Rocky

Where did I say that? I asked you to explain how you came to, after 28 years of a process challenging your beliefs, to where you became a "blessed seeker." Again, declaring that I am somehow so perplexed that you don't tear up your beliefs seems to be the opposite of an actual "I" statement. Where did you read my words saying I was perplexed about you "tearing up your beliefs?" Where did you read my words saying it was impossible for you to be a "blessed seeker who found?" How did you decide that I might be an academic? I've taken ONE graduate (academic) class in my entire life. Where did you read my words saying I hate any idea, let alone that you would be finished with a nebulous process... which actually sounds more like you might never have actually challenged your beliefs. Instead, did you just up and decide one day to no longer challenge your position about Pflap and/or Victor Wierwille?

Please enlighten us as to how you carry out such a challenge. Many times change is incremental. Such a process does not typically involve, for anyone, "trashing one's current beliefs and picking up garbage to take their place." Doesn't that characterization actually belie the fact that you (as many of us have repeatedly observed) completely dismiss any and every one who disagrees with you? In which case, if you do (as we generally interpret your comments to mean) so dismiss others, how could you reasonably claim to engage in civil discourse?

Really? How is that anything like describing your decision and commitment process?

Okay. Perhaps. I guess I didn't see his self-justification in that context. Maybe I should give Mike some credit for trying. Yet, telling me I was mistaken; saying he didn't "fall in love" with VPW; claiming he knew Penworks' thinking process; saying John Juedes made up his mind in session one (even though he, MIKE took 28 years to arrive at his position); declaring "You folks just love to eat up that junk" as a result of (his characterization of our different position as loving to) hate PFAL and Victor Wierwille... I didn't see each of those things as Mike engaging in discourse. I saw/see them as him condemning those who disagree with his view/position. Sorry Waysider. Sorry Mike.

A poignant example of the opposite of an "I" statement. Not something the emotionally mature or emotionally intelligent person would normally do. From a recent Orlando Sentinel op-ed "indoctrination seeks to suppress other points of view so that the preferred point of view will go unchallenged. Critical thinking encourages community inquiry and discourse while indoctrination insists on the acceptance of hierarchical proclamations and the imposition of “correct” ideas onto others." While Mike might CHALLENGE any suggestion he seeks to suppress other points of view... regarding his bibliolatry, does he EVER engage in legitimate back and forth discussion which validates any position which contradicts his?

Got a link?

Of course. Didn't you claim VERY recently that you continually challenge your position?

However, it may be a matter of degrees...

What a lovely sentiment.

I wonder if this approach might actually make a substantive difference in undermining Victor Wierwille's bibliolatry enterprise (aka cult, subculture, religion or whatever anyone else might want to call it). Wonderful (IMO) contributions to the cause from John Juedes, chockful, Nathan, Old Skool and others to what may be incremental but necessary efforts to break through the "heliosheath" so to speak of our current understanding of God and spiritual matters. Sure, right now we still see as through a glass darkly, but how much more can was come to see/know before the "gathering together?" Let's together foster our curiosity.

Wonderful reflections.

A noble but still fallacious argument. Doesn't justify bibliolatry. Where in Proverbs 2:1-5 does it limit the search or quest to the Bible for knowledge, understanding or Godly wisdom to the Bible or Victor Wierwille's more contemporary version of bibliolatry? That is, even if Prov 2:1-5 is taken as a or the foundation for the quest? Clearly, Mike, you've seemingly demonstrated curiosity and perhaps some intellectual acuity to expand your knowledge in this life. However, it's readily apparent (from more than two decades of your engagement w/GSC) that you have genuine blinders keeping you from expanding that search into religion/theology or any other way to characterize "the things of God."

Moral Benefits of Wisdom 2 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. I'm not going to tell you I have THE answer or answers. I don't. But these five verses have become my favorite scripture passage. However, there might be some legit insight in the power of unlearning.

Penworks suggested this would be a fitting topic for the Doctrinal forum. While I can heartily agree with such a sentiment. I believe this is very fitting and appropriate in About the Way because Victor Wierwille's entire enterprise was built around bibliolatry. Bibliolatry (from the Greek βιβλίον biblion, "book" and the suffix -λατρία -latria, "worship")[1][2] is the worship of a book, idolatrous homage to a book, or the deifying of a book.[3][4][5] It is a form of idolatry.[4] The sacred texts of some religions disallow icon worship, but over time the texts themselves are treated as sacred the way idols are, and believers may end up effectively worshipping the book.[6] Bibliolatry extends claims of inerrancy—hence perfection—to the texts, precluding theological innovation, evolving development, or progress.[6][7] Bibliolatry can lead to revivalism, disallows re-probation, and can lead to persecution of unpopular doctrines.[7] Historically, Christianity has never endorsed worship of the Bible, reserving worship for God. Some Christians believe that biblical authority derives from God as the inspiration of the text, not from the text itself.[8] The term "bibliolatry" does not refer to a recognized belief, but theological discussion may use the word pejoratively to label the perceived practices of opponents.[9] Opponents may apply the term "bibliolatry" to groups such as Protestants of a fundamentalist and evangelical background, such as the King James Only movement, who espouse biblical inerrancy and a sola scriptura approach (scripture as the only divine authority).[10] **** Has anyone here ever heard or read the phrase "The Word of God is the Will of God?"

