Like believing, spiritual is a spiritual word for the spiritually spiritual.  One must not over-spiritualize, as it is critical in spiritual awareness to remain focused on the spiritual and not allow spiritual awareness to self reflect upon the spiritually discerned, for a spiritual understanding is dependent upon that.

Next, I am going to apply the Law of Believing to breathing.

*inhales . . .  Exhales*

I'm pretty good at believing.  Clearly works.

The tricky part is not believing to believe bigger . . . It's the believing to believe believing and just believe.

Once one becomes accustomed to believing anything, then anything can be believed to have been accomplished, by believing.

So if Everyone insists Mike is wrong then Mike is right.

Does that mean if Mike is right about something Everyone else is wrong?

What if Mike insists HE is wrong?  Then Everyone insists he is wrong, Making Mike right?

If Everyone insists Mike is right,  . . . 

Then he must insist he is wrong 

57 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

"This is the second paragraph."

 

That was considerate of the writer.  I had lost count.

Nonsense can be silly and wake up your brain cells, according to Dr Suess.  

Or it can just waste your time.  

Must be a fine line.  I once got lost in this analogy and tripped over it.  Wasn't sure what side I was on.

27 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

There are some "super" posts on this thread that cause the knees to buckle and the head to explode in their nonsense and stupidity.
 

So many words, so little said.

https://www.write4fun.net/view-entry/39196

Quote

 

The incredibly long and pointless story

•  Chris Forbes, Grade 7
•  
•  Short Story
•  
•  2006

Once or maybe 1 000 000 000 times there was a boy called Ben. Ben had a dog that he had dressed up in an alpaca suit and then he had eaten it. Then all of a sudden Australia floated down up into the sky and then all the computers went feral and started eating cheese. They and ate and ate and ate and ate and then they all blew up. Then Ben sneezed and the world blew up and the Adam Sandler (In the movie Click) used his remote to rewind time to the age of dinosaurs and he got eaten up by a piece of dirt. The piece of dirt then used the remote to go back to the present day where all the fish were trying to protest so they could go to school and become institutionalised young piranhas who ate all the people who weren’t tree huggers and then they hugged the tree huggers. Soon all the tree huggers got shotguns and blew up themselves and the piranhas. Unlickily or maybe just a tiny bit luckily there was one piranha left that looked like this: ()(but the fish had a face lift so it looked like this: [][. Then Ben went to the park and ate pizza that was falling from the ground and then he saw retarded monkeys saying things like “gurgle gurgle flippity gloo cobble wobble shingy shong”. Ben got thirsty and hungry so he bought heaps of coke and slabs of chocolate from Idiotic Green Antelopes (I.G.A.). Then Ben went sugar high and chopped off his head so he could go to level 7 at Princess Margaret Hospital in Western Australia. The End!

This is the second paragraph. Please take your time reading because there is a very funny joke in it. After painstaking surgery, Ben was as good as new. Ben went to a penguin suit shop and bought a penguin suit. Then he went to a pet shop and bought two Siamese fighting fish who were mauling each other. Soon one got killed and the victor called Victor said “Hooray I won so I will have an extreme makeover so I can look like this: {}{!” But then the dead fish called Dead Fish said “Then I want to have a makeover so I can look like this: ()(!”Then Ben downloaded pirated music onto his I-pod and went to jail. Then his Siamese fighting fish bashed up all the guards in the jail and Ben could go home. Suddenly the world crashed into Venus which crashed into Mercury which crashed into the sun and made the whole multi-verse explode.

THE END

By Chris Forbes Year 7

 

Hyperbole

"Perfect" is utopian thinking.  

Like the Tower of Babbel.  Where everyone worked toward perfection together and then became divided.

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Polished writing with proof readings and ample time go hand in hand.

Is that your epitaph?

2 hours ago, Rocky said:

It's AN example thereof. By no means is the example all encompassing. For the record, writing skills and critical thinking skills go hand in hand. Increase/enhance your writing skills, you're likely to do better w/critical and analytical thought.

He could show some emotion too.  How else does one write so much and say nothing at all?

4 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

and some who are misled are looking forward to the Raptor before the tribulation period. Don't know if I've punctuated that correctly. Maybe it means some who are misled are looking forward to the Raptor before the tribulation. ...like it's not debatable...maybe should use an exclamation point instead...ah heck shingles doesn't care...raptors don't give a damn.

Ok Dude . . in the meantime I'll keep my eyes on this red dot . . . . in case it moves . . . better safe than sorry.

22 minutes ago, Mike said:

. . .

First Christ was SENT.
. . . 

Sent, not created

2 hours ago, Raf said:

Here's the thing.

We all agree that Christ is, in some way, absent.

