Rocky

Indeed, to exploit vulnerable people who were too trusting and not guarded enough... and no doubt did assist with mindreading, to a degree.

That may just be a matter of semantics. Perhaps technically true. Nevertheless, those manipulators often can have a great deal of influence over what you are thinking at a given moment. Again, this is, in my view, more a social issue than spiritual. What about "likemindedness" or being of "one mind" or of "one accord?" How does something like that come about? In sports, it's sometimes so tangible that casual observers can see it even if they don't know how to articulate or explain the concept. They call it, "team chemistry."

Excellent example. It's also the reason why John Grisham is one of my favorite authors.

Are you sure about that? I would have to figure that Jesus was quite adept at reading the social situation and dealing intelligently with it.

Regarding the Will Smith movie... we are ALL subject to being conned. And wierwille was pretty darn good at conning us.

Do or can we ever unconsciously, or unintentionally, share them with someone else? Remember the expression, "wearing your heart on your sleeve?" Of course we do not always telegraph our thoughts, intentions, feelings or attitudes. Nor do we want to. Another "of course," is that when we (at least when I was) were young wayfers, social intelligence wasn't necessarily a skill that was in abundance... I wasn't adept at reading social situations, that's for sure.

What a difference 45 years makes. I believe it is very possible to read people. What does that mean? Telepathy? Not really. But still, to a degree, we can and often do figure out what others' intentions, attitudes, feelings and even thoughts are before they are articulated verbally. But it's neither hooky-spookism nor godly revelation. From Psychology Today, There's plenty of research that has been done on Social Intelligence. I cannot recall whether anyone formally or informally taught or even just talked about any concept like this when I was a young wayfer. But I now believe that the intuitiveness that I then thought was akin to revelation from God is related to social and emotional intelligence. It's really not all that mystical (anymore).

We could EASILY argue, that is...

Yeah, it sounds biblical... but we could argue that veepee had different motives.

Well then. That may just wrap up this topic. Did anyone comment in support of the wierwille nonsense? I don't think so. But DWBH nicely summarized and put a couple of salient exclamation points on the subject. Thanks, DWBH.

Well... I'd suggest that many of us have suffered from waybrain, but questioning prior beliefs from said waybrain is a major factor in moving past the malady (the waybrain). Isn't that what DogLover was doing, questioning and challenging the BS we were fed by the cult?

About Princeton Theological Seminary: PC(USA) is the Presbyterian Church of the USA. My cousin is an ordained PC(USA) pastor in northern Virginia.

I vote for the whole thing having been a bunch of nonsense. And I agree that shortfuse nailed several points.

If you don't think it applies to you, why even respond to it? This thread is NOT about you.

... and hilarity!

You could always start your own thread...

No need to apologize. Perception is intrinsically tied into magical thinking. Frankly, I think you make an excellent point about believing equals perceiving. :) I've thought (many times) back to when I first sat through the advanced class on PFLAP. Trying my darnedest to figure out if I was receiving revelation, I perceived that I was doing so when now I believe differently -- that I was learning how to intuitively add 2 + 2 and come up with a reasonable answer without necessarily having to think it through. That skill has served me well even though I no longer believe it to be revelation from God.

Indeed. So elaborating could help us understand your perspective better. That is, unless you're satisfied that you've effectively made your case despite the fact that nobody seems to see it the way you (TLC) do.

Did you say something that suggests you were looking for feedback (in your prior comment)?

1) What experience gives you legitimate perspective to make declarations about "their grandiose out to lunch effort?" And have anyone take you seriously, that is? 2) "... it is not really all that unique, uncommon or unheard of for a prominently positioned individual (be it a "boss" at work, a team leader, a university professor, or any number of other "responsible" parties) to "assume command" and take over a project once it reaches a certain stage of development or success and "put their name on it." Or so you have been led to believe. Care to document and put parameters or constraints on that particular declaration? Intellectual property is an intriguing topic in the legal literature. Are you a specialist in that field?

Were you intending to push emotional buttons with that accusation, or was it just incidental?

Now that wasn't so difficult, was it. :) Oh puhleeze! as if what VPee taught was any such thing? Just more irrational rationalization... and critical lack of critical thinking skills.

Is that a request for clarification? ;) Thanks for refocusing the discussion. :)

In other words, you assumed. You declared what you interpreted from johniam's post/comment and now say that if you were wrong, it was up to him to say so. Maybe that's true... maybe it was up to him to correct you. But is it really intellectually honest to concoct a scenario based on your assumption of his meaning... rather than asking him for clarification?