Just a reminder folks (and I speak as one who has stepped over the line more than twice--!--):
One thing I have noticed lately is that ¡§secular humanist¡¨ religion is just as religious as any other philosophical position, and that, technically, this fact should prevent its adherents from violating the same prohibitions as the rest of us.
Since the Guidelines state that the ¡§Journeys¡¨ board was ¡§created for those who, while de-toxing from the spiritual atmosphere of The Family, wish to discuss spiritual and Biblical issues, including comparing genuine Christianity to heresies and spiritual abuse,¡¨ it is obvious that the intention was not that Journeys should turn into an environment where ¡§religious¡¨ atheists/ agnostics could violate all the rules in order to mock the beliefs of Bible-believing Christians¡Xfar from it.
And, the plea for respect and tolerance does not dictate that an atheism-preferring construct that ¡§all reality must consist of the homogenization or average of all beliefs presented here¡¨ should constitute an all-overarching interpretation of ¡§true knowledge¡¨. In other words, there is no explicit or implicit demand that this board is in fact a ¡§pluralistic¡¨ one, or that ANYONE¡¦S philosophical position should be mocked or defamed¡Xwe DO come here to DISCUSS important matters, however. Historically, in fact, MOST of the posters on Journeys ARE Bible-believing Christians, regardless of the unhindered, baseless and intellectually insulting attacks on that belief and its adherents.
In other words, we are expected to make, and discuss in a MATURE manner, rational arguments which ACTUALLY logical support our current beliefs, and especially to seek how WHAT we currently belief can actually HELP others, here.
So, absurdities of ALL KINDS would have to be ¡§out¡¨, and would beg rational discussion regarding their weaknesses.
As I have, there are many people who read and post here, who have rediscovered a genuine Biblically-based faith, APART from anything RESEMBLING Berg¡¦s self-serving perverse fantasies, post-TF.
I have observed that there are some posters who, in what they propose as ¡§reality¡¨ (that merely dictates against Biblical Christianity as a religious tenet), are merely ¡§throwing out the baby with the bath water¡¨ in what they illogically promote, and that by constructing their own ¡§straw man argument¡¨ and proceeding to destroy it (and by all possible violations of linear logical argument) pretend that they have indeed successfully destroyed BOTH the logical and historically experiential arguments supporting Biblical Christianity.
This action by religious atheists/agnostics (who pretend that they have successfully proven and absolutized as ultimate reality their claims that God cannot exist within the purview of ¡§science¡¨¡Xwithout defining the parameters of true science¡Xthat philosophically ¡§there are absolutely no absolute, ESPECIALLY the Gospel of Jesus Christ¡¨, and so on) is a rank absurdity and an affront to all of us, ESPECIALLY when it is done in a manner that breaks the rules established for this board.
Again, the Guidelines state that ¡§The purpose of this board is not to preach at or instruct others, but to share our hearts regarding our personal journey out of the Family experience. Like war vets, we have all been through a great deal together and although some people have emerged from Berg¡¦s injurious teachings with faith in God intact, for others this is an ongoing process; some have had their faith nearly destroyed by the group and have put spiritual matters on ice. This board is a space for dialogue between those who are of different spiritual persuasions.¡¨
To pretend, without ¡§within the lines¡¨ discussions designated as acceptable communication by the coordinators of this board, that some over-arching explanatory paradigm ONLY exists within the ¡§religious ¡§ philosophies of rationalist/materialist atheism, dogmatic agnosticism (something OTHER than the meaning originally given to the very word¡¦s inventor, Aldous Huxley¡Xwho by it meant he was NOT Gnostic), or just juvenilely expressed Politically Correct filibustering, does nothing to disprove the absurdity on the face of these pretensions. And, I and others CAN prove logically the nature of the absurdities, and have done so.
Some pretty good shots have also been made against so-called ¡§Christian¡¨ absurdities¡Xlike CS Lewis said, ¡§Foolishness, even when it is about God, is still merely foolishness¡¨ (read ¡§absurdity¡¨). From our shared experiences as TF exers, I am as iconoclastic as the nest person posting here.
I would like to request, respectfully, that the persons who repeatedly violate these guidelines quit being ¡§the pot calling the kettle black¡¨, with regards to attacking those with Biblically-based faith (ESPECIALLY while pulling a phony stunt regarding Islam and ITS form of ¡§fundamentalism¡¨¡Xplease, don¡¦t just deride those who dare to disagree with you¡Xplease make an actual ARGUMENT!).