In what ways? Well, physical presence, but it would be silly to think that is all. He is also absent in his authority. If you and I have a dispute in that we think he means, we cannot go to him to resolve the dispute. So how do we resolve it? By spirit? Sure, except my spirit tells me I'm right and your spirit tells you that you're right, so how is the third person, who is neither you nor I, able to ascertain who is correctly interpreting the will of God in Christ?

Easy. The Word takes the place of the absent Christ.

See, that's the issue. When you list the ways in which Christ remains present, none are objective. All depend on the person interpreting his presence. And if two people disagree and one of them is wrong, the only way to know that is... The Word.

Any Christ who is inconsistent with his Word is QED inaccurate. 

...

"God limits himself..."
I find that statement to be accurate in the sense that God limits himself according to the requirements of the plot of the story being told by the author. :)

Your argument is that The Word, by which you mean a book, is objective.  And people can't agree unless something objective exists?

Is this the case?

Are values objective?

12 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

Man, your situation is 2 against one thoug....watch your back..

You probably have to do preemptive attacks like me. If I dont at 16 he will try and take me out by any means necessary. 

Oh I had them both pinned recently, was about to declare victory . . . and forgot about the third . . .

Just now, OldSkool said:

Yes! He's doing great. Around 5'8 and 195 and solid as a rock. He has my build, though Im much wider and heavier...thats what I get for lifting weights most of my life...

Nice!

Yes, I resort to my dead weight to assert my dominance here, too 

24 minutes ago, Raf said:

Here's the thing.

We all agree that Christ is, in some way, absent.

In what ways? Well, physical presence, but it would be silly to think that is all. He is also absent in his authority. If you and I have a dispute in that we think he means, we cannot go to him to resolve the dispute. So how do we resolve it? By spirit? Sure, except my spirit tells me I'm right and your spirit tells you that you're right, so how is the third person, who is neither you nor I, able to ascertain who is correctly interpreting the will of God in Christ?

Easy. The Word takes the place of the absent Christ.

See, that's the issue. When you list the ways in which Christ remains present, none are objective. All depend on the person interpreting his presence. And if two people disagree and one of them is wrong, the only way to know that is... The Word.

Any Christ who is inconsistent with his Word is QED inaccurate. 

...

"God limits himself..."
I find that statement to be accurate in the sense that God limits himself according to the requirements of the plot of the story being told by the author. :)

The Word = Jesus Christ 

So Jesus Christ takes the place of Jesus Christ?  Quite the switcharoo

6 minutes ago, OldSkool said:

Arent you special. I spent over two years banging my head against a brick wall with the law of believing for my son's health. It doesnt work. You just admitted it but you are mind numbingly stubborn to persist in error as if you can reason error into truth.

Had something worked or not worked . . . it was opportunity for TWI to assert their dominance.  Take credit if things go well . . . feign disappointment if things don't . . . they have imaginary standards to uphold.

Mike just said "Yes problems arose from this" because he doesn't care.  The system is more important than the person.

(Someone else did care, and your son is doing much better?)

12 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

 

More interesting stuff Bolshevik! Thanks!

 

Your post got me thinking sideways    - so I Googled “fear of losing yourself in a relationship” and all the hits I got were about a one-to-one relationship – i.e., couples…But your post got my processor going toward a wider application – comparing involvement in unhealthy groups (harmful and controlling cults, toxic work environments, etc.) with participation in healthy groups (any group that is beneficial to all - no one is exploited or subjugated )…

...I found this one article in Psychology Today,  How We Lose Ourselves in Relationships - We can lose ourselves in the name of love or peace, but pay the highest price   - posted October 3, 2020 by Darlene Lancer, JD, MFT, licensed marriage and family therapist and an expert and author on relationships and codependency…

I found some of this stuff resonates with my cult experience – when Lancer speaks of romance, I thought of the love-bombing and honeymoon phase of my early years with TWI…and how I sacrificed my personal and professional goals for TWI’s priorities…and when she gets into healthy relationships, boundaries are stated openly, without hinting, manipulation, or assuming our partner will read our mind. Neither security nor autonomy is threatened by closeness…anyway I thought it was a good article – here are some excerpts from it – enjoy:

 

Whether you feel lost in a relationship or are afraid to start one, we can easily sacrifice our individuality in relationships with narcissists and abusers. They usually insist on dominating, that their needs come first and that they are right. Women especially tend to lose themselves in relationships due to cultural conditioning. In fact, even in good relationships, we may do this out of love, not fear. We compromise ourselves slowly often in imperceptible ways, unaware that losing our Self risks our greatest despair. After a breakup, it’s devastating, because we are lost. If we stay, we risk becoming empty shells, feeling powerless and anxious or depressed.

