Rocky

IKR? LOL

I assure you, that is NOT rambling. I'm in my mid-60s now, was 19 when I first met a wayfer and 31 when I exited the cult. I married at age 34. My (fairly short) marriage was tumultuous largely because I didn't grow up learning about personal boundaries and twi exacerbated the problem. I too have dealt with PTSD (not diagnosed) and depression and anxiety (diagnosed). I've also experienced grace in my life since. Lots of it. My two grandchildren are my greatest joy. I'm retired now and spend a lot of time writing and reading. Much love to you, BecomingMe!

Leah, I applaud your bravery. I stand with you. I'm confident you don't remember me, but I was at Emporia in the late 1970s with the 9th. Whatever we at GSC can do for you, please let us (privately or not) know.

From an old friend, Ramblin' Dan. Btw, Ramblin' Dan Stevens knows where WE have been too. If you know what I mean.

I'm confident that WW holds nothing against you. Also, I'm puzzled as to how you would infer that the "site Administrator doesn't want people to read old posts." Are you suggesting by saying "still America right?" that someone is challenging your right to post or question anything here? As I read the comments, it seems the challenging was solely to seek clarification on your intended meaning. So, I would ask, why are you seemingly so sensitive? There's no need to be cryptic with your posts/comments. Tell us what you want to tell us. If someone disagrees with you, they might say so, but so what? I mean, you did suggest you're a Marine, didn't you? I was unaware that Marines so easily get their feelings hurt.

Unless one is prone to being triggered by cult related behavior. Following along without being able to critical assess the situation isn't always a good thing.

Read between the lines of her 20 minutes speech.

So, I listened to the first couple of seconds of a few of the recorded teachings. Nothing very interesting.

I then tried to dial in to Rico's teaching on "God and His Word are Right." Also got "invalid access code."

I just tried to listen to Rico's teaching on obedience to the household. The computerized voice told me it was an invalid access code.

Taxidev, Right. You can get access to the posted teachings without a password. But if you think they're not asking for money, you're not paying attention. Some of the teachings have audio right on the page. However, for Rico, it gives a phone number and access code. Did you listen to his teaching on Obedience to the Household of Faith? WTF do you think that might be about? The issue of money and the R&R group has been discussed since you last posted that they weren't asking for any. Didn't someone find something about charging for classes?

I was only speculating on what it might take to motivate very fine people to do so... not on whether anyone is or is not capable.

If only we knew what we were counting down to, very fine people might be compelled to carry the torch in your stead, Raf.

Very recently, I asked someone on FB where it says that in the Quran. She gave me a chapter and verse. A rudimentary internet search enabled me to find said verses. They didn't say what she claimed they said. Do YOU have a chapter and verse to back up that claim? Or do you just go by what the Islamaphobes in your congregation tell you?

And just how is that "certain pertinent, invisible information" which you add to the equation supposed to be evaluated for consistency -- especially when what one person who abandons the premise related to factual information -- is NOT consistent with various other persons? Against what is said information supposed to be evaluated? What spin might that be? Please be as specific as possible.

How Moody of you!

Seriously? LOL. I didn't say anything about whether anyone should question or challenge me. But I see what you did there. Nice deflection. Hoping you could get me to take your bait so all could be distracted from the question at hand, which is you questioning the honesty of my motives? Again, that seems more like a psychological defense mechanism than a cogent response to a legitimate challenge to your position on the question posed at the start of this thread. One might get the idea that you can't form an argument on the points in question.

I get your point.

Kudos for trying to figure it out. Take the path of most persistence.

It's a freakin' STORY!

Who are you to judge the honesty of my motives? That seems much more like a psychological defense mechanism on your part. As if I need to blame you for failing to make your point clear? You seem to have read comments explaining the concept of communication previously. Your projection does the blaming all on its own, TUVM. And at the top of your comment, if it's not a claim, you certainly expressed it in words as if you were making said claim. Are you really now telling us that you can't be bothered supporting that claim? If you wanted legit discussion, it seems you'd have to at least demonstrate willingness to consider counterpoints rather than dismiss them out of hand. OTOH, that's why I asked you if you could back up your claim about basing judgments and decisions on something other than rational data.

Yes there was. The corpse members got to wear the elite status nametags. IOW, "Look at ME! I'm elite!!"

While this may be only indirectly related to the thread topic of the question on the Resurrection of Christ, it does go to TLC's argument against rational argument. (Three comments above this one) That concept (as TLC set it forth for us) has bothered me for quite some time. Besides TWI being caught up in fundamentalism, it's also fundamentally flawed regarding what really boils down to intuition. But VeePee taught the concept as "reaching up into Daddy's cookie jar." We've seen, both here on GSC and in other forums/platforms, things argued as truth/fact that simply lack any kind of legitimate reasoning or factual basis. I'm reading a book by Rutger Bregman at this time. The book has political undertones and overtones and major themes. But that's not why I bring it up. Chapter 9 of Bregman's book is titled Beyond the Gates of the Land of Plenty. In that chapter, Bregman cites Daniel 1 for the first historical record of randomized control trials. And he gives great examples of how, not limited to trying out new pharmaceuticals, policy decisions that previously had been made on spendings immense amounts of money solely on the basis of intuition sometimes worked but often failed. He then demonstrates, with extensive citation of source documentation, how evidence data takes the guess work out of the equation and makes all the difference in the world on outcomes that can make a difference in the lives of people. My point is that I simply am appalled at the brazenness of TLC's silly irrational argument about what more reasonably should be labeled human intuition rather than revelation from God. Forty years ago, I bought into the silly irrational way of thinking. I don't anymore. But I don't consider myself atheist.

That model is now known as randomized control trials. Take equal numbers of test subjects, give half a placebo, and half the medication they want to test. Record the results and RELY on said results and data for decisions and judgment. Why didn't God tell Daniel to just tell Ashpenaz that he had special instructions from God?