waysider

I'm not trying to be a pain but I'm still waiting for you to explain how you determine if something, such as speaking in tongues, is "genuine". What guidelines do you follow? Are there characteristics that expose the fraudulent variety, set it apart from "the real deal"?

As they say on another popular web site, "Explain it like I'm 5."

Earlier, you asked me "What is genuine?" It's not a trick question. What criteria do you use to determine if it's real or not? Now I'm asking you, "Were you deluded then, or are you deluded now? How can you tell?" How can you tell? You weigh your conclusion against the evidence. Believing in something that evidence contradicts is delusion.

I don't think I was "faking", per se. Faking implies a deliberate effort. I think what I was doing was deluding myself into thinking it was real. Even though Charles Parham and William Seymour had pioneered the modern Pentecostal movement in the early 1900's, I had never personally heard of it (in a religious context) before I got involved with The Way. That contributed to my vulnerability, I'm sure.

Steve You're spinning so fast it's making me dizzy. First (and this is important) I never mentioned or even suggested the concept of "altered minds". I simply said it's a mental function. Solving a math problem is a mental function. You don't need to alter your mind to do it. When I studied acting, we used an improvisational technique that is suspiciously similar (OK, it's identical) to what we called speaking in tongues. We weren't in a state of altered consciousness. I did it, my classmates did it, lots of folks did it. Were we all Christians? I'm pretty sure you know the answer to that. What is "genuine"? Who determines the parameters? What's the criteria? If something is going to be declared genuine, there must be defining qualities that differentiate it from the false. Supersymmetry? I lack the sort of scientific and math background needed to address that subject intelligently. I personally suggest a much less ethereal approach. Look objectively at what it is, rather than what it might be.

This is possible because the Spirit, instead of our unregenerate minds, gives us the words to speak. You don't need spirit to speak in tongues. It's done by Non-Christians as well as Christians. Speaking in tongues is a function of the human mind, not spirit. History and science demonstrate this to be the case.

Well, here's the thing. The Way theological system strongly discouraged rational analysis. That's basically what's at the heart of the undershepharding concept. If someone spots a flaw in the system, the idea is to convince them they should continue, even though to do so would clearly be like "throwing good money after bad". As we know, there was even a class (W&US), designed to teach the methods needed to lead people into accepting this fallacy. It didn't just happen randomly, all by itself.

"Exception: If careful evaluation of the hypothetical outcomes of continued investment versus accepting current losses and ceasing all further investment have been made, then choosing the former would not be fallacious."

The Concorde Fallacy is also known as The Sunk-Cost Fallacy. Here is an example of how it works: SUNK-COST FALLACY (also known as: concorde fallacy) Description: Reasoning that further investment is warranted on the fact that the resources already invested will be lost otherwise, not taking into consideration the overall losses involved in the further investment. Logical Form: X has already been invested in project Y. Z more investment would be needed to complete project Y otherwise X will be lost. Therefore, Z is justified. Example #1: I have already paid a consultant $1000 to look into the pros and cons of starting that new business division. He advised that I shouldn’t move forward with it because it is a declining market. However, if I don’t move forward, that $1000 would have been wasted, so I better move forward anyway. Explanation: What this person does not realize is that moving forward will most likely result in the loss of much more time and money. This person is thinking short-term, not long-term, and is simply trying to avoid the loss of the $1000, which is fallacious thinking Link HERE I can think of one specific time I committed this fallacy, early in my days with The Way. (Oh, there were many, many times, to be sure. I'm just citing this as an example.) I was lured into the class by a young lady who expressed a (feigned) personal interest in me. At about session five or so, I realized I had been the victim of Date & Switch tactics. I strongly considered dropping out, then and there. The other believers convinced me I had already invested too much time and money ($65) to just walk away. I succumbed to the sunk-cost fallacy. You know the rest of the story. Anyone else?

