Rocky

Perhaps now, at the start of the new year (2024), it might be worth revisiting the notion of whether and/or to what degree humans do have free will and what factors might hijack innate abilities for said free will.

I've programmed this YT to start at a particular point.

However, IF YOU ARE INTERESTED you are free to watch/listen to the entire clip. 

Years ago, I began to recognize how job and marriage stress made certain things difficult for me. It seems the influence of stress on a person may even predate one's birth. 

2 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Why would a THE man of god need a security detail? Why couldn’t he just beleeeve big enough for his own security? After all, he beleeeved big enough to provide for national security - if it weren’t for his beleeeviing, the Soviets would have attacked the U.S.

The answer is multifold. Sure, believing and holding forth the story for God's protection was only one part of it. The reality was more complicated. Any religion seeking to stir up the dust and challenge entrenched church empires was bound to be a magnet attracting disturbed individuals.

Further complications entered when the hired heavies (official bless patrol, would get LEO certification and carry firearms). With that came another level of arrogance both on the part of the MOGs and those who carried the hardware.

4 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

This must have been pre-LCM. Didn’t he hate gays with the same passion as Westboro?

It was before Loy was in charge, yes. Westboro, at the time, must have been still trying to settle on its identity, who do they hate most. It wasn't about gays for either group, as intensely as it became only a few years later.

2 hours ago, Nathan_Jr said:

What was Westboro protesting?

TWI

11 hours ago, Rusty Duck said:

Any stories about serving on Bless Patrol at any of the Rock of Ages? I was on Bless Patrol at the back door of the House of Wierwille in 1981. It was surreal watching Dubofsky, Lynn and Martindale shooting hoops and performing for anyone nearby. The motorcoach was tucked into a portion of the driveway and seemed to be a social meeting spot for the upper muckety-mucks. I was a nervous wreck, so petrified of being singled out for an inquisition or something of that sort. Silly, I know. But it's my memory.

I clearly remember one ROA night time bless patrol shift keeping an eye on the protesters from Westboro Baptist Church. This was well before the Westboro folks had become well-known throughout the country. Same flavor they retained for the decades to come. Hateful signs in abundance.

It was a very cold (maybe down into the 50s F.) August mid 1970s night in rural Ohio, before The Way began holding ROAs at HQ. I remember the yellow Bless Patrol hats and standing (shivering) with a guy (who later served in the 7th corpse) for a couple of hours. It may have been boring, but I recall a sense of camaraderie on an otherwise calm night. 

3 hours ago, Raf said:

I like to think it's because I chilled the F out, but ok.

Please drop it.

Raf/Modcat said (to chockfull)...

2 hours ago, chockfull said:

Yeah the similarities are that LLM is trained on huge amounts of data that could almost simulate human experience.  Then it generates the next most logical thing from that training.

If you think about it the TWI follower listens to very specific ways they run the prayer and TIP in meetings for quite a while watching others do it.  Then they take a class and get “trained” in TIP.  There is a definite case for saying they are also generating a response constructed from previous experiences, and believing because a few phrases are extemporaneously spoken that indicates that it is God giving the words.

We have all seen and experienced some major f ups in meetings when people “get it wrong”.  They are corrected and over time they produce a uniform output.

FFS... when YOU blame YOUR words/actions on what (anyone other than yourself) someone else says or does or doesn't say or doesn't do... 

50 minutes ago, chockfull said:

Why would you possibly think that someone asking you to clarify a post is hijacking your thread?  Maybe your response to the question of “who died and made you God?” sounds more like you are hijacking your own thread with personal attacks.

Certainly your vehement insistence on not answering any questions about what you post could hijack a thread.

Look in the mirror for your hijacking culprit.

You can have the last word. I disagree with you, but you get/got to have your say on my thread. Congrats.

1 hour ago, chockfull said:

Gosh who would guess playing dumb, dodging questions about what you write, and gaslighting people about their supposed mood could possibly make you unpopular?

Okay, you don't like me. I accept that. Why, again, would you EXPECT (even if not demanding) me to do anything other than decline to respond to your questions?  

How does your insulting commenting pose anything that a reasonable person would expect me to respond to? 

Put another way, why do you think it is acceptable for you to hijack my thread? 

3 hours ago, chockfull said:

Clueless deflection completely unaware of negative impact of actions and blaming it on my supposed “mood”.  
 

Coincidentally this mirrors the complete lack of awareness and ownership of words and actions of TWI leadership even though I don’t think this individual was involved in TWI leadership.

Gosh, who would guess that wishing someone well could warrant such a response? 

1 hour ago, chockfull said:

No but I’m gonna see your “keys to life” on every thread regardless of who initiates it.  Whether I want to or not.

Gosh, I hope you're mood lifts soon. 

Did YOU initiate this thread? 

1 hour ago, chockfull said:

And now you are babbling.  That is your “projection”.

And deflecting from answering a simple question - “what facts from cult facts do you disagree with or consider exaggerated?”

Again, who died and made you god?

Put another way, what makes you think I am required to comply with your demands?

1 hour ago, chockfull said:

It is an observation about your approach to the cult facts website where you like to label facts as something to ignore that robots made up.  (paraphrase of you)  since the observation is of your behavior not mine it is illogical to call it projection.

Yes.  Your delusions.  I tend to call facts facts as opposed to something to ignore that robots made up.

 

Your private interpretation of what I wrote about the cult facts website. 

When you write "where you like to label..." what Chockfull claims are, without making clear how/why s/he characterizes said claims as facts...," action(s) are most probably projection.

