Leaderboard

To look at doesn't mean you have to change you beliefs. But you do have to look with an honest, questioning mind, to see the flaws in your own belief system. You can still acknowledge the flaws but decide to stick with your beliefs, as being more helpful than others. Not one of us is belief-free.

I've had exactly the same experience with PFAL !

The older I get, the less I seem to know. And yet, surprisingly, the wiser I get. We can get far too hung up on always being right. Relax a little. Take the pressure of "always being right" off. Permit yourself to be wrong, or to not know. Explore, and allow yourself to be interested, maybe intrigued, maybe surprised, by what you find.

OldSkool, what a very honest post. I would never have thought you'd've been fearful. Bravo for facing reality and moving on. I do think that a large part of the value of GSC nowadays is trying to beat out ideas, beliefs, with those who really understand where we're coming from, without risk of sounding weird. Exploring our own ideas and beliefs with others who have been through the same processes, sometimes with different results, can be very enlightening. Quite often, not just in the "belief" side, I find I don't quite know what I'm thinking or planning till I discuss with a friend, who might say, "But how will that work? What about...?" and then I can clarify to myself what I really mean, flesh out the details. Well, y'know. Iron sharpens iron. It's good to try our thinking processes against those of others, to help us get rid of the burrs, and to take our plans and ideas from nebulous theory to something firm enough to walk out on.

Therefore, Pres's Pubs checks and challenges what doesn't suit their narrative. Then Way Pubs has a go and checks and challenges. But now - NOW you can check and challenge. Does their narrative match your own experience? The experiences related to you by your friends and family? Does it match reality? How does it compare with what you've read here? I don't want this thread to be just about TWI and its methods. I want it to be about thinking things through, not just about Wayfer materials but generally, For instance: Where do you get your news? Your political input? Same-old, same-old TV channels? Limited number of social media outlets? How about looking at what the other side is saying? I don't care what your political views are in the slightest; I'm just saying, have a look at the other side (no matter how "ludicrous" you may think their views; they doubtless think your views are "ludicrous" too), because those of the other side must be saying something right. What is it about their PoV that makes it attractive to others? Could they be right about that? Even better than looking at "the other side's" reportage from within the USA, what does non-US reportage say? It's less likely to have a political view; it'll be more disinterested but definitely not uninterested. (If you don't understand the difference between DIS- and UN-interested, look it up). You certainly have easy access via satellite TV or internet channels to non-US news sources. In the UK, we have a requirement for "fair and balanced reporting" with newspapers and TV channels attempting to offer the other side (or another side) of any argument. There tends to be a bias towards a set of views, but media can't exclusively push those. That effort at balanced reporting been dispensed with in the USA. Perhaps that's why people like Alex Jones get away with his nonsense and outright lies. Hearing what others say is essential to trying to understand other people and their views. You and I certainly are wrong about some things. As far as I know, there's only one Man who never got it wrong, and he was murdered for his integrity (and hey, some people, even on this site, would dispute even that). Everyone else does get it wrong, some of the time.

Well, ya see, I want to use my cell phone to call my snow boots but my cell phone can only talk to other electronic devices. (You may have noticed snow boots aren't electronic devices.) So my cell phone implants a really tiny cell phone in my snow boots and that cell phone can now talk to my snow boots even though, because it's also an electronic device, it can only talk to other electronic devices. And then.......Uhhh....something magical happens and the devil pulls a rabbit out of his hat...or puts it back in his hat...or something. (I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn't been for those pesky kids.)

Ok....so....where do I begin with this contradictory bullshonta.... According to VPW and TWI: God who is spirit, can only communicate with what he is - spirit, so he gave holy spirit to people so he could talk to their spirit which in turn would teach their mind (still don't understand how my spirit can do what God Almight cannot ((communicate with flesh and blood)) but I digress). The devil according to TWI cannot communicate with holy spirit because it's a private line right to God Almighty....riddle me this neuro-science boy....how in the heck can the devil who is spirit whisper in anyone's ear --- I mean if God Almighty cannot communicate with anything but spirit then how come the devil gets direct flesh and blood ear access? How does that even happen...satan more able than God?...cause that's EXACTLY what you are saying when you follow your own way brained theology. So if God granted satan ear whispering powers then out of justice and fairness why wouldn't God grant himself the same powers so he can whisper in the other ear? You coming up with this bullshonta from looney tunes? yeah... I know this is from the NT Canon thread....this thread is so off topic anyway it shouldnt matter if Im quoting The Peanuts.

This is the most important thread of your life. I encourage you to stay here and absorb and contemplate all you can. Post honestly; ask honest questions; think about your composition before hitting submit. What you can learn from this thread will allow you to learn so much more about everything. Literally, EVERYTHING.

I don't think so. I've interpreted it into three different glossolalias and back into English. Nothing but bullshonta every time.

