Rocky

That's the part I don't necessarily agree with. There's far more complexity to life and society today than pretty much anyone would have imagined 2k years ago. And getting dummies like Wierwille (or VF, DC, etc) to make pronouncements on what God may intend for applying to those complexities, seems silly to me.

You hoped correctly. I appreciate that you read the article and put a good bit of thought into your analysis. Not sure about the degree to which I agree with you or your conclusions. Perhaps sometimes we lose sight of the forest because of the trees. I'd also welcome analysis by competent sociologists.

I recently discovered this article that relates to cult brain. It describes a scenario much like Wierwille in the PFLAP class instructs students to reject anything other than what lines up with his fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Of course, many of us on GSC have discussed "waybrain" over the last nearly two decades. ... religious fundamentalism—which refers to the belief in the absolute authority of a religious text or leaders—is almost never good for an individual. This is primarily because fundamentalism discourages any logical reasoning or scientific evidence that challenges its scripture, making it inherently maladaptive. ----- The single most important thing I may have learned over the last 32 years is that God is bigger than any notion of humankind, written or imagined. How does this relate to Wierwillism? Well, the cranky old potentate(s) [Either Wierwille or Martindale, those were the only two I interacted with] of TWI was never allowed for discussion or disagreement. It was ALWAYS their way or the highway. As I can see now, that puts God into a very small box and twi followers into even smaller boxes. It's increasingly obvious that religious fundamentalism is having a profound negative impact on society. But I won't get into that in detail here.

Correct on all points. Scanning through the reader reviews on Amazon reveals exactly that.

Well, In December I finally bought the book (Kindle version). