Rocky

Is this Pitty motivated by fear? Certainly not as shown in this clip.

And there are times, places, situations in which it is EASIER to set aside social fear.

Is THIS logical?

From Michael Meade and mosaic voices (note, I'm NOT recommending his anything paid, just that I saw something on FB a friend posted): The world as we know it is already gone. The point now is to inhabit a bigger, unifying living myth in which the words "we are all in this together," have genuine heartfelt meaning. From ME: the myth that we are separate from "the world" may be at the heart of polarization and hate that has engulfed so much in and of the world these days. That mental framework did not originate with Wierwille, but he sure did his best to amplify it. To me, "we are all in this together" flows more naturally into a loving view of our neighbors, no matter how alike or different each may look or sound from each of us. IOW, despite one's best efforts to love those who do not look or sound or believe like each of us, there ARE (ravenous) voices suggesting we should be afraid and unwelcoming to any person or group different from us. The MORE different, the more afraid. Fear doesn't play well with love. Inherently, fear stokes survival instincts and causes us to bypass our logical reasoning mental processes. Therefore, I tend to believe it's easier to forgive when we set aside social fear.

I get it. Of course, I will continue to do me. I appreciate your candor and that hopefully you will no longer find disagreement an attack on you or picking on you. Indeed, there has been plenty from what was shoveled off on to us from Victor Wierwille's teachings and the fallout from his emotionally deficient subculture that was and has been woefully lacking in terms of logic. I would wonder (out loud, but in no way solicit a response from you) if what helped you decide to leave the cult was more emotionally based than the deficiencies in logic. Also, I have come upon a hunch that you and I may have been, for a long time, friends on FB but perhaps are no longer. If that's the case, I still feel bad for having offended you, but am hopeful that both you and I will emerge more hopeful in this life.

Fair enough. And thanks for further clarification you provided. If I was not clear, let me clarify. I used the word churchianity as a mechanism to draw a particular contrast. If I implied or explicitly replied I had perceived you as having been triggered, I apologize. However, from the emphatic nature of your quick response to my use of the word, I perceived some aspect of triggering. As to whether YOU SHOULD regard any word as a potential trigger word, it seems to me the key would be awareness/recognition of emotional responses the word or expression might elicit from one or more reader/listener. IOW, I don't see "churchianity" as a word or concept or notion that any of us, absent the potential for eliciting such an emotional response, can arbitrarily put into the category of "trigger word." Put another way, perhaps more important than devising rules for considering any given word or expression as such, is one's own recognition and awareness of the impact of our words on others. Given that awareness, would come responsibility for choosing our word(s) with both love and authenticity. Which, may not always be easy.

Neither do I. I believe it's an anthology of stories. I respect that you disagree. You obviously have a right to disagree with me. Okay. I, again, respect your declaration of belief about motivation or lack thereof for reading the Bible. That is, I respect it without judging it.

The answer lies within your own mind, does it not? How do YOU define paradox? Do you have any tolerance for paradox? from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. noun A statement that seems to contradict itself but may nonetheless be true. noun A person, thing, or situation that exhibits inexplicable or contradictory aspects. noun A statement that is self-contradictory or logically untenable, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises. How much tolerance for ambiguity can you muster? Ambiguity tolerance is a fancy term for “operating in the gray.” It reflects an ability to accept unclear, uncertain, or novel situations and work effectively in this environment. I hope your ambiguity tolerance is growing.

Since you started this thread for the purpose of discussion, I want to share something I received this morning in an email from a psychologist named Guy Winch. Dr Winch was born and raised in England, I think. He moved to NYC to study and to practice his profession. What We Get Wrong about Getting Triggered Getting triggered means having an immediate strong emotional response (e.g., anger or distress) to content or events that evoke a past traumatic experience. What get's triggered, therefore, is the trauma--the feelings and reactions that are associated with the traumatic event. Trigger warnings were initially instituted (in college campuses) to warn people with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that the upcoming media or class includes certain themes, so that the person may either opt out or prepare themselves in order to lower their emotional reactivity to it. Today, some people use the term 'getting triggered' more broadly to include reactions that are not necessarily associated with past trauma. Indeed, in last month's poll, 46% of people said that getting triggered means they weren't able to control not just their emotions but their thoughts and behavior too. What we often fail to acknowledge is that if a person gets triggered but does not have PTSD, their sharp emotional response is likely due to an unhealed emotional wound. This distinction is important because PTSD requires treatment by a mental health professional, while many emotional wounds can be treated (via therapy or self-help) and the sensitivity to them reduced as a result. The second thing we get wrong relates to trigger warnings. We assume they're both useful and effective. But many recent studies have found that neither is necessarily true. Are Trigger Warnings Useful? A variety of studies have found that trigger warnings have a downside for people who have PTSD--they can reinforce a survivor's view of the trauma as being central to their identity--something that is counter-therapeutic and potentially damaging to their mental health as it gives the trauma an even bigger place in their lives than it already has (reminding them, suggesting they can't handle exposures, etc...). If the upside of trigger warnings was substantial, that would be one thing but as you'll see below, research has found they have only meager benefits. Does that mean we should do away with trigger warnings? Not necessarily, as some people with PTSD might use them to opt out and the issue is still being studied.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree. No skin off my nose if you don't agree with me. Thankfully, I'm not dependent on your approval. And I would hope you don't need mine either. That way, we wouldn't need to view disagreement as one picking on the other.