Some people die for their beliefs. Or suffer such enormous social ostracism that they may as well be dead (far worse than being M&A'd). Like Copernicus, who said the Earth revolved around the Sun; or Galileo, who in later years supported that same belief? From Wikipedia>Galileo affair: "Galileo's discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally heretical." Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth. In 1632 Galileo published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633, found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", and sentenced him to house arrest where he remained until his death in 1642.[2] At that point, heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas after the trial.[3] " How solid are your beliefs? Really? if push came to shove, would you die or face life imprisonment, rather than recant? Or would you be willing in such circumstances to look at other evidence that might contradict your beliefs?

Chockfull, thanks for your kind remarks. I think Mike is genuine in what he believes. He just cannot cope with anything that challenges that belief. He doesn't know how to look outside the rut walls to see the flowers and the grass and to feel the Sonshine. I think I know why he can't cope with challenges. I don't know how to help him look out of the box, or get out of the rut. I have no idea what satisfaction trolls gain from what they do: some sort of sense of superiority? And bullies. Miserable folk like Alex Jones and others of his ilk. We can only call such folk sad losers, and pity them. It befits all of us to behave in a reasonable, honest, kindly manner where possible. And to examine what we think, and what we think we believe. That person who gazes at you in the mirror in the morning is going to be with you for the rest of your life. Do you like him/her? Really? Would you truly trust him/her as your most confidential friend? With your life, and the lives of your spouse and children, if any?

I haven't gotten one yet and feel left out. After all, I wrote an entire book about The Way and me.

OMG. We so totally need to do a contest to fill in the back of the card. I already saw some fantastic candidates. ”the MOGFODAT is dead everyone is safe now” ”the lawsuits are over and we are Labor Dept compliant now” ”what else are you gonna do with the 40 hours a week of free thinking time you have outside your job” Heres a few. But I also trust when the rest of GS gets on a roll moving their mouth lips tongues and posting tools it results in hilarity. And that for me is somewhat therapeutic I’m not gonna lie.

How many of us once believed in Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy, or the monster under the bed? We matured enough to challenge those beliefs. How many of us once believed our parents couldn't do anything wrong, or would never tell lies? Or maybe that our teachers at school hated us? And later evidence shows us that our parents do do wrong things and do tell lies (even "white lies"), And that, far from hating you, the schoolteacher was really pushing you to do your homework because ultimately it helped you get good exam grades. If you did any tertiary education (university, college, apprenticeship), did you change your mind about anything, when you learned the reasons why such an activity was done in such a particular way? Did study enable you to enunciate your intuitions and beliefs even better, or to know that the "something" you always thought was there - was in fact there? We accept, expect, believe, that professional people are qualified and competent to do their jobs: doctor, dentist, surgeon, accountant, lawyer, bus driver, automotive technician, builder, electrician, etc. There's a rigorous certification process. And if it's thought that the professional may be lacking in competence, the certification is reviewed and may be rescinded. We accept many of our morals, norms and beliefs from our parents and peers. It becomes our "culture." If we move to a different "culture," (say another country, another state, sometimes just another line of work) do our beliefs change? Or stay the same? Do you expect immigrants to your area/country to stay the same, or to "assimilate" - to acquire the predominant cultural beliefs? If yes, why? If no, why? If you were to emigrate to another area/country, would you expect to assimllate the predominant cultural beliefs? If yes, why? If no, why not? Why do they do something differently? Would you look with open eyes to see what that new environment did differently (whether better or worse or just differently) from what you already knew, and try to include the best of what you saw? Or would you just close your eyes and refuse anything other than what you already knew? We continually learn to challenge what we know, from being a baby, a toddler, a disgruntled teenager, ain ambitious adult. It's only fear that keeps us from challenging what we know: the fear of being wrong, of losing face or reputation, of people thinking less of us. Good friends will challenge us gently. Enemies and bullies will challenge aggressively and rudely. Perversely, however, the vulnerability of saying "I was wrong" enhances one's reputation in the long term. And don't forget: there are ways to challenge the bully about his/her own rudeness and behaviour (which is done out of his/her own arrogance, that is, fear of losing face).

That's what the legal system is all about. Challenging one person's version of events against another's version, looking at different versions. Everyone gives it their best shot. Eventually, a conclusion is reached based on all the known, established, facts. The conclusion will likely disappoint at least one party. Sometimes, later facts come to light, such as DNA evidence that exonerates a perpetrator when such evidence was previously not available. Or a principal witness confesses to having lied. Or the missing person or object turns up. Etc, etc. Mike, would you suggest that such evidence should not be considered? And the previous conclusion (even though based on best available evidence) voided, if later evidence points to a different conclusion? (That's a rhetorical question; I don't expect - and don't want - an answer, though I'd be very concerned if your answer was not, "Yes, of course the later evidence should be considered.")

And I thought BR549 was the phone number of a used car lot.

Worth the price of a stamp to write “No” on the back and send to PO Box 328? But I mean their symbolism is on point. Country BFE road. Ditch. Fog covering the path. I mean what could go wrong lol