Rocky

Neither do I. I believe it's an anthology of stories. I respect that you disagree. You obviously have a right to disagree with me. Okay. I, again, respect your declaration of belief about motivation or lack thereof for reading the Bible. That is, I respect it without judging it.

The answer lies within your own mind, does it not? How do YOU define paradox? Do you have any tolerance for paradox? from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. noun A statement that seems to contradict itself but may nonetheless be true. noun A person, thing, or situation that exhibits inexplicable or contradictory aspects. noun A statement that is self-contradictory or logically untenable, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises. How much tolerance for ambiguity can you muster? Ambiguity tolerance is a fancy term for “operating in the gray.” It reflects an ability to accept unclear, uncertain, or novel situations and work effectively in this environment. I hope your ambiguity tolerance is growing.

Since you started this thread for the purpose of discussion, I want to share something I received this morning in an email from a psychologist named Guy Winch. Dr Winch was born and raised in England, I think. He moved to NYC to study and to practice his profession. What We Get Wrong about Getting Triggered Getting triggered means having an immediate strong emotional response (e.g., anger or distress) to content or events that evoke a past traumatic experience. What get's triggered, therefore, is the trauma--the feelings and reactions that are associated with the traumatic event. Trigger warnings were initially instituted (in college campuses) to warn people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that the upcoming media or class includes certain themes, so that the person may either opt out or prepare themselves in order to lower their emotional reactivity to it. Today, some people use the term 'getting triggered' more broadly to include reactions that are not necessarily associated with past trauma. Indeed, in last month's poll, 46% of people said that getting triggered means they weren't able to control not just their emotions but their thoughts and behavior too. What we often fail to acknowledge is that if a person gets triggered but does not have PTSD, their sharp emotional response is likely due to an unhealed emotional wound. This distinction is important because PTSD requires treatment by a mental health professional, while many emotional wounds can be treated (via therapy or self-help) and the sensitivity to them reduced as a result. The second thing we get wrong relates to trigger warnings. We assume they're both useful and effective. But many recent studies have found that neither is necessarily true. Are Trigger Warnings Useful? A variety of studies have found that trigger warnings have a downside for people who have PTSD--they can reinforce a survivor's view of the trauma as being central to their identity--something that is counter-therapeutic and potentially damaging to their mental health as it gives the trauma an even bigger place in their lives than it already has (reminding them, suggesting they can't handle exposures, etc...). If the upside of trigger warnings was substantial, that would be one thing but as you'll see below, research has found they have only meager benefits. Does that mean we should do away with trigger warnings? Not necessarily, as some people with PTSD might use them to opt out and the issue is still being studied.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree. No skin off my nose if you don't agree with me. Thankfully, I'm not dependent on your approval. And I would hope you don't need mine either. That way, we wouldn't need to view disagreement as one picking on the other.

How so??

Good luck with that. Please keep us posted. There are, as I understand it, quite a few contradictions and/or inconsistencies in Christian scriptures. I realize Victor Wierwille indoctrinated us with his PFLAP class to view scripture as something without error or contradictions or inconsistencies. I simply no longer believe him on that point. For examples regarding stories I present this brief clip with Simon Sinek. Take it or leave it, I don't care whether you believe it or not.

History of humankind is ALL about stories. For example, I consider the bible to be an anthology of stories. How do I piece together ideas? Sunesis. I read. Any and all subjects in which I become interested in. Further, my guiding scripture verses, which I have cited multiple times on GSC, are Proverbs 2:1-5. If, however by chance, you might be looking for a way to catch me in contradictions or inconsistencies, more power to you. For I view any such thing that may arise as an opportunity to either or both broaden and deepen my puny human understanding of "things."

I Public libraries!

When you put it that way, the origin myth of Christianity seems quite trite. Yet, your analysis does expose underlying issues with a tradition which has achieved hegemony in the minds and societies of what I can only guess now to be at least a few billion people currently alive humans.

Emotional concerns, and THIS is an emotion related issue, cannot be resolved by logic, IMO. As I see it, they can only be resolved by healing processes and sustained emotional support. You're either triggered or you're not as a result of something someone says. Recognizing the fact (mindful awareness) that you've been triggered, is, I suppose, the first step to healing. (AS I currently view the situation). I'm thankful you're not trying to set rules for anyone regarding this particular trigger word. I think of this in terms antifragility. Perhaps long hidden fragility, if one considers the emotional impact of the word in their life at this moment. For more on my understanding of antifragility, rather than expounding it here, I will only mention there's a discussion thread on the subject in the About the Way forum. Far be it from me to tell anyone what they SHOULD do or how they SHOULD view the experience from their younger days in Wierwille's cult. A former housemate of mine, God rest his soul, J Fred Wilson, explored something he told me was called Re-evaluation therapy. Me? I just read and try to fill my brain/mind with alternatives to decide what to keep and what to reject from my cult experience.