Often there are power struggles, characterized by repeated, unresolved arguments, either about a single recurring issue or numerous trivial things. Many of them boil down to the question of who has control, whose needs will be met, or how intimate they will be…

 

How We Lose Ourselves

We lose ourselves incrementally in small ways. It can start with romance, when it’s normal to want to please our loved one and spend much of our time together. However, emotionally mature adults don’t drop their activities, give up their lives (they have a life), or overlook improper behavior of their partner, despite strong physical attraction. Neither are they desperate to have or maintain a relationship…

 

Stages of Losing Ourselves

Many people do fine on their own, but once in a relationship, they start losing their autonomy, not make waves, and be with and please their partner. When there is “chemistry,” they overlook negative indicators that might be a warning not to get involved. Feel-good chemicals in our brain start to alleviate our emptiness, so that we want more of that drug. We don’t want to lose these happy feelings. If we're unhappy being alone, we're more vulnerable to hold on.

Hence, we become increasingly preoccupied with and dependent upon our loved ones. We see less of our friends and may drop our routine to spend time together. For women more than men, often our work and professional goals take second place to the relationship.

 

The desire to please can lead to obsession. Our need for connection can create denial about our partner’s behavior and makes us doubt our own perceptions. Boundaries become blurred so that we start to accept our partner's point of view.

If our partner is abusive, our self-doubt grows and our self-esteem shrinks. We don’t say “no” or set limits on what we’re willing to do or what we’re willing to accept from our partner. Not only that, but confusion also arises between what our partner feels and our own feelings. We feel responsible for their feelings, too, especially if we're being blamed. If he’s sad, then I’m sad, too–as the Barry Manilow song goes. If she’s disappointed or angry, it must be my fault…

 

…Healthy Relationships

Healthy relationships are interdependent. There is give and take, respect for each other’s needs and feelings, and are able to settle conflict through authentic communication. Decisions and problem-solving are collaborative. Assertiveness is key. Negotiations are not a zero-sum game. Boundaries are expressed directly, without hinting, manipulation, or assuming our partner will read our mind. Neither security nor autonomy is threatened by closeness. Vulnerability actually makes us stronger, not weaker. In fact, we can be more intimate and vulnerable when our autonomy and boundaries are intact and respected.

 

Both partners feel secure. They want to maintain their relationship and allow for each other’s separateness and independence, and aren’t threatened by their partner’s autonomy. Thus the relationship supports our independence and gives us more courage to explore our talents and growth.

 

Recovery

Fortunately, we can recover our lost self. We can escape a narcissist-codependent trap. First, stop focusing on changing your partner. Change begins within. We can waste years lost in this denial. Yet, when we change, often our partner changes in response to our new behavior. Either way, we will feel better and stronger because we've grown in self-respect…

Excerpts from :  How We Lose Ourselves in Relationships | Psychology Today

 

Sideways yes . . .

Kids are born, and then as Piaget pointed out in your link, kids talk out loud to themselves . . . so there's a conversation going on in some form . . . within ourselves.  

When does life begin?  When do we first converse with ourselves? . . . (I don't know) . . . but the concept of the individual shouldn't be assumed or taken for granted.  I'm not you and you're not me and we each came to that conclusion independently.  (I'm assuming )  Boundaries there could be agreed upon implicitly or explicitly.

Using Jiminy Cricket as a metaphor for our conscience, we can develop a strong conversation or a weak one, a strong bond with our own conscience, or a weak one.  . . . . There's some work and energy involved.

I'm thinking boundaries are a by-product of the establishment of this internal dialogue.  What's the boundary between our conscience and our inner critic?  (The narcissist we know sees only the inner critic as a god to be appeased).

. . . .

Followers of TWI tend to use VPW as currency between each other.  Like a hand shake, or a hello.  This is how they validate and acknowledge each other.  Is this a by-product of the inner dialogue?

9 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Very insightful Bolshevik!

The ultimate Egocentrism experience.

Quote

 

Piaget explained that egocentrism during infancy does not mean selfishness, self-centeredness, or egotism because it refers to the infant's understanding of the world in terms of their own motor activity as well as an inability to understand it.^[10] In children's social development, the infancy is the period where the individual performs very few social functions due to the conscious and subconscious concern with the fulfillment of physical needs.^[11]

 

At some point each mind has to decide they are a separate entity from the rest of the matter in the universe.  Don't they?  Interesting we just assume we each are individuals in the first place.

Quote

Egocentrism is the inability to differentiate between self and other. More specifically, it is the inability to accurately assume or understand any perspective other than one's own.^[1] Egocentrism is found across the life span: in infancy,^[2] early childhood,^[3][4] adolescence,^[5] and adulthood.^[3][6] Although egocentric behaviors are less prominent in adulthood, the existence of some forms of egocentrism in adulthood indicates that overcoming egocentrism may be a lifelong development that never achieves completion.^[7] Adults appear to be less egocentric than children because they are faster to correct from an initially egocentric perspective than children, not because they are less likely to initially adopt an egocentric perspective.^[3]

"Body of Christ", "being of one accord", "like-minded" . . . renewing one's mind to the borg mindset?