Failure to do so makes no sense within the guidelines of ¡§Journeys¡¨; what should predominate here is the examination of how we can all agree to make ¡§Journeys¡¨ more of a ¡§place where ex-members can feel comfortable discussing their faith or their personal spiritual journey, seek advice, receive affirmation and find healing from spiritual abuse. It is a place where questions can be asked and mental chains can be unlocked.¡¨
Yes, I was member of a sub-Christian cult, and I have both sought and given advice, affirmation, and healing within a faith that demands of me that I, in LOVE, proclaim my faith to these ends, WITHOUT failing to show ¡§courtesy and respect to fellow posters, and their faith and beliefs¡¨, while seeking to continue to make ¡§Journeys¡¨ ¡§is a place where questions can be asked and mental chains can be unlocked.¡¨ I apologize for the times I have imperfectly done so; I tried.
I would like to ask that ALL of us who regularly post here please remember that current and recently ¡§exed¡¨ former members of TF read here, ostensibly to find something with a clear and helpful message that points the way to a desirable physical and mental life outside of the confines of the Berg-duplicating monstrosity we have all escaped.
Yes, Biblical Christianity is evangelistic¡XI CANNOT apologize for that, BUT I don¡¦t want to personally be the ¡§Bad News¡¨ that obscures its good news, and I have noticed that violating the well-considered rules of the board does produce the bad news that obscures ANYBODY¡¦S current point of view.
But those of you who attack Christianity consistently cannot HONESTLY claim you¡¦re not occasionally ¡§Bad News¡¨ either; can you?
Yes, Bible-based Christianity is ¡§fundamentally¡¨ and inseparably linked to extant historically precise original documents, and to the writings of the Early Church Fathers, whose writings fully examined, it is estimated, all but eleven of the verses of both the Old Testament and New Testament. And, yes, language has rules, and words have meanings. The same rules must be followed when establishing and/or discovering philosophical or scientific truths, including archeological truths¡XBUT, there is a WORLD of opinions surrounding what can legitimately be called actual ¡§knowledge¡¨, or indisputable facts, and there are those who argue their position both honestly and dishonestly; as we all know.
¡§Preaching¡¨ of the offensive kind can just as easily come from behind a teaching lectern at a university by a proponent pf ¡§science badly done¡¨, or from behind the pretensions of a high-degreed person¡¦s desk (and WAY out of their actual intellectual depth), as from behind a ¡§pulpit¡¨; we have all had a major dose of how just about ANY form of knowledge can be ¡§used deceitfully¡¨, have we not?
One person who recently posted threw out one meaning for a word, got a URL from me, proceeded to change the meaning and obvious intent of the original word, and then made a statement that the ENTIRE BOARD occupied the same philosophical position as s/he did, and thereby tried to ¡§manipulate readers into believing [s/he] ha[d] more support for [his/her] position than actually exist[ed]¡¨.
You know who you are. ;-)
Let¡¦s be honest¡Xthe guidelines say that we should avoid it, but I have seen that people from both sides of arguments here do exhibit ¡§deliberate and repeated hurtful or abrasive behavior¡¨. I have done it myself, when I felt insulted or unduly attacked¡XI do apologize for where this has actually been true of me, and thank the coordinators for their longsuffering and patience with me. I have a LOT of personal problems, and ask for the prayers of the praying people among you, and the mercy of those of you who choose not to pray. I¡¦m back on anti-depressant meds, now ( I could not afford them for awhile). I admittedly was a little paranoid, suspicious and angry for awhile¡Xyears of unrelieved stress can do that; you know¡Xsorry!
I also know, for a fact, that persons who have taken the positions opposite mine on several topics have definitely done the same (used ¡§¡§deliberate and repeated hurtful or abrasive behavior¡¨¡¨, that is). Could we please start communicating as adults, now?
I know for a fact that one of them who is quite well-known for using multiple ¡§handles¡¨, has consistently done so, when it has been demonstrated, by others, or by myself, that there were immense problems with that person¡¦s assumed position. This person ¡§chickened out¡¨, ran away, assumed another name, and returned to attack; not just discuss.
Knock it of, OK? Otherwise, you really must eventually admit you really have nothing to say to us, and that you have ¡§bad doctrine¡¨, because ¡§that¡¦s what sticks to a dirty heart¡¨; in a manner of speaking¡Xyou know who you are ;-).
I, and others, both of my position and its opposites, have quite often actually ¡§done their homework¡¨, when the proponent of the opposite side has obviously not.
If the people who habitually do that would simply stop posting for a while, and simply read how absurd and silly, even infantile and stupid, their monologues have become, perhaps they could shame themselves into using ONE name, ANSWERING the questions posted, and be at least WILLING to learn from others, when there is a VALID point to be made¡Xeither that, or could you simply stop posting altogether, and quit wasting everybody¡¦s time?
