Rocky

MIGHT... your eyes MIGHT adjust to the light... but almost for sure not if you continue to cling to the Wierwille mystique, a la splinter group style.

Yup.

Of course they're anal and absurd. BUT they (the words indicating that turning away from Wierwille or Martindale equate to turning away from God) ARE the unavoidable end result of your fanciful doctrine of losing salvation. And people will (and have) end(ed) up in a conundrum unrelated to whether they actually intended to turn away from God.

https://www.aetv.com/shows/cults-and-extreme-belief/season-1/episode-3

Drat! Maybe that wouldn't be the case in the UK.

For the record, every young adult can be vulnerable. Did any of you see this story tonight? High School senior ditched by his friends on prom night. John Richards, a DJ for Seattle radio station KEXP, read a letter on May 31 about the high school senior, Jackson Loop, that had been sent by his mother, Sheila Loop; he also played the mom’s request — LCD Soundsystem’s “All My Friends.” Jackson had been excited to go to prom with a group of band friends, the letter explained, but on Saturday, May 26, the day of the prom, he got a group text saying they weren’t doing pre-prom pictures, so he waited until 6 p.m. to get dressed up in his brand-new, custom-tailored suit. “And then he waited, and he waited, and he waited,” Sheila wrote. “No one responded to his texts or picked up his calls. His younger brother and sister and I watched him as he started to realize that he was being ditched and I have to tell you that in my 18 yrs of parenting I have never felt so much pain. It was mixed with an indescribable amount of rage. This was… painful. Then, after he changed out of his suit, he saw all of their pre-prom pictures on Facebook, and he all but collapsed in the kitchen.” The saddest thing is that Jackson ultimately wasn’t too surprised that he’d been treated this way. He had often told his mother that he felt like an “invisible, throwaway loser.” His whole life she’s witnessed his struggle to fit in. ----- [The good news is that Jackson had other friends...] But there was a happy ending to Jackson’s story — thanks to another, more authentic group of friends, made up of juniors in the band. They saw what happened and sought to right the wrong. So that Monday, after doing some CrossFit to blow off steam, Jackson headed over to Sophie’s house for what he thought was a “regular hangout.” His friends, all dressed in formalwear, greeted him at the door, shouting, “Happy fake prom!” [full story with video at the link above] Anyway, the bottom line as it relates to this thread about cult deception is to illustrate the intensity of needing to belong.

Do you have computer access to A&E television's website?

How very cool is that!

Hi Penguin2, I think you put your post in a fine place. I'm glad several greasespotters have given you encouragement and comfort. I'm reminded of something Jesus is quoted in John 16:33 as saying. And that an author who helped me break free from the mental and emotional chains from TWI. M. Scott Peck opens his book, The Road Less Traveled with this simple three word sentence: "Life is difficult." John 16:33 "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” I don't want to sound preachy. The bottom line is, IMO, what Twinky shared above. Love and peace to you, my sister.

You seem not to understand life. It may be commendable that you are honest about not being curious, but it's not. The answer may be staring you directly in the face and you refuse to even consider it. It's analogous to having Jesus Christ himself walk by, try to talk with you and you saying you can't be bothered.

1) based on your own words, even in the same sentence, you indeed have experienced a cult. 2) Grandmothers (and grandfathers) can be very insightful. But if she didn't explain to you how that thickheadedness can cause intellectual dishonesty, she didn't take it far enough.

I don't believe that's what you are actually doing. IF you genuinely wanted to more fully understand, you would have to legitimately consider the points presented to you with genuine curiosity.

And you clearly are not at all curious about why I believe that's underlying the issue you want to talk about. Your declaration of certainty reflects a markedly intellectual disingenuous approach to biblical research. All you've been doing is resisting consideration of the reasoning why YOUR viewpoint could possibly be wrong.

Interesting questions you ask... but they might not be related to the issue at hand. You're on a trajectory that seems incongruous with recovering from TWI.

It's a figure of speech. He's in a prison of his own making between his ears.

There's a vast gulf between "anything can be twisted to result in oppressive cults" and a social structure which cannot result in anything but. Your brazen lack of curiousity in exploring the underlying issues inherent in the subject you brought to GSC claiming to not be convinced about the veracity therein disappoint me greatly.

"Having them on a pedestal" isn't necessarily the only criterion for foolishness in this scenario.

The underlying issue IS that the doctrine you claim you're not yet convinced of can ONLY cause leaders in church/ministry settings to teach and model and gradually develop unwritten rules that can ultimately and exclusively result in oppressive cults.

Does the expression "can't see the forest for (because of) the trees" mean anything to you? Again, you're not looking in the correct place to identify the problem.

