Bolshevik

Scripture, The Bible, is not *a* language. "It interprets itself", though.

*I* should emphasize that the corps seemed to be uncomfortable with the idea that interpretation is not set in stone, while at the same time utilizing the concept that interpretation can vary as a sales tool. PFAL conditions its students into a rigid framework . . . down the road a person can use rigid thinking that against another.

You're mentioning background information and perceptions one brings to what one is reading. I had to take an elective where we read plays. When it was my turn to read I was told I read like an engineer. (well . . . duh . . . sorry I ruined your play) . . . The instructor then explained HOW you read something is HOW you understand it. Back at HQ it appeared to me to bother corps when the phrase was repeated. However, I also remember the folks who are now in R&R once repeating phrases like: you are righteous now and they would repeat: YOU are righteous now you ARE righteous now you are RIGHTEOUS now you are righteous NOW Emphasizing any word in the same phrase can alter what is perceived from the phrase. How it is read changes what is understood. Scripture interprets interprets itself, right?

He was New York Region coordinator when I knew him. All the research has been done. I'm he had his hands full re-searching pat answers and avoiding the right people at HQ.

I suppose TODAY should interpret itself

Like Receiving The Holy Spirit Today? Just for sales? Cause it all about this day, time and hour . . .

Hey! Chavoustie is on the crew. I once may or may not have irritated him with questions. Someone should definitely ask him.

What's "Today" from? Like it hasn't been known since all the research had been done .. BUUUTT . . . TODAY

2009? Why not just post Victor Paul Wierwille's words on the topic? His words interpret themselves.

I usually associate The Law of Believing, like the Law of Attraction, with Ego Inflation. There was certainly a process to it. This link, https://www.drgeorgesimon.com/the-root-of-narcissistic-ego-inflation/ The writer associates ego inflation with death, which is interesting. He uses some religious terminology. VPW's condition was likely like a death. Some refer to it as zombies or the walking dead. He was just not capable of some things. People applying VPW's Law of Believing also experience a death, or dying.

It's like splitting (black and white thinking) . . . The reasoning behind each is Word Salad.

I don't know if you are referring to specific verses that interpret themselves . . . or the concept that gods are collective projections of a population's parents/ancestors . . . or something else? I don't agree that the Bible outlines a Law of Believing. That came from VPW's distortions.

https://www.heraldopenaccess.us/openaccess/dissociation-and-confabulation-in-narcissistic-disorders Narcissists and psychopaths dissociate (erase memories) a lot (are amnesiac) because their contact with the world and with others is via a fictitious construct: The False Self. Narcissists never experience reality directly but through a distorting lens darkly. They get rid of any information that challenges their grandiose self-perception and the narrative they had constructed to explicate, excuse and legitimize their antisocial, self-centred and exploitative behaviors, choices and idiosyncrasies. In an attempt to compensate for the yawning gaps in memory, narcissists and psychopaths confabulate: They invent plausible "plug ins" and scenarios of how things might, could, or should have plausibly occurred. To outsiders, these fictional stopgaps appear as lies. But the narcissist fervently believes in their reality: He may not actually remember what had happened-but surely it could not have happened any other way! These tenuous concocted fillers are subject to frequent revision as the narcissist's inner world and external circumstances evolve. This is why narcissists and psychopaths often contradict themselves. Tomorrow's confabulation often negates yesterday's. The narcissist and psychopath do not remember their previous tales because they are not invested with the emotions and cognitions that are integral parts of real memories.

ah, the HOW of the Word. So HOW do we choose what tools to interpret the Word that interprets itself except for when it is not?

(emphasis added by me) It DOES sound passive. If I gave something to someone, did something for someone, or the like . . . I didn't do it, God worked through me. The receiver doesn't have to remember traits about who did what for who . . . in the sense of trust building and familiarity - relationship building . . . but God is behind the scenes working in all these faceless people. Believer follows the formula, the people involved don't matter, The Word was done. That is borg-like to me. It is also infantile . . . Believer/Infant screams vaguely to the unknown universe/for mommy . . . God/Mother meets demands.

Apparent contradictions . . . mistakes only appear to be made . . . . but not by some We still haven't gone over the other tools. Always sometimes never. What where they?

I'm assuming this is sentence where the dance begins.

Pretty sure the writers had a very cohesive religion in common . . . Across time . . . Which speaks to the function of the religion . . . Just saying

You chose "sometimes". Run with it.

I see you've chosen mystery books as your example. Very enticing.

I'm having deja vu https://thewayinternational.com/the-scripture-interprets-itself-in-the-verse-right-where-it-is-written/

Thank you for the connection to Bullinger, T-Bone. Obviously the Bible doesn't teach people the alphabet. Experience outside the Bible would be required to read, understand, interpret, . . .I assume a back and forth between living and reading (as opposed to oops! I forgot something and am out of fellowship) VPW's game would have always been to merge your being with his. He needed your dependence, your identity, your self. Another move to replace your unconscious with his. The Word interprets itself is a magical lie.

That's like magic powers. When we give something previously undefined a name it's like it is created in our mind. The logos in action. But your words act on their own.

Mike's word doesn't always interpret itself? Do we hang on those words?

If one person responds you said there's 100 to 1000 others thinking the same thing.