I acknowledge that by directly pointing out what you said is dubious, I am inviting you, unfortunately not to a discussion of disagreement but to most likely inviting you to defend your claims.

That's, to me, unfortunate. What I'm NOT doing, is characterizing YOU. 

And I'm NOT prescribing what I believe you SHOULD do... about anything.

You are who and what you are and what you want to be. 

IF I were to invite you to discuss particular disagreement about it, I would ask you to define the parameters of this phenomenon you claim is FACT.

Is it solely that some entity (could be human intelligence or artificial intelligence) has a source outside of itself to point to as a source? Or is it important for the source to be determined as authoritative?

5 hours ago, chockfull said:

Sounds like you have some issues to sort through.  I’m not arguing with you about your delusions.

Cult facts is a site about cults that contains footnotes, bibliographical info, and links to sources

Wow. "Sounds like you have some issues to sort through." How is that NOT a demonstration of projection?

"I’m not arguing with you about your delusions." Oh, really? MY delusions?

"Cult facts is a site about cults that contains footnotes, bibliographical info, and links to sources" Have you ever taken any courses or done any reading on the subject of logic, logical fallacies, or critical thinking/analysis? This might be a good time to start doing so.

So, any presentation of claims, as long as neatly formatted and accompanied by "any ol' someone's written statement (footnotes, bibliography, etc.) attesting to the veracity of those claims" automatically qualifies that presentation as factual? 

Methinks thou doth protest too much.  

And speaking of "Compared to What?" News today that Les McCann, jazz musician whose sole hit was thus titled, passed today at age 88. 

As compared to what?

The landscape on both sides of the road seems lush with mature trees.

9 hours ago, chockfull said:

This is about facts not whether someone agrees with you or not.

Facts according to whom?

Just because YOU claim something is a fact?

As the saying goes, who died and made you God?

2 hours ago, chockfull said:

So the times I could be swayed by nostalgia and the idea of a large church with many friends (they were fake) I recollect the doctrinal and practical manipulation of these people and others who have published their accounts, and I thank God on my knees that I am no longer subservient to little Napoleons and their Machiavellian imaginations and their evil acts against those in their own house.

I would hope that freedom you enjoy and for which you are thankful extends to having no care for whether such people agree or disagree with you or see things the same way you do. THAT would be a freedom worth rejoicing about. 

8 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Mmmph

Not only that but also Harumph! 

5 hours ago, chockfull said:

Are you saying you don’t think that 50 of the Ways past leaders coerced people under their authority to have sex outside of marriage?

I find it interesting you would characterize the AI claim that way. 

It didn't claim "50 of the Way's past leaders coerced people..." that's what not it claimed.

It claimed conspiracy.

Conspiracy is a very specific word, the meaning of which is NOT encompassed by how you apparently paraphrased it.

Therefore, I AM saying, your paraphrase thereof, or characterization is NOT what the AI alleged.

As far as "sex outside of marriage..." consider there are approx 8 BILLION people alive on Earth at this time.

Sex is universal. Pretty much everybody does it.

As to your effort to pigeon-hole me into "debating" or even answering the question the way you phrased it, I am not interested and will not do so.

As to the old Wierwille tactic of answering a question with a question, in this case, I explained to you why I will not "debate" the question as you asked it.

Have a nice day, and a Happy New Year.   

5 hours ago, chockfull said:

Let’s go back to “what do you feel is factually inaccurate about the site or is exaggerated exactly?”

Or is this just a fleeting commentary which was the first thing that popped into your mind and I shouldn’t take your words seriously or literally?

What makes you think I need to convince you on whether or not to take my words seriously or literally?

I write what I write. You read what you read. You're not in my head, you're in YOUR head. I'm not concerned with whether you believe me or not; whether you agree with me or not.

I'm not interested in controlling you or your perceptions.

Take what I write and either accept it or not. I don't care what you decide about it.

If you disregard my words, you will neither be the first nor the last person on Earth to do so. 

5 hours ago, chockfull said:

So your sole reason for believing AI was involved was the amount of work into the website?  

In your mind what does “the website was built by an AI” mean?

Can you walk me thru the steps the human would take to do this?  Or to build the website via AI?

Where would any inaccuracies come in there?

I have modified my view of this that whoever put this stuff up may have used AI or some form of search aid like Bard to collect the source quotes from victims.  That is a simple collation from internet sites.

The cult pages themselves were done by people.  People selected what to put on the title page and how to arrange the quotes and claims using a template.  They did this to expose the facts about cults.  They did a good job and are factual and thorough.

What is your problem with the site exactly?

 

Are you asking me to justify to you how I view that site?

Why would you need me to do that?

Fine, you believe/view it differently than me. I don't see that as a problem to be overcome.

I don't need you to agree with me.  

4 hours ago, chockfull said:

Does it bother you that the cult facts group was never involved in TWI (they are unfamiliar with innie jargon) and yet have done a better job collating personal accounts than any other site including your favorites?  Does that devalue their work that it is not their personal account?

Why would it bother me? 

AI wouldn't be familiar with how wayfers talk.

My favorites? What on Earth are you talking about.

I am convinced the website was built by an AI.

There was far more work that went into the site than any person or small group could have done.

And a large group would not have been able to do it either.

I also have no problem with you viewing the website differently than I do. 

4 hours ago, chockfull said:

Most of what I have I gained through pain.

You and me (and many others who have survived to become "seniors") both. 

we^[b] boast in the hope of the glory of God. ³ Not only so, but we^[c] also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; ⁴ perseverance, character; and character, hope. ⁵ And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us. 

From Romans 5, NIV.