Garth I don't really think we are in disagreement on most of this. It is true I made the decision to do many of the things I did in TWI, including taking "the class" and entering FellowLaborers. At the local level, it was much easier to think for yourself. If you didn't want to do this or that, you simply didn't do it. But, once you became entrenched in a so-called training program (freely avail yourself), however, everything changed. You didn't make most of the decisions, they were made for you, what time you awoke, when you slept, what, when and how much you ate, who you could socialize with, who you could date (and ultimately marry.... this one was implied , not directly ordered.), what disagreements you could vocalize without repercussions, what creative impulses you could act on and so on. If you failed to comply you were out the door. And, they painted a very, VERY dismal picture of what your life would be if you ever left. (a grease spot by midnight) When you're sleep deprived and hungry most of the time, for long periods of time, you begin to lose your desire for confrontation. You just want to do whatever makes the situation more bearable. Instead of looking at the big picture, you look at life and the future from a very narrow perspective. Now, maybe that's not what brainwashing is. I don't know. I do know it's no way to live unless you can delude yourself into believing that compliance is the answer.

I simply don't see how anyone could have manipulated us into doing the insane things we did and accepting such a bizarre lifestyle without somehow modifying our thoughts and behavior. You don't have to call it brainwashing if the term makes you uncomfortable but something happened to us that mere enthusiasm and devotion can't explain.

I wholeheartedly agree. TWI didn't simply fail to teach these skills, they actively and vigorously discouraged them.

I don't know if they're the easiest targets but isolation certainly enhances the process. edit: spelling

What TWI did was lead us into a lifestyle that was based on self delusion and irrational thought.They specifically taught us a system that was designed to do exactly that.That's what session #5 #7 was about. Eve allowed herself to have independent thoughts. "Look what happened to her. You don't want that to happen to you, do you?" Then, it was enforced by classes like *Renewed Mind* and *Dealing With The Adversary* (along with countless examples in other classes and teachings). Those two classes had no real purpose other than to teach us a system we could use to independently delude ourselves. And, we weren't supposed to associate with people who thought differently than us. Why?, because it weakened our ability to maintain the delusion. You don't have to call it a cult or brainwashing if you don't want to but that doesn't change what they did. If you see a friend or relative who wants to buy or use a product you know to be harmful, you can't put electrodes on their forehead to get them to stop or physically reach inside their head to change their thoughts. The best you can do is to offer rational enlightenment and initiate logical discussion. That's how you prevent cults or at least that's how you stunt their growth on a small level. edit: session #7, not #5

There is also a flip side to this coin. People who didn't give the expected amount to *the ministry* (cough) were written off as dead weight. I have posted my personal experience with this very recently.

The OT didn't *require* it. How do you go above and beyond something that's not required in the first place?

Before posting entire articles or extensive content, please refer to the fair use policy.

Yes, CSBP makes that statement on page 27. (I don't have it memorized, I'm looking at the pamphlet.) That entire booklet (and remember, I have it right here for reference.) is about as unbiblical as it can get. The whole purpose of that booklet is to convince the readers they must give their hard earned money to The Way in order to receive the blessings of God. It's outright propaganda in its finest form. You can't read more than a paragraph or two, on any page, before discovering something that is utter nonsense. We have been through this tithing subject more times than I care to count. The booklet is just plain wrong. The very premise it presents is absolutely flawed. If anything, the booklet validates the concept of this discussion by demonstrating that The Way was not averse to granting favors in proportion to one's giving. Pages seven through eleven state that tithing is this and tithing is that. All a bunch of rhetoric based on misrepresentation of the scriptures. Don't take my word for it, read it for yourself sometime. For a group of people who prided ourselves on superior knowledge of the Bible, we really didn't know very much about it at all or we would have easily seen straight through this useless drivel.

Yeah, I remember my mother used to ask "If all your friends jumped off the bridge, would you jump, too?" I think it's what some people would call rationalization.

Yes, I'm sure other religions do this, as well. Then again, we're not really talking about what "other religions" do, are we?

How could I have missed this. That's exactly the reason. You must have been perfectly manifesting all five "keys to receiving anything from God".

It was my experience that The Way made special exceptions for anyone who had something that would benefit "The Ministry" (cough). It could be money, it could be a special skill, it could be celebrity. I can recall how we used to purposely target such people. I call it *Trophy Mentality*. I am very sorry I ever partook in such activities.

Too many, too similar, with little to gain but some personal closure. The courts are notorious for deciding in favor of the perpetrator.

"Meanwhile, yeah, let's complain about everything." If that's what you really think this is about, why do you keep returning?