I posted this just now on a thread in About the Way. It's very likely this is a HUGE reason many people have doubts about God these days. From Hector Alavos' book (page 16, btw, he's an actual academic who does legit research on religion and biblical studies and he has an actual THESIS), Begin quote here: For our purposes, we can summarize our plea to end biblical studies as we know it with two main premises: 1. Modern biblical scholarship has demonstrated that the Bible is the product of cultures whose values and beliefs about the origin, nature, and purpose of our world are no longer held to be relevant, even by most Christians and Jews. 2. Paradoxically, despite the recognition of such irrelevance, the profession of academic biblical studies still centers on maintaining the illusion of relevance by: A. A variety of scholarly disciplines whose methods and conclusions are often philosophically flawed (e.g. translation, textual criticism, archaeology, history, and biblical theology). B. An infrastructure that supports biblical studies (e.g. universities, a media-publishing complex, churches, and professional organizations). [...] ... enormous archaeological treasures found in the ancient Near East in the last 150 years or so have set the Bible more firmly in its original cultural context. However, it is those very discoveries that show the Bible is irrelevant, insofar as it is part of a world radically dissimilar to ours in its conception of the cosmos, the supernatural, and the human sense of morality. In fact, in a 1975 report published by the American Academ of Religion, one scholar frankly admitted that "indeed, one of the enduring contributions of biblical studies in this century has been the discovery of the strangeness of the thought-forms of the biblical literature of the 'western' tradition to us. In short, scholars of religion themselves, not just secular humanists, admit that the Bible is a product of an ancient and very different culture. **** Therefore (this is me, Rocky, now) setting aside the extreme imperfections of his character and emotional immaturity, he was kinda sorta onto something with his exploration of Orientalisms. Even so, he failed majestically in his imagination by not recognizing the significance of the cultural differences people like KC Pillai introduced to him.

This understanding (certainly still incomplete) raises numerous questions about what we've been engaged in since our (as individuals) first encounter with Victor Wierwille's ministry, and likely even since before that moment. How have Judeo-Christian scriptures had so much influence through more than two millennia? Beside the clear implication of psycho-social science and anthropological aspects of humanity today I can't help but think a concept Paul related to Timothy has had major influence. I believe this verse is not necessarily "God-breathed" but had to obviously been something Paul himself had observed for years and had a certain amount of "sunesis" IOW, Paul was able to recognize through observation and putting a bunch of 2+2's together to realize what can be a major motivating factor. In more recent times, (well, almost 90 years ago anyway) an American novelist wrote “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” To my understanding Upton Sinclair's quip is very much parallel to I Timothy 6:10. Idk how closely Victor Wierwille may have ever consciously thought in these terms, but I can see how his financial ambition inspired him to build an enterprise he envisioned could take "The Word" over the world. I Timothy 6:10 (NIV) says, 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

From Hector Alavos' book (page 16, btw, he's an actual academic who does legit research on religion and biblical studies and he has an actual THESIS), Begin quote here: For our purposes, we can summarize our plea to end biblical studies as we know it with two main premises: 1. Modern biblical scholarship has demonstrated that the Bible is the product of cultures whose values and beliefs about the origin, nature, and purpose of our world are no longer held to be relevant, even by most Christians and Jews. 2. Paradoxically, despite the recognition of such irrelevance, the profession of academic biblical studies still centers on maintaining the illusion of relevance by: A. A variety of scholarly disciplines whose methods and conclusions are often philosophically flawed (e.g. translation, textual criticism, archaeology, history, and biblical theology). B. An infrastructure that supports biblical studies (e.g. universities, a media-publishing complex, churches, and professional organizations). [...] ... enormous archaeological treasures found in the ancient Near East in the last 150 years or so have set the Bible more firmly in its original cultural context. However, it is those very discoveries that show the Bible is irrelevant, insofar as it is part of a world radically dissimilar to ours in its conception of the cosmos, the supernatural, and the human sense of morality. In fact, in a 1975 report published by the American Academ of Religion, one scholar frankly admitted that "indeed, one of the enduring contributions of biblical studies in this century has been the discovery of the strangeness of the thought-forms of the biblical literature of the 'western' tradition to us. In short, scholars of religion themselves, not just secular humanists, admit that the Bible is a product of an ancient and very different culture. **** Therefore (this is me, Rocky, now) setting aside the extreme imperfections of his character and emotional immaturity, he was kinda sorta onto something with his exploration of Orientalisms. Even so, he failed majestically in his imagination by not recognizing the significance of the cultural differences people like KC Pillai introduced to him.

My link, I thought, was to a clip of a guy in France break dancing. It apparently is not.

https://wapo.st/3OvtKEn

I'm happy for you having obtained "great emotions from the music alone." I'm glad you like to dance. My impressions of the mediocrity of the choreography stand, regardless. There was plenty about the production to "spoil it" for me. Your attempt to characterize my impressions in any way are nonsense. The production was billed as being godly and God-centered. Overall, that's not how I see it. IF you wanted to know what "spoiled it for me" perhaps the emotionally intelligent thing would have been to ask. I didn't criticize the score/music at all, btw. My overall impression is the entire enterprise was Loy's narcissistic endeavor to lift himself above Victor Wierwille. Whether he succeeded is irrelevant.

I had no idea back then how mediocre the choreography and dancing actually was. Dance is art. Art is about evoking emotion. This dancing in this clip falls far short of that.

Yes!

Moral Benefits of Wisdom 2 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.

Would it be fair to infer from your post that you intend to not read the book in question? Might you decide someday to read it?