¡§Arrogant speech, and over-assertive dogma¡¨, ¡§opinions which invalidate another's beliefs or views as lies, and remarks which cast a fellow poster of a different view or faith as one not following the truth¡¨ and comments that are ¡§religious arrogance and dogma¡¨ do NOT ONLY come from one side of the arguments discussed here¡Xcall it ¡§sin nature¡¨ as a Christian, or ¡§human nature¡¨ as something other than Christian, whether ¡§rationalist/materialist/atheist¡¨, ¡§secular humanist¡¨, ¡§dogmatic agnostic¡¨, or whatever, we all have a tendency to do it when confronted.
Part of the challenge for each of us is to continue to ¡§get the cult out of us¡¨ individually, so that we might actually collectively benefit one another.
I have done my homework, on many such subjects as astrophysics, chemistry, and other hard sciences, as well as the lifelong study (31+ years) of the philosophy of logic itself, as well as the overview, for ANY knowledge, of the inviolable tenets of Analytical Philosophy¡Xyou CANNOT break them, they simply break you; like it or not.
Soft so-called ¡§disciplines¡¨, with some of the least actual and factual empirical knowledge of just about any belief system, EVER, may be publicly accepted, promoted or PREACHED as inviolable ¡§knowledge¡¨, seen as always useful ¡§therapy¡¨, and so on, and so on, but the fact remains that they are NOT, and never will be, REAL scientific knowledge, but the merely nearly data-free opinion of any given era.
I have had ample opportunity to formally study, and to become ¡§degreed¡¨ in these ¡§disciplines¡¨, but decided to make my own self-taught study of them while studying actual science¡XI am still well-versed in them, by study and by professional experience, and enjoy discussing them.
However, I cannot honestly promote them as hard ¡§science¡¨; nobody can¡Xto do so is philosophically pretentious; ANYONE¡¦S opinion notwithstanding.
These ¡§disciplines¡¨ do NOT occupy the status of actual observable and duplicatable and genuinely quantifiable scientific knowledge; no matter WHAT logical fraud is perpetrated¡Xlogic is both linear and repeatedly duplicatable, or the attempt at logic fails and the statement does not constitute logic.
Mere opinions do not enter in here; either¡Xthere is nothing personal involved at all--those are just the facts.
I know that ALL math is a self-definitive language (¡§Two plus two equals four¡¨¡Xyes, but two ¡§what¡¨?) which, however ¡§elegant¡¨, may or may not have correspondents in actual space-time and historical fact of empirical observation.
This includes mathematical and philosophical constructs about such things as supposed ¡§black holes¡¨, the ¡§singularity of the Big Bang¡¨, and so forth (and, all are SPECULATIONS about reality, not actually observable hard science), as well as pure non-empirical BALONEY about so-called ¡§facts¡¨ about a very peculiarly Hindu-like construct of ¡§Big Bang„» Big Crunch„»ANOTHER Big Bang¡¨ cosmological fantasy. Any ¡§cause¡¨ is always greater than its ¡§effect¡¨, this points backward to an Original Cause¡Xarriving at God, definitionally an Uncased Causer, does NOT necessitate any ¡§Infinite Regression¡¨.
The ¡§Singularity¡¨ of ANY ¡§Big Bang¡¨ whether from within a ¡§mock-Judeo-Christian¡¨ philosophical concept of ¡§eternity past¡¨„» ¡§Singularity¡¨ „» ¡§eternity future¡¨, or from within a mock-Hinduistic Circular time construct, is still, at least historically, merely a construct imitating, and poorly at that, the Theos of a being described in the Bible, first, which:
1. does not have to follow the Laws of physics, but, rather, created those laws,
2. can create ¡§ex nihilo¡¨ or, literally ¡§out of nothing¡¨ (and, like Martin Luther pointed out, ¡§Nothing is NOT a ¡§Little Something¡¨.
Point: If one can agree to THAT, why not STOP at the point of acknowledgement of the Biblical God Himself¡Xwhy should one proceed, to the false ¡§necessity ¡§ of the atheistic pretentious construct of the Big Bang¡¨ of ANY kind¡Xthat does not logically follow¡Xwhy should anyone PRETEND THAT IT DOES?
The same goes for pretending to have read the work of an author, CB, and then posting an opinion about him which is also not provable as his opinion. Shall we please stick to actual scholarship, and disregard philosophically demonstrably chicken-shit ¡§straw man arguments¡¨?
Thanks.
Please bring on the arguments for mature discussion; OK? I¡¦m game, if you are; just ¡§play fair¡¨; OK?
Sincerely,
OT2 (OldtimerToo)