Wow! From a logic perspective, that would seem reasonable. I view the Bible as an anthology of stories. Stories don't generally adhere to logic formats.

Are you saying you want to set forth rules as to what anyone, by saying something particular (that might irk you) "SHOULD" mean and/or conversely what they SHOULD NOT be allowed to mean? I apologize for apparently having used a trigger word from our long gone cult past. NO offense intended to anyone.

Well... okay then. 1) I do NOT see myself walking into anyone's parish, fellowship, church, or otherwise characterized religious practice/group and denouncing them. Whether it was Christian flavor, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, or Pagan ...etc. 2) I made a statement of how I see the situation, disclaiming any knowledge of data or related statistics. 3) Christofascist activity, IMO, is abhorrent. Any person's personal religious practice is totally NOT my concern. i.e. freedom of worship being built into the fabric of American Constitutional order. 4) IIRC, I have recently noted (on GSC) my belief that churches (and other religiously oriented groups) fulfill a legitimate social function in our society even when I am not interested in participating therein.

Yes, apples and oranges.

Also, to understand this, shouldn't we figure out whether Christ has forgiven anyone? As I understand it, hasn't GOD forgiven each believer as a cleansing at the point of accepting Jesus as Lord? Look, I'm confident I'm not going to satisfy everyone. Whether they are satisfied by trapping me in a gotcha, is also a different situation. I don't know if that's what anyone's getting at here, but if it is, it's no skin off my nose.

Indeed. The general concept of humans forgiving others is not directly related to the Christian notion of redemption. I don't believe it is possible for ME to clearly spell out the differences in an online forum. I'm comfortable with the ambiguity involved in trying to understand the different situations. I'd have to apologize if someone reading/following along at home is not. I appreciate the request for clarification. All I can say at this point is I see them as very different concepts. Christian redemption is one thing. What individual humans must do to unburden themselves from emotional situations in which they hold a grudge against another human is entirely a different concept. I apologize if that doesn't satisfy any reader.

Logic is a framework for thinking and analysis, sure. I don't see it as chains on a person's ability to understand life. So yes, I contradicted something. But I tried to explain why I believe it was warranted. Was Einstein always correct in everything he believed and propounded?

Why would/could that be the case? Philosophically, the entire premise of Christianity is wrapped around the concept of redemption, isn't it? From my perspective these days, it seems early homo sapiens probably developed awareness of humanity's emotional and behavioral awkwardness and frailty. They had to come up with both an origin story or (myth) and a way to overcome the human tendency to hurt other people they cared about. Jesus wasn't the first or only person or character to meet that need. IDK, I'm just thinking "out loud" so to speak.

https://youtube.com/shorts/JPJ4sCkKtDI?si=AYguydEHmYw3R_q7

IOW, it's a social concept... like having community w/people who (roughly) share the values and beliefs. Which, IMO, is the bottom-line of what Victor Wierwille set up. His PFLAP class was a mechanism to tap what was already indoctrinated into young people, tweak it, make himself the guru, and go from there. That is, whether he knew it or not. It reaped him temporal (money, sex, and power) benefits even though he sold it as heavenly rewards. Regardless of the degree to which the 30% of Americans figure is fair or accurate, LOTS of people are coming around to seeing the folly in churchianity.

Yeah, obviously the term organized religion also belies the fact the English language doesn't have "a word" that properly captures the essence of what is meant. Hence, it's left to people's minds to play word games (which is a valid thing to do) and pose (rhetorical) questions about disorganized religion.

I certainly haven't found it, but when I was a young man, I followed a man who claimed he had the truth. Today, I embrace life's chaos as well as holding that Proverbs 2: 1-5 are my favorite scripture verses. However, I'm not interested in developing followers. THIS is my approach, not my truth. My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, 2 turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding— 3 indeed, if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, 4 and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, 5 then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God.

Poignant AND salient. And eloquent. Thanks for posting it. I'm also confident that ultimately forgiveness is for the person doing the forgiving.