Twinky

Therefore, Pres's Pubs checks and challenges what doesn't suit their narrative. Then Way Pubs has a go and checks and challenges. But now - NOW you can check and challenge. Does their narrative match your own experience? The experiences related to you by your friends and family? Does it match reality? How does it compare with what you've read here? I don't want this thread to be just about TWI and its methods. I want it to be about thinking things through, not just about Wayfer materials but generally, For instance: Where do you get your news? Your political input? Same-old, same-old TV channels? Limited number of social media outlets? How about looking at what the other side is saying? I don't care what your political views are in the slightest; I'm just saying, have a look at the other side (no matter how "ludicrous" you may think their views; they doubtless think your views are "ludicrous" too), because those of the other side must be saying something right. What is it about their PoV that makes it attractive to others? Could they be right about that? Even better than looking at "the other side's" reportage from within the USA, what does non-US reportage say? It's less likely to have a political view; it'll be more disinterested but definitely not uninterested. (If you don't understand the difference between DIS- and UN-interested, look it up). You certainly have easy access via satellite TV or internet channels to non-US news sources. In the UK, we have a requirement for "fair and balanced reporting" with newspapers and TV channels attempting to offer the other side (or another side) of any argument. There tends to be a bias towards a set of views, but media can't exclusively push those. That effort at balanced reporting been dispensed with in the USA. Perhaps that's why people like Alex Jones get away with his nonsense and outright lies. Hearing what others say is essential to trying to understand other people and their views. You and I certainly are wrong about some things. As far as I know, there's only one Man who never got it wrong, and he was murdered for his integrity (and hey, some people, even on this site, would dispute even that). Everyone else does get it wrong, some of the time.

Somebody's selling "Christian Etiquette" on Amazon for $20. 48 pages of information on eating nicely, use of utensils on the table, writing thank you letters, how to be a good houseguest or to be a good host/ess, etc. About how to be polite and get on with other people. Nothing controversial, but nothing outstanding, either, or perhaps I was well enough brought up to not need too much of Dorothy's pearls of wisdom. Now let's get back on topic, being polite and trying to get on with other people. I ask you not to bash Mike, and in return, I ask Mike to lay off promoting PFAL (as noted above). That way, we might have a productive discussion.

Ecclesiastes is a weird book and very much on point. Thanks for bringing it in, T-Bone. Nathan, great point. Hope you all enjoy pleasant and searching discussion on this thread.

Mike, honestly, you are welcome to post on this thread. You may have some valid points to make. Or valid questions to pose. I'd only ask : STAY ON POINT and don't deviate from the topic unless really germane. DO NOT promote PFAL or the other books. DO NOT BOAST about your nebulous connections. But please do discuss if you can do so without causing "commotion."

To look at doesn't mean you have to change you beliefs. But you do have to look with an honest, questioning mind, to see the flaws in your own belief system. You can still acknowledge the flaws but decide to stick with your beliefs, as being more helpful than others. Not one of us is belief-free.

Some people die for their beliefs. Or suffer such enormous social ostracism that they may as well be dead (far worse than being M&A'd). Like Copernicus, who said the Earth revolved around the Sun; or Galileo, who in later years supported that same belief? From Wikipedia>Galileo affair: "Galileo's discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be "formally heretical." Galileo went on to propose a theory of tides in 1616, and of comets in 1619; he argued that the tides were evidence for the motion of the Earth. In 1632 Galileo published his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, which defended heliocentrism, and was immensely popular. Responding to mounting controversy over theology, astronomy and philosophy, the Roman Inquisition tried Galileo in 1633, found him "vehemently suspect of heresy", and sentenced him to house arrest where he remained until his death in 1642.[2] At that point, heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas after the trial.[3] " How solid are your beliefs? Really? if push came to shove, would you die or face life imprisonment, rather than recant? Or would you be willing in such circumstances to look at other evidence that might contradict your beliefs?

Chockfull, thanks for your kind remarks. I think Mike is genuine in what he believes. He just cannot cope with anything that challenges that belief. He doesn't know how to look outside the rut walls to see the flowers and the grass and to feel the Sonshine. I think I know why he can't cope with challenges. I don't know how to help him look out of the box, or get out of the rut. I have no idea what satisfaction trolls gain from what they do: some sort of sense of superiority? And bullies. Miserable folk like Alex Jones and others of his ilk. We can only call such folk sad losers, and pity them. It befits all of us to behave in a reasonable, honest, kindly manner where possible. And to examine what we think, and what we think we believe. That person who gazes at you in the mirror in the morning is going to be with you for the rest of your life. Do you like him/her? Really? Would you truly trust him/her as your most confidential friend? With your life, and the lives of your spouse and children, if any?

