Rocky

Occam's razor would suggest that regardless of whether JC ever lied, "All people are liars" retains it's veracity. It's a generalization that is accurate. IF JC never lied, it could rightfully be said that he would be the exception that proves the rule. Further, I think Mike's Gobbledygook is just a lame attempt to translate his PFLAP belief into something that addresses the questions of modern Christians. I don't buy it.

It just occurred to me that the organization's practices with regard to doing good things for people in need stands in violation/contrast to its proclaimed belief in "giving = receiving." If the organization truly believed that axiom, perhaps over the last several decades it wouldn't have been quite so tightfisted about helping the unfortunate.

Well... not yet understood by whom? You take shortcuts, make assumptions and suppositions without testing the validity thereof, (almost certainly) overestimate your own capabilities/skills, all of which adds up to making invalid generalizations that disrespect those with whom you are engaged in discussion.

Thanks for asking for clarification. Again, nobody (well, me that is) was asking or suggesting you should stop telling the truth about them. However, you rightly don't have to let them have control over your life. Obviously, that process can take time to make the changes in one's brain.

Mike, oh Mike. You have written and described several self-limiting utterances. That you keep saying things like, "You really do look miserable with the Pure Evil model," isn't critical thinking, it's a declaration of the walls you construct to keep yourself locked into your favored world view. That's apparently more of a projection on your part than anything else. It's about you, not about those with whom you pretend to converse.

And my feeling and assessment is that the minute I stop being alarmed and indignant about TWI's corporate governance and all it entails is the minute I stop letting them have any control over my life. I no longer need to accept that corporate governance as somehow necessary in my life.

It sure doesn't look like you tried any such thing. When you say "I thought my words highlighted and others were enough if she had ears to hear," you're not trying to talk to her as a person. You're talking AT her as a thing. But you also clearly communicated that you put up your defensive wall when you perceived her writing in her lawyer voice. Well Mike, we come back to EQ. Whether or not you're right (who am I to say), that YOU act like you're right (even if you are right) is not emotionally intelligent. You would do well to figure out that there are more effective ways to make your arguments AND to bring people around to seeing things (whether or not they end up agreeing with you) your way than by telling them that they are wrong and you are right.

A bit testy there, eh? 1) Apparently I wasn't altogether clear. Let me try to clarify a point or two. Not blaming you for anything. Yeah, the nature of evil is wound around deception. That doesn't mean we have to be naïve about it. Long ago we (perhaps most GSC'ers) outgrew our need for the subculture that is twi. We can be honest with people about how and why. 2) I'm aghast at how you could surmise that I'm a fan of any NFL team. I boycott the NFL because pretty much all retired players suffer chronic brain injury. However, I have long been a fan of eagles, so I was at least glad the Eagles won. Cheers dude!

Me, naïve? Shirley, you jest. I left wayville more than 30 years ago. I didn't see any reason to go into a nauseating level of detail.

Unless it's changed dramatically (which I doubt), of course it does. It's all over this forum... name tags, clergy, way corpse, etc.

Now you're talking as if YOU know what's right and Thomas is wrong. That was a YUGE problem with Wierwille and the cult he started. He got everyone (who bought into the cult) thinking he and therefore they were the only ones who are ever right. Your god is too small. Let him out of the box of your puny human imagination.

"In fellowship" or "out of fellowship" those are faulty constructs of twi. Can you define/explain those terms solely from the bible? Have you ever heard them used regularly by anyone other than Wierwille or any of his followers? How do you know Twinky "missed" any words? That's an assumption on your part, unless you had some written or oral communication with her that we don't know about... wherein you would have asked her for clarification. If you did not, then this goes back to your seeming unwillingness to learn the communication model I have shown you more than once. Do you not understand what I'm getting at by referencing magical thinking?

"All men are liars." from Psalms 116:11 Of course, more recent translations/versions don't make this the exclusive domain of the male gender. We can either be alarmed and indignant about it or we can accept that it's the nature of things (a fact of life) for individuals and groups (organizations). Academics have pondered the issue, probably for eons. Interpersonal Deception Theory (IDT) explores the interrelation between the sender's communicative meaning and the receiver's thoughts and behavior in deceptive exchanges. Then there's looking at deception solely from the perspective on the deceived person. When does one first recognize and realize that team sports often rely heavily on deception? Baseball -- the hidden ball trick; stealing signs (either baserunning signs or catchers calling for certain pitches). There's more of them just in baseball. In basketball, there's the head fake (then passing the "rock" to a different offensive player or taking the shot). In football, if the quarterback doesn't become masterful at looking at one receiver and throwing to others, he gets intercepted too frequently to be successful.

