Rocky

When I was in twi, that meant, "sell the PFLAP class."

That's the con that "organized" religion continues to play. We fell for it. Among the billions who have done so through the years.

Given that the twitter account cites him as Loy Craig Martindale rather than L Craig... or just Craig, is the first clue. It seems extremely unlikely that the account was set up by the real LCM.

That all makes sense to me.

Published on YouTube, May 28, 2019 Maybe the R&R group would be interested in knowing whether there really is something to restore.

The line isn't necessarily as fine as one might think. The essence, in one sense, comes down to whether one can rightfully be associated with VB (for example) as opposed to actually proving allegations of actual wrongdoing (criminal or tortious (civilly liable) conduct). And whether only being associated with him makes the associate liable for anything other than having made extremely poor judgment in having that association. We can and do rightfully infer that VB, besides his acknowledged criminal conduct, was a master manipulator and deceiver. That inference makes it impossible to, absent actual evidence, make any inferences as to what criminal conduct his associates may have committed. Who of us has never been conned? I have been. Besides falling for VPW's BS, I can cite a couple of examples of when I fell for things when I should have known better. The fact that a lawsuit alleged harmful conduct against VB's associates is one thing. That the court dismissed the lawsuit means we cannot rely on those allegations to make any reasonable inferences that VBs associates committed the alleged acts or omissions. As far as I know, we do not have any such actual evidence at this time. Heresay -- in the form of I heard or read that she or he said _________ is NOT actual evidence. However, when one has a mental framework in which that one views any such associate, it can be extremely difficult to discern that what one believes as a result of heresay or as a result of prior observation of said associate is NOT actual evidence. That said, I personally know NONE of VB's associates. 40 years ago, I KNEW one person who subsequently became an associate of VB. But I do not now know and have not seen or spoken with that associate of VB since the 1970s. And I cannot vouch for or against that person.

So people can see what is in the youtube link before clicking on it.

Some people? I'd say that social science suggests that ALL people only see what they want to see. 1) That doesn't supercede the concept of communication whereby you are responsible for ensuring your message is clear to your audience. (that doesn't change the reality of the concept of communication) 2) You can't see into the heart (intentions) of those who would argue contrary to your position. Do you need chapter and verse for that one? (I can find it if so)

I agree, that it IS a problem. Is it the root problem? Not in my opinion. But the issue you described is definitely a problem.

Maybe the first time we sat through that session we were "taught," as opposed to "taut," which may have been the case for those conducting the class. But even then, to the degree that we abstained from challenging it in our own minds, we were indoctrinated, IMO. Indeed, one can, among devotees of twi, trace the stubborn attitudes to that session. But vpw was definitely not the first to come up with ideas on how to get people to give up their personal responsibility to exercise reason and critical thinking. I wholeheartedly agree that Walter Cummins's two classes that you cited were fundamental to constructing the forms and pouring the concrete to solidify the mindset for us. Insidious, really. Of course, those two classes may not have had far reaching influence outside of twi and/or offshoots thereof. But that's why I posed the question the way I did, regarding the biblical story of the various ways the Adversary is portrayed, starting with the first one.

1) I am most certainly NOT saying PFLAP is a valid interpretation of the Judeo-Christian creation story. 2) Indeed, tribalism is not confined to religion. Perhaps references to academic studies of zoology would also enhance this discussion. 3) I'd be reluctant to look for it outside Earth's atmosphere... until we find "intelligent" life there. 4) I appreciate your perspective and agree that it's sometimes beneficial and sometimes harmful.

Yes. My point is that it (for those who may prefer not to anthropomorphize the concept) is imaginary. For the record, I'm not atheistic nor agnostic. But if I was, I'd lean toward agnostic. I prefer Deist. IT is more than religion's way of keeping skeptical influences suppressed (or trying to do so anyway). As Einstein posited, imagination is very powerful... or at least more important than knowledge. What got me thinking about this was the fact that tribal conflict seems to have been around since early humans. Or, at least since history was first recorded, which seems to me to predate the Judeo-Christian tradition. So, being curious, I asked myself... I said, "Self, why is that?" Clearly, I'm not capable of answering that question with any sort of authoritative knowledge. But I can imagine. I can wonder. And I can at least do some rudimentary and superficial research.

Feel free to do so.

There you go again... did it ever occur to you that perhaps you are responsible for making your intended message more clear to your audience?

There should be no doubt that much of "American" Christianity, or the people therein, have a (major) problem with "the other," despite Jesus' having taught that the "bottom-line" of all the commandments is to love God and love one's neighbor.

Thanks, but that wasn't the point.

After all, the could just as easily have rewound the tape and played it over and over. And for those of you who never heard the word "retconned" (like me), Retroactive continuity, or retcon for short,[1][2] is a literary device in which established facts in a fictional work are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which breaks continuity with the former.

Why could it not be both?

I'll echo Waysider's comment but also add that nobody here can authoritatively label anyone's first person account false or exaggerated. Btw, Wbw, have you ever heard the expression, "where there's smoke, there's fire?"

I'd say that's the least likely explanation.

They never received it = they didn't grasp it. Idiomatically speaking, it went in one ear and out the other. Changing culture is a very difficult task. Getting someone to accept a directive or suggestion that runs counter to what they've been conditioned to accept is, for the vast majority of people, extremely difficult. The person is conditioned to resist OR possibly can't even understand what s/he hears OR has a very high level of risk aversion... OR...

THAT is the essence of leaving TWI. I don't think the R&R guys and gals are generally prepared to do that.