How many of us once believed in Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy, or the monster under the bed? We matured enough to challenge those beliefs. How many of us once believed our parents couldn't do anything wrong, or would never tell lies? Or maybe that our teachers at school hated us? And later evidence shows us that our parents do do wrong things and do tell lies (even "white lies"), And that, far from hating you, the schoolteacher was really pushing you to do your homework because ultimately it helped you get good exam grades. If you did any tertiary education (university, college, apprenticeship), did you change your mind about anything, when you learned the reasons why such an activity was done in such a particular way? Did study enable you to enunciate your intuitions and beliefs even better, or to know that the "something" you always thought was there - was in fact there? We accept, expect, believe, that professional people are qualified and competent to do their jobs: doctor, dentist, surgeon, accountant, lawyer, bus driver, automotive technician, builder, electrician, etc. There's a rigorous certification process. And if it's thought that the professional may be lacking in competence, the certification is reviewed and may be rescinded. We accept many of our morals, norms and beliefs from our parents and peers. It becomes our "culture." If we move to a different "culture," (say another country, another state, sometimes just another line of work) do our beliefs change? Or stay the same? Do you expect immigrants to your area/country to stay the same, or to "assimilate" - to acquire the predominant cultural beliefs? If yes, why? If no, why? If you were to emigrate to another area/country, would you expect to assimllate the predominant cultural beliefs? If yes, why? If no, why not? Why do they do something differently? Would you look with open eyes to see what that new environment did differently (whether better or worse or just differently) from what you already knew, and try to include the best of what you saw? Or would you just close your eyes and refuse anything other than what you already knew? We continually learn to challenge what we know, from being a baby, a toddler, a disgruntled teenager, ain ambitious adult. It's only fear that keeps us from challenging what we know: the fear of being wrong, of losing face or reputation, of people thinking less of us. Good friends will challenge us gently. Enemies and bullies will challenge aggressively and rudely. Perversely, however, the vulnerability of saying "I was wrong" enhances one's reputation in the long term. And don't forget: there are ways to challenge the bully about his/her own rudeness and behaviour (which is done out of his/her own arrogance, that is, fear of losing face).

That's what the legal system is all about. Challenging one person's version of events against another's version, looking at different versions. Everyone gives it their best shot. Eventually, a conclusion is reached based on all the known, established, facts. The conclusion will likely disappoint at least one party. Sometimes, later facts come to light, such as DNA evidence that exonerates a perpetrator when such evidence was previously not available. Or a principal witness confesses to having lied. Or the missing person or object turns up. Etc, etc. Mike, would you suggest that such evidence should not be considered? And the previous conclusion (even though based on best available evidence) voided, if later evidence points to a different conclusion? (That's a rhetorical question; I don't expect - and don't want - an answer, though I'd be very concerned if your answer was not, "Yes, of course the later evidence should be considered.")

Nice to see you, Belle. Its been a long time.

The older I get, the less I seem to know. And yet, surprisingly, the wiser I get. We can get far too hung up on always being right. Relax a little. Take the pressure of "always being right" off. Permit yourself to be wrong, or to not know. Explore, and allow yourself to be interested, maybe intrigued, maybe surprised, by what you find.

Thought this was worth discussion. Not quite sure in which forum to place it. Seems to link well with some recent threads here. From my Facebook feed today.

Love the car/Just got Excommunicated photo. The little heart shapes, LOL! Go Utah!

Not to mention, a planet stuffed full of nice things useful to a human being, like food, drink, etc. Also, rivers and mountains, forests, animals, fish. And then, a sun and a moon. And a few stars. (Okay, a few billion of those.) You get the gist. None of these seems to me to be particularly intangible "holy spirit" but on the contrary, very physical objects. So, working backwards, would that make God some sort of objective, solid, tangible, entity? Because if God can only give what he is, something solid, tangible, then God too must be objectively viewable, solid and tangible, no?

You guys are "playing in tongues," right? I don't understand a word you're saying. OldSkool's guitar solo sounded pretty good, though.

Video about a couple who were raised Mormons but left when he tried to deal with his gender dysphoria issue. Shaye and Amanda Scott. Very relatable.

That was awesome - awesomely AWFUL! Who do they expect to listen to this? Got through the first 58s, fast forward to the guitar solo, then jumped out. As awful as that bizarre dance routine a while back.

777. PFAL might suck. But the Bible doesn't suck.

Start something new, then. Perhaps iin Open. Maybe Mike won't go there.

I think we have it now, with these "grads" that Mike claims to be in contact with. And "witnessing" to. He's led us to think that these are PFAL-class "grads." They're not. They're these college graduates that he associated with in this random community group. And his witnessing is "once a year" - see his posts above - so perhaps once a year he emails them (maybe at Christmas or Easter?) en masse - or maybe sends a Christmas card - and slips in something about Christ not being born in December but Sept/October; or that Jesus was crucified with two others either side and not the traditional three (in actually, there were probably dozens crucified at the same time; that's the way the Romans terrorised the locals). That would seem to encapsulate his MO so far, and might be the truth of what Mike's "outreach" activities are. But Mike, do correct me if I'm wrong.

Nearly there, Mike. But it's actually "odd that no one ever connected “ecclesiastical bodies” with the Way MINISTRY. " (Ministry should be in " ".) That's if one dare call TWI an "ecclesiastical bodt."

Mike: "Most professors will read a well written and concise letter or text. I have had a lot of luck doing that." Hey, how about doing that here? Making your posts "well written and concise"? That way, maybe we could all benefit. You might not get so many attacks, and everyone else might begin to understand what you're saying.

It may not cause further harm that person, if they've spent decades immersed in it and haven't come to grief so far (= haven't been misled into committing crimes, or harmed themselves physically). It may cause a lot of harm to other people, if the person so immersed insists on foisting this fake material onto unsuspecting victims. Whilst many will have the sense to see it for what it is, there are always those who are more vulnerable for whatever reason, and who may fall for such claptrap. Maybe they won't fall for it as badly as we all did (to a greater or lesser extent), because there isn't the same reinforcing network of "twigs" to support and reinforce the con.

Did your 20 years of deep study of these collaterals lead you to discover where they, or at least the better ones of them, were plagiarised from? Or did that information get "filtered" out? Not sure why something so perfect would need to be re-written, but that's by-the-by (=immaterial, Mike. Don't bother "answering" this point).

What the F does this mean?