Yeah, it's easy for YOU to believe you can separate the ideas from the man. But that's not really how life works. In the actual bible, doesn't it say something about (and I know it's been covered by several posters posting it to you over the last weeks and months) being able to tell by the person's fruit? When you adamantly hold that Wierwille's writings were of God but his life wasn't, who exactly are you deceiving? Have fun dancing.

Well... seems you started to answer Twinky's questions... then got testy and judgmental again. Why do you think anyone here can "see (or perceive) your "heart" by way of anything other than the words you write? If you figure out that someone didn't understand the message you intended to communicate... whose responsibility is it to clarify? Not only have I set this model of communication forward for you multiple times, but it seems you're stuck in some kind of magical thinking that suggests your readers are responsible for understanding you by revelation or something. YOUR words. Your responsibility to clarify.

Or than any of us can even imagine...

I see the dilemma. Nobody who invests so much time and energy into developing a belief system is going to give it up willy nilly. That's why sociologists have recognized that it takes a significant emotional event for adult humans to change their values/beliefs. What you have, Mike, as you yourself described, is a system of belief based solely on intellectual pursuit and near academic rigor. Until you realize that's not the genuine basis for that system, you'll trudge along happily alone in that belief... perhaps. I've noted that you have indicated your reason for participating at GSC is nostalgia-based and that you long for fellowship with likeminded believers. (If that is not a correct understanding of what you've posted, please clarify) But you've also said that you KNOW (not "knew") plenty of pro-pflap believers. Is that really the case? Lest you think I'm trying to trap you, that's not the case. I'm just interested in you clarifying your situation.

Occam's razor - it's simply human nature.

What makes you think her withholding of approval was something you had a right to demand she change? That's (on your part) a demonstration of a deficiency in EQ. You have the right to ask her why she holds that position, so that you can either clarify why you believe she misunderstood OR to try to change her mind by way of argument (not the same as bickering). But you very much have no right to demand she change it. That's a matter of personal and emotional boundaries. Listening with meekness IS the issue here. In the context of this interaction (yours with Twinky) it means that if you need clarification of her intentions, you ask for it without you projecting your judgment on her. And project your judgment seems to be what you described having done.

New ideology (veepee's private interpretation) to justify his bad behavior (sexual abuse of young adult women) and the subculture he perpetrated (lockbox, do what you want but don't tell anyone who will expose you). Did you really understand what he was teaching? He was laying the groundwork for self-justifying sin. Btw, I posted a link in the me too thread to a blog post written by an abuse survivor. I returned today to the blog, Deconstructing Fundamentalism. I found another intriguing post dated today, titled, "Did God Die?" You might find that blog post interesting. The post reminded me of you... not because the post calls out bullies, but because you seem to be more interested in justifying yourself as a particular flavor of fundamentalist (i.e. PFLAP is theopneustos) even though you've backed off of that line of posting. In this thread, in your dialogue with Twinky, you seemed more interested in getting her to approve you than to simply clarify yourself and respond (with meekness) to her questions. Here's an excerpt...

Deconstructing Fundamentalism Independence Day Six years ago today, I lifted my three sleepy children into their car seats, hastily threw our belongings into trash bags, and shut the door on my abuser forever. I had 1,041 miles to drive. I weighed 105 pounds. I had no job and no home. I was scared to death. But I knew the exhilaration of freedom the minute I pointed my wheels south and stepped on that gas pedal. I was done sleeping with my keys and wallet hidden under my pillow. I was done trying to protect little eyes and ears from witnessing his anger. I was done with years of systematic abuse hollowing me into a shell of a person. The times that I tried to leave, and the things that he had done to me to stop me from leaving. For years afterword, my hands involuntarily shook when I said it out loud. Me too. Me f**king too. (more)

Disagree all you want, but it's a fact that ideology justifies bad behavior and the building of faulty cultural systems (subcultures).

Thank you Jerry Maguire! 40 years ago, as a twentysomething, I didn't have much of an EQ. Today, maybe a little bit more. It boggles my mind how long it has taken to figure somethings out.

EQ = Emotional Intelligence. At times, MUCH more important than IQ. For most people, emotional intelligence (EQ) is more important than one’s intelligence (IQ) in attaining success in their lives and careers. As individuals our success and the success of the profession today depend on our ability to read other people’s signals and react appropriately to them. Therefore, each one of us must develop the mature emotional intelligence skills required to better understand, empathize and negotiate with other people — particularly as the economy has become more global. Otherwise, success will elude us in our lives and careers. “Your EQ is the level of your ability to understand other people, what motivates them and how to work cooperatively with them,” says Howard Gardner, the influential Harvard theorist. (more)