone- anyone who says this already was saying those.
If it's an actual account, we have to take into account the ability of the then-contemporary readers and listeners to make sense of things. (That's clear no matter WHO wrote it.) I can easily posit that an All- Mighty God could pause the Earth and suspend all consequences, since He would have the power to do so. However, if asked my opinion, I think it's more likely that an All-Mighty God would produce the effect, and let the puny people understand it their way without any need to educate them to 21st century scientific understanding. I would posit that all planets, stars, etc continued as normal, and that what was altered was the light hitting the Earth. An All-Mighty God could certainly do so, which would lengthen, shorten, or abruptly begin or end a day.
Granted, this would certainly be on the high end of fantastic for a miracle, but that's not proof of anything by itself. If there is an All-Mighty God, He COULD do exactly this, and if there wasn't, then the account was simply cooked.
How would we know which was the answer? Everyone's answer to that is that this was a closed issue before they reached these verses. Either they already believed or they already dis-believed. It goes to the general body of evidence long before it gets here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Though this isnt a "Christian" website, many people here no longer have any respect for Christians or their beliefs. Bible bashing is a large part of what grease spot has become and frankly I find it offensive and seldom participate here as a result. It is what it is because Ive grown so far past the way international I have little left to say on them that I havent stated already, or has been stated by others. I feel this site is no longer tolerant of Christians and that includes me. Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
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?
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Sigh... okay, I get that you find it offensive. But no longer tolerant of Christians? Really?" \
I suspect OldSkool noticed that the initial post was only "About the Way" because of two sentences that look inserted to give the excuse to post this in "About the Way", and without them, the entire post is complete, but neither "About the Way" nor particularly respectful of Christians.
There's somewhere in the GSC you can post and be disrespectful of Christians and have that be expected or welcome. I wouldn't bat an eye if this thread was there. It appears to me that the one sentence on vpw was an excuse to post it in a more popular forum instead. That nothing will be done about it pretty much will make OldSkool's point that "Bible-bashing is a large part of what Greasespot has become" and that it's considered perfectly acceptable to shoehorn this into "About the Way" when it takes an excuse to do so.
Edited by WordWolf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Rocky: "How do we TODAY rationalize it, now that we have pulled our attention and recognition to it? "
WordWolf: "This is an old point. Responses to it are pretty much predictable. Either it's an actual account of something that happened to that effect, or it isn't even close to anything that happened.
If it isn't close to anything that happened, then there's nothing else to discuss, the account is unreliable, the book is unreliable, and the codex is unreliable. This isn't news to anyone- anyone who says this already was saying those.
If it's an actual account, we have to take into account the ability of the then-contemporary readers and listeners to make sense of things. (That's clear no matter WHO wrote it.) I can easily posit that an All- Mighty God could pause the Earth and suspend all consequences, since He would have the power to do so. However, if asked my opinion, I think it's more likely that an All-Mighty God would produce the effect, and let the puny people understand it their way without any need to educate them to 21st century scientific understanding. I would posit that all planets, stars, etc continued as normal, and that what was altered was the light hitting the Earth. An All-Mighty God could certainly do so, which would lengthen, shorten, or abruptly begin or end a day.
Granted, this would certainly be on the high end of fantastic for a miracle, but that's not proof of anything by itself. If there is an All-Mighty God, He COULD do exactly this, and if there wasn't, then the account was simply cooked.
How would we know which was the answer? Everyone's answer to that is that this was a closed issue before they reached these verses. Either they already believed or they already dis-believed. It goes to the general body of evidence long before it gets here."
Rocky:"There is NO logical answer to either. But thank you for adding your insight."
WordWolf resumes.
I included both major positions on how this is "rationalized." As to their being no "logical" answer to your questions, I suppose that depends on what you consider logical. For someone who has been convinced- beyond any reasonable doubt- that there is an All-Mighty God and He is the subject of the Bible, it would appear "logical" that He could easily perform this as written and prevent any side-effects, since He would have more than the minimum ability to perform this.
You asked how "we today" rationalize this, and I added my point of view as well, that an All-Mighty God could choose among how to perform something along these lines, could choose the least harmful method to accomplish it and spend less effort preventing damage, and have this phrased in a manner the people of the time could readily understand.
If that's categorically "illogical" to you based on your own presuppositions, then that's how it's going to look.
HOWEVER,
as I pointed out in my initial response....
None of this is news.
You knew very well what the responses would be.
So, posting to ASK only to dismiss them isn't in the spirit of a DISCUSSION, let alone a DISCUSSION BOARD.
It was meant to take a shot at people who disagree with you. Don't be shocked OldSkool saw right through it as well.
I don't think that was nice,
I don't think that was in the STATED intents of the GSC,
and I don't think that's LOGICAL either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
You've got me. Knowing VPW he likely would have said "figure of speech"? Catholics believe it literally was a miracle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Exactly. So if the moderators choose to let their bias rule the roost here at GSC and allow posts such as these then its pretty much a given that I will not participate here. Its intersting how others demand tolerance in their atheistic view points, yet Ive been very tolerant, yet that tolerance is used as an excuse to bash my Christian beliefs. Fair enough.
I didnt realize about the way section on grease spot cafe was made to "challenge the foundations of one's belief." I thought iit was to tell the other side of the story. Im not here for that and neither am I here to challenge the foundation of anyone's beliefs unless those beliefs tie into "About the way".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
If hostile reactions are calling you out on your bullshonta then so be it.
You taking a page out of mikes playbook now?
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
What if this was foretelling prophecy of daylight savings time?
What if Rocky could actually stick to one topic in a thread without introducing God, scripture, Galileo, Copernicus, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson in one semi coherent rambling?
I mean the section that scripture I would file under the same as the really old guys in Genesis.
I always considered that scripture motivation in sports. I could believe that God wouldn’t let the sun go down while we were whooping the other teams butts!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The answer is “poorly” for $5000 Alex
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yes it is interesting here as well as on the cult related Reddit channels I read that there are quite a lot of people whose fruit evidenced after being in a cult is to reject Christianity completely.
There are others like me who reject Fundamentalist approaches and retain faith. I float around churches and mainstream Christians.
I guess the remaining would be in splinters with whitewashed statues of VP in their closets as they try to drum up participants for their latest version of Plaffy the new light which is old light.
That is going to be part of Christs return setting all these imbalances in order IMO. One Lord one faith one baptism not all these clowns spouting hot air.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Which you would likely get correct if you expressed it in the form of a question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Worthy of respect. Certainly not the only approach worthy of respect, but yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hold on.
Just for one second stop constructing more random references.
Consider that perhaps just possibly the things that offend him could be about you?
I mean even Taylor can own up to her impact in “Anti Hero”. Maybe you should listen to that on repeat rather than upping your post count by another 500 random agitated posts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
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?
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Sometimes I wonder if someone somewhere is doing an experiment with a chatbot.
It doesn't offend me.
It does resemble a bit of a DDOS attack though. Flood the forum with random threads and contributions that to me and many do seem anti-Christian in overall character. I mean they do seem overall friendly and not hostile.
If all these philosophical ponderings are here then the question I have is “ if you are ADHD enough is a squirrel connected to everything?”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Squirrels are connected to Everything. All you had to do was ask.. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Are you experiencing a denial of service because you think I post too much?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I wonder if anyone here has lived "in the moment". Time and space kind of irrelevant, just melting away- it happens to people with absolutely zero drugs involved at times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
This makes the most sense out of everything in this thread.
I like it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.