A narcissist is a person truncated in early development, the self is ossified, the universe is a threatening mother.   With all that fear there's no time to think of others.

. . . But as believers . . . we have no fear . . . 

9 hours ago, WordWolf said:

I understand that dehumanization is a thing.  SS soldiers gassing millions of Europeans first had to stop thinking of them as humans.  That was easier when they were one thing, like Jews or gypsies, but less easy when they looked at all the other prisoners who were neither.

So, the SS thought of specific people as less than human, so it was all right to mistreat them or kill them- in fact, they didn't see that as "mistreatment" or "murder".   It's a little like how one can downgrade plagiarism and label it a virtue, or announce everyone who disagrees with you is wrong and inferior. 

For the sociopath/psychopath,  it is as if all of humanity- except only themselves- are dehumanized. They don't see people as people, they see people as resources, things.  EVERYBODY.  That's as far as I can get. I know they do it, but I can't empathize with it.

I think it was Himmler, kept a small book on his person, probably Mein Kampf.   But he had to remind himself why he was doing what he was doing.  (I'm searching for a source).  I thought is was noteworthy he pushed that ideology into himself.

It reminds me of collaterals or retemories . . . renewing one's mind . . . it's a continual practice to subdue oneself and actively participate in your own dissociation.  

With personality disorders, like antisocial personality disorder (sociopath), it's as if there is no self to subdue.  The commands come from within, not from the outside.  Hitler I've heard was likely a borderline.

Champions of the Lost Cause

On 1/31/2023 at 12:30 PM, chockfull said:

. . .

No your cult more resembles the KKK than it does Jesus followers.

. . .

The cult you follow is involved with making brass images of VPW and placing them in prominent places in life.  And then denying the idolatry by inventing “anti idol”.

. . .

Do we tear down this statue?  Or do we leave it?  Is it history?  Are we offended by history?

It may have been wrong but the cause was just, right?  

3 hours ago, OldSkool said:

. . .

Their limited God is not the same God described in the Bible. Thats a false version, a scaled down version that fits neatly in their little box.

That's what's commonly referred to as "The Great Principle"

I was born, I'm told, due to miracle healings after concerted prayer in TWI.  I'm occasionally reminded about this, at times from people I don't know.

What irritates me to no end is that one stupid moment is more important than the tens of thousands of moments since.

What good is a miracle if that moment pauses life, ignoring everything else that goes on? 

You got blessed one time or ten times 30, 40, 50 years ago . . . What goes on every day since?  

This is the work of an anemic God.  Only good for a few tricks, after which his followers stop living life, since they've hit their peak now.

Remember that one time?  Yeah, one time?  Good for you.  Loser.

The witness of the lives of the followers of The Way speaks.  A long time ago they got blessed.  And then they stopped growing as people.

What's to look forward to?  What has been built?  What sort of legacy is "I got really blessed and learned a lot"?

How would anyone be in awe of THAT God?

3 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Thinking more about wierwille’s unscrupulous ways gave me another angle on the thread title - being right or wrong doesn’t matter to a sociopath.

 

In The Sociopath Next Door author Martha Stout Ph.D.  talks about other psychiatric diagnoses - including narcissism - involve some amount of personal or misery for the individuals who suffer from them. Sociopathy stands alone as a “disease” that causes no ‘dis-ease’ for the person who has it. Stout says sociopaths are often quite satisfied with themselves and their lives.

 

Singular in its ability to unnerve even seasoned professionals, the concept of sociopathy comes perilously close to our notions of the soul, of evil versus good - and this association makes the topic difficult to think about clearly.

 

Another thing Stout addresses is the idea that the sociopaths may believe they have an advantage. More than one sociopath has implied that conscience is simply a psychological corral for the masses. Most of us have had experiences in which someone unscrupulous has won, and having integrity begins to feel like playing the fool.

 

When someone makes a truly unconscionable choice, all we can come up with are explanations that come nowhere near the truth…what is possibly the single most meaningful characteristic that divides the human species- the presence or absence of conscience - we remain effectively oblivious. And even after we have learned the label for it, being devoid of a conscience is impossible for most human beings to imagine - probably no other experience so eludes empathy. 

 

We can imagine total blindness (we have all been lost in the dark), clinical depression (we’ve all experienced some great loss). But NOT to care at all about the consequences of our actions on society, friends, family - our children - what on earth would that be like? We have no past experiences to inform us - no reference we can liken it to. Absolute guiltlessness defies the imagination.

I'm picturing someone for whom ostracism is of no concern.  For most people that would be a threat.  

Long ago ostracism meant death.  But I guess someone could just hop from group to group.

(Sociopathy are sometimes called antisocial personality disorder, a member of cluster B)