Rocky

And I apparently sometimes use "you're" when I should (and meant) "your."

Have you considered that Mike doesn't really care what YOU (and/or anyone else) at GSC has to say about ANYTHING? That includes twi, pflap, vpw and any/everything else. It seems to me an honest reading of two decades of Mike's blathering pretty much settles that point. So, the next question for EVERYONE else reasonably would be, "what do YOU get out of paying ANY attention to what he says AT ALL?"

For now, we see as through a glass darkly. But someday, face to face. Has any reader in this topic considered the fact the authors (writers) of various books of the bible ALSO, only at best saw as through a glass darkly?

Don't engage. You will NEVER get him to understand. NEVER.

It seems he gets something emotionally from posting at GSC, yet he has not yet articulated what it is that he gets. And I wish those who criticize him, ("crudely" or "scatologically") would engage in some serious introspection. He claims you force him to respond. Well, the way I see it, the incentive is reciprocal. You want to shut him up? Don't feed [the troll] his emotional incentives. Some of you have heard this from me before. So, it's not just Mike who needs to exercise self-awareness and self-discipline. You will NOT EVER change his mind. NOT EVER "win" an argument with him. Get honest with yourselves. Skyrider identified Mike as a provocateur. Are you co-dependent?

a-hem... this is the opposite of staying quiet. And frankly, you're descriptions of the criticisms leveled at you seem to be blatantly hyperbolic.

There you go again, NOT being self aware. You might WISH you had self-discipline to do so, but your practice doesn't match... yet.

You just made an argument (to yourself) for staying silent.

Your posts do NOT prove anything to anyone.

I get those once or twice a year. Perhaps it's easier than going door to door.

Are YOU suggesting I need to answer to you as to whether I seek Jesus? Dude, I don't know what's on your mind lately, but the words you post are NOT sound, or of sound mind.

You need to take responsibility for your own conduct. I don't give two hoots whether your conduct causes YOU shame. Your conduct is nobody's responsibility but your own. Own it.

Nope. You don't seem to understand basic emotional intelligence. Just stop. Your question to me suggests you blame others for your own conduct/decisions/behavior. That's anti-social.

Those two statements do not compute. IF you view those with whom you seek conflict on GSC with the hatred you expressed, it IS time you stop posting on GSC.

IF that was true, WHY did you continue to post on this thread? You do NOT have to answer everything. IF you believe discussion cannot/could not be furthered on the subject, wouldn't you just STOP any further commenting on the subject? (rhetorical questions)

Keying off of this post by Charity, as well as Skyrider's clear calling out of Mike's chronic anti-social conduct on GSC, and my ongoing curiosity (for which I am immensely thankful) which causes me to learn things... I opened an email today (not spam, I joined this list consciously) I learned about this book written by genuine social neuroscientists, The great thing about seeing it on the Princeton University Press website is the fact I can obtain my own hardcopy of the book for 75% off. If anyone (T-Bone perhaps) wants to do the same, use the code FEB75 at checkout. Before I took the bait, I asked amazon to send me a sample of the kindle version. Here's a key excerpt: 1.1 The Evolution of Social Behaviors Our journey begins with the question of how did social behaviors evolve? Social behaviors can be classified according to the fitness consequences for the actor and its social partners. Four types of social behaviors that are found in species ranging from bacteria to humans are:2 (1) mutual benefit—a social behavior that benefits all involved in the interaction; (2) selfishness—a behavior that benefits the actor at the expense of the other(s) involved in the interaction; (3) altruism—a behavior that is costly for the actor but that benefits other(s); and (4) spite—a behavior that is costly for the actor and the other(s). (emphasis mine) Cacioppo, Stephanie; Cacioppo, John T. (2020-08-10T22:58:59.000). Introduction to Social Neuroscience . Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. All of the above spurs me to ask myself: what does Mike get out of his provocative conduct on GSC. At this point, I can only imagine.

Is it also any wonder way corps(e) escapees (the longer they complied w/Wierwille's cult isolation, the worse it was) had NO idea how to make a living without starting their own spin off? Of course, doing so only kicked the can down the road. Without repudiating the entire cult mindset, those leaders who started their own (i.e. Victor Barnard) made it worse for themselves, their own families, and those who fell in with them on the back side of the cult journey.

All of THAT is about Mike. It's a set of reasonable inferences and conclusions based on more than two decades. NONE of what Mike "contributes" on GSC furthers discussion. I say my brother Skyrider nailed it.

1) How is any of this quoted section FURTHERING discussion? 2) "We are supposed to WAIT..." ??? 3) Did you take Skyrider's suggestion at all (yet) to consider how you're apparently acting as a provocateur? How has your "contribution" to GSC discussion over now more than two decades furthered ANYone's understanding of God? Has ANYone provided written feedback on GSC to indicate or suggest your comments have been helpful in any way?

Some? Pretty much everyone here.

A friendly reminder.

Who would have thought it could be Napoleon Hill, the Think and Grow Rich author, who could synthesize a scripture such as "you shall know them by their fruit" into such obvious insight to separate the "wheat from the chaff," so to speak, in Wierwille, Martindale, and the cult they built? Synchronistic events/occurrences, perhaps to find such insight without opening a bible?

I perceive a perhaps second meaning to Wierwille's "sanctification," more along the lines of isolation so he (and his successors) could have you and me delegate our personal sovereignty (decision making responsibility and authority) to him and his freakin' cult.

Well... "I'm thinking" is a reasonable way to start that comment. We obviously cannot PERCEIVE everything going on, even in the natural realm. Personally, I don't attribute the current understanding to whether or not humanity is separated from God (or god) or not. How can we understand something we cannot perceive? We can only imagine. As such, we're just guessing. In my current world view there's nothing wrong with imagining or articulating what we might imagine, as long as it at least sort of fits with what we understand of the two greatest commandments.