How so??

Good luck with that. Please keep us posted. There are, as I understand it, quite a few contradictions and/or inconsistencies in Christian scriptures. I realize Victor Wierwille indoctrinated us with his PFLAP class to view scripture as something without error or contradictions or inconsistencies. I simply no longer believe him on that point. For examples regarding stories I present this brief clip with Simon Sinek. Take it or leave it, I don't care whether you believe it or not.

History of humankind is ALL about stories. For example, I consider the bible to be an anthology of stories. How do I piece together ideas? Sunesis. I read. Any and all subjects in which I become interested in. Further, my guiding scripture verses, which I have cited multiple times on GSC, are Proverbs 2:1-5. If, however by chance, you might be looking for a way to catch me in contradictions or inconsistencies, more power to you. For I view any such thing that may arise as an opportunity to either or both broaden and deepen my puny human understanding of "things."

I Public libraries!

When you put it that way, the origin myth of Christianity seems quite trite. Yet, your analysis does expose underlying issues with a tradition which has achieved hegemony in the minds and societies of what I can only guess now to be at least a few billion people currently alive humans.

Emotional concerns, and THIS is an emotion related issue, cannot be resolved by logic, IMO. As I see it, they can only be resolved by healing processes and sustained emotional support. You're either triggered or you're not as a result of something someone says. Recognizing the fact (mindful awareness) that you've been triggered, is, I suppose, the first step to healing. (AS I currently view the situation). I'm thankful you're not trying to set rules for anyone regarding this particular trigger word. I think of this in terms antifragility. Perhaps long hidden fragility, if one considers the emotional impact of the word in their life at this moment. For more on my understanding of antifragility, rather than expounding it here, I will only mention there's a discussion thread on the subject in the About the Way forum. Far be it from me to tell anyone what they SHOULD do or how they SHOULD view the experience from their younger days in Wierwille's cult. A former housemate of mine, God rest his soul, J Fred Wilson, explored something he told me was called Re-evaluation therapy. Me? I just read and try to fill my brain/mind with alternatives to decide what to keep and what to reject from my cult experience.

Wow! From a logic perspective, that would seem reasonable. I view the Bible as an anthology of stories. Stories don't generally adhere to logic formats.

Are you saying you want to set forth rules as to what anyone, by saying something particular (that might irk you) "SHOULD" mean and/or conversely what they SHOULD NOT be allowed to mean? I apologize for apparently having used a trigger word from our long gone cult past. NO offense intended to anyone.

Well... okay then. 1) I do NOT see myself walking into anyone's parish, fellowship, church, or otherwise characterized religious practice/group and denouncing them. Whether it was Christian flavor, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi, or Pagan ...etc. 2) I made a statement of how I see the situation, disclaiming any knowledge of data or related statistics. 3) Christofascist activity, IMO, is abhorrent. Any person's personal religious practice is totally NOT my concern. i.e. freedom of worship being built into the fabric of American Constitutional order. 4) IIRC, I have recently noted (on GSC) my belief that churches (and other religiously oriented groups) fulfill a legitimate social function in our society even when I am not interested in participating therein.

Yes, apples and oranges.

Also, to understand this, shouldn't we figure out whether Christ has forgiven anyone? As I understand it, hasn't GOD forgiven each believer as a cleansing at the point of accepting Jesus as Lord? Look, I'm confident I'm not going to satisfy everyone. Whether they are satisfied by trapping me in a gotcha, is also a different situation. I don't know if that's what anyone's getting at here, but if it is, it's no skin off my nose.