I failed to correct you when you said earlier that I was only speculating. I was not and am not. For that failure, I apologize. The argument on "once saved, always saved" was long ago settled. If you're asking how or why I believe Dan's paper is nonsense, it's because I believe in a just, merciful God who, if He's interested in having believers fellowship together in groups at all, precludes social structures that can only lead to oppressive authoritarian cults. That's not speculation. IF I were to engage in debate over a convoluted list of bible verses and comparison of the meanings of Greek and Hebrew words, THAT would be speculation because I'm not qualified to speak on that subject. And frankly, based on the inferences (some worded as conclusions) that you made about the subject of Dan's paper and the scriptures you cited, I think you probably overestimated your capacity to speak authoritatively on the subject also.

You're not seeing the underlying issue that is an unavoidable ramification of the doctrine you propose. I am not criticizing Dan's paper, or rather the minutia he obviously spent untold hours figuring out. I am criticizing the concept of whether or not it is possible to determine God's will by convoluting scriptures and conflating behavioral concepts. I will not engage on the minutia of Dan's paper. I think the entire notion is rubbish and not worth the effort. Decades ago, well after I left the alleged "household of God" as Wierwille and Martindale loved to call their ministry, I started examining the concept of critical thinking. Among the things I learned was that it's all bull$hit if you're not addressing the underlying issues. From the linked article in the Harvard Business Review, "The example is like many we’ve seen: Someone in the bowels of the organization is assigned to fix a very specific, near-term problem. But because the firm doesn’t employ a rigorous process for understanding the dimensions of the problem, leaders miss an opportunity to address underlying strategic issues. I appreciate the effort you made to communicate whether or not you understood my point. Here's what I understand you to have meant: you think that my effort to get at the underlying, fundamental issues is irrelevant. By all means, if I didn't get the gist correctly, please clarify. This is not a matter of whether I "know the Word" better than you or anyone else.

Just making the statement (that I highlighted in bold) does not constitute even an acknowledgment that you understand my point. OTOH, I have asked you pertinent questions and posed hypothetical situations that directly go to the heart of your point. As I said in the STFI forum, that while you are not allegedly "100% convinced" on Dan's claims, you have ONLY commented in such a way that you are, in fact, 100% convinced. If you were not, you would at least be open to discussion on the issues I presented to you. I said more in the other forum. I'm not interested in a pi$$ing contest over convoluted meanings of scripture verses listed in whatever order and comparing the meanings of Greek or Hebrew words. I have presented feedback based on real life experiences that demonstrate the sociological and "organized religion" ramifications of the claims at issue. Take them or leave them. I have no need to have the last word on the subject.

It really doesn't even matter whether Gallegher quotes any verses having to do with obeying any people. Churches, including TWI and STFI are social groups. Social groups sometimes have written rules but always have unwritten rules (mores). It is ALL about obeying people whether you're willing to recognize it or not. Here's a not so far-fetched hypothetical for you. A charismatic, but privately tyrannical malignant narcissist starts a ministry that grows as people take classes that indoctrinate them into believing that obeying God requires subservience to the Teacher (PO Box 328, New Knoxville, OH 45871). As one or more of those believers develop "spiritual maturity" and skills at "researching" scripture, they come to believe the Teacher is wrong on something he taught. The Teacher marks and avoids them, banishing them forever from interaction with what the Teacher claimed was the Household of God. One or more of those who are banished suffer emotional injury and ultimately blame God. They turn away. ----- I'm not asking you to explain away or rationalize anything. That hypothetical is highly credible and has, no doubt, happened hundreds, if not thousands of times. I'm only asking you to acknowledge that not all of the answers can be found by listing scripture verses in some convoluted order and comparing the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words. It would be great if you wanted to actually discuss the issue. But I haven't yet seen where you have tried to do so.

While you are hypothetically not 100% convinced, you are arguing Dan's thesis as if you are indeed 100% convinced. If you were not already convinced, you would be acknowledging and giving actual feedback on what I have counter argued. All you've done is claim you get my point without actually acknowledging what you think my point is.

First, the passage you quoted from Romans is OBVIOUSLY allegorical or metaphorical. It's NOT anything else than that. Does it spell out anywhere with specificity what causes "branches to be broken off" or what causes the "severity of God" to come down on whoever it was that fell? Second, how do you come to make your inferences as to what you suggest the referenced verses in Ephesians 5 mean? Third, do I consider "walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us..." and "Be ye followers of God..." to be works? Well, are those things that a believer is responsible to do? Fourth, believe all you want that if you give up your agency (free will) you'll lose your salvation. But don't think that selling that behavioral construct as a foundational principle for behavior in allegedly Christian churches will do anything other than propagate dysfunctional social mores by which those with designs to squeeze out of their followers a lucrative living. By the way, you haven't demonstrated at all that you get my point. Just saying "I understand what you are getting at" is not demonstrating that you do. It's just a shortcut to avoid having to explain whether or not you do. What you have demonstrated is that you're trying (fruitlessly) to get me to believe that somehow decisions, attitudes and actions for which individual believers must take or make on their own somehow do not constitute "works."