Rocky

From A Short History of Myth, Karen Armstrong mentions a point of history of the trinity. He [Isaac Newton] felt that he had a mission to purge Christianity of such doctrines as the Trinity, which defied the laws of logic. He was quite unable to see that this doctrine had been devised by the Greek theologians of the fourth century precisely as a myth, similar to that of the Jewish Kabbalists. As Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa (335–395), had explained, Father, Son and Spirit were not objective, ontological facts but simply ‘terms that we use’ to express the way in which the ‘unnameable and unspeakable’ divine nature adapts itself to the limitations of our human minds. You could not prove the existence of the Trinity by rational means. It was no more demonstrable than the elusive meaning of music or poetry. But Newton could only approach the Trinity rationally. If something could not be explained logically, it was false. ‘’Tis the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion,’ he wrote irritably, ‘ever to be fond of mysteries & for that reason to like best what they understand least.’ Armstrong, Karen. A Short History of Myth (Canongate Myths series) (p. 132). Canongate Books. Kindle Edition.

It's probably tied up in some psychosocial concept. Well... this comment/post communicates an intriguing bit of imagination to me. Notable rhetorical question you posed to yourself. My observation is you are not trying to convince anyone of the veracity of Wierwille's writings. And that's refreshing.

Me personally, I think it's silly to try to pin down a general term like that to anything specific simply to justify an interpretation of another cultish social control mechanism.

From the twi perspective, that verse 14a seemed like a warning to not let yourself go farther than they led you... I don't know whether very many children received much of an education back in those days... but WE have LOTS of truth, facts, and wisdom available to us to grow up into. I'm thankful I wasn't afraid to explore beyond the twi boundaries of knowledge.

And we know (from having examined our experiences and the wacky things twi tried to get us to do, like put ourselves in mental prisons to keep us locked up and continually producing new (class) sales and 15% tithers) we CAN go much farther/further than we were led in that sinister cult. It all starts with heeding one of the most important things Einstein said: Imagine responsibly... or boldly.

Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards. - Kierkegaard Thankfully, we examine our lives in order to make best use of what time we have remaining. -- Me/Rocky And I don't care if they're afraid of me or not.

This might be a good time to expand both your understanding of myth and the bible... and expand your imagination. Thank you for the question however. I don't hold either the bible OR mythology the same way I did as a fundamentalist wayfer. Surely you've heard of the concept of paradox? Oh, and why is it important for you to keep track of what anyone wants to do or believe?

Parsing some semantics, I suppose. Indeed, only God knows, if anyone, at this point. However, the point I was making has to do with Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. After all, our species is fundamentally social. But most certainly wouldn't argue that he put himself in the box. And whether he ever climbs out is quite definitely up to him. However, I also seem to recall NT scriptures about not placing stumbling blocks in front of our brothers or sisters.

I clearly recall Dale Carnegie teaching we do better at winning friends and influencing people when we give them a reputation to live up to.

You certainly can have an opinion, which is just as valid as anyone else's. Nevertheless, should your opinion put him in a box he might never decide to climb out of?

How is it that you try to avoid the message I gave you by deflection employing fallacy? Whether you intended your name calling as a compliment or not is neither apparent in your words (in the original statement) nor is it relevant to what I posed to you.

Mike, I appreciate how you've begun to learn to own your role in the communication processes at work in online forums, but you still seem to have plenty of room for improvement because you still haven't forsaken name calling.

Here's an excerpt from Karen Armstrong's A Short History of Myth: "Science would put an end to human misery and save the world. Nothing must impede this development. All the myths of the world should be subjected to stringent criticism and if they contradicted proven facts they must be cast aside. Reason alone gave access to this truth. The first scientist to fully absorb this empirical ethos was probably Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), who synthesized the findings of his predecessors by a rigorous use of evolving scientific disciplines of experiment and deduction. He believed he was bringing his fellow human beings unprecedented and certain information about the world, that the cosmic system he had discovered coincided completely with the facts, and that it proved the existence of God, the great 'Mechanick' who brought the intricate machine of the universe into being. "But this total immersion in logos [reason] made it impossible for Newton to appreciate the more intuitive forms of perception..."

I'm not sure you can factually perceive any reason Mike "will never get it." Yes, Mike is dealing in myth. But it appears to me Mike expands wierwille's mythology by extrapolating verses he's now focused on with his (Mike's) imaginative interpretation of something he has no way of knowing except by way of his own imagination.

It is MYTH, not fact. Mike is exercising his imagination. I don't criticize him doing so. But it's important for readers to put it in a reasonable perspective.

Myth ≠ falsehood I think you probably realize it.

We disagree. Or, I disagree with you on this. Frankly, I look at pretty much the entire bible as myth and not as literal, factual, rational "truth." So, taking some of the recorded mythology in the bible and expressing your (private) interpretation thereof is IMO, constructing additional myth.

I appreciate how you phrased it.

Ah HA! I don't frequent that forum... or even go there infrequently. I looked and didn't see any threads about books anyway. I recently started making note cards like Ryan Holiday does. I use 5 by 8 index cards. I will use them for reference when writing books or essays (like my blog). I get many of my books from public libraries and don't highlight or underline in them. With kindle books I put in my own kindle library, I highlight copiously. If you'd like to discuss any books in particular and want to start threads in that Movies, Music, Books, and Art FORUM (I mistakenly said thread the first time), that's a wonderful idea. However, if you do, please send me a PM and I'll check it out.

Then contrast this idea with Kierkegaard's " Both ideas are incredibly powerful. We, at GSC (most of us anyway, with exceptions for Mike and others like him) are dedicated to understanding the life experiences we lived under twi/wierwille/martindale etc rule. I also am dedicated to the necessary work of imagining my future and planting trees my grandchildren will be blessed to sit under the shade thereof and contemplate their futures.

To me, the symbolism is they are suggesting to people they should return to foggy mind times.

What you actually seem to be doing is constructing MYTH. There is no rational or biblical basis for either question as I see it. I commend your imagination but not your communications skills or biblical understanding or rational analysis skills, or even your self-awareness. The only basis for what you propose is what you conjure between your ears. If you (or any other reader on this thread were to) want to understand the history and role of MYTH over the course of humankind's dominion over the earth, I recommend A Short History of Myth by Karen Armstrong. Ms Armstrong is a former Catholic nun and writes exquisitely about human understanding of God (and gods) and spiritual ideas through the millennia. In a prologue to A Short History..., "Myths are universal and timeless stories that reflect and shape our lives--they explore our desires, our fears, our longings, and provide narratives that remind us what it means to be human." Myth predates and co-exists with Hebrew, Islam, and Christian understanding of life. My life experience and travels (abroad) exposed me to Catholic traditions which were adopted by various local communities and incorporated into church practice by Catholic practitioners.

Might you possibly have meant the thread in the About the Way forum on Shedding Waybrain: Antifragility?

Books forum?

I disagree with your conclusion as a blanket statement. For many, in practice, it seems to apply. Not to me, however. And it doesn't have to apply to anyone else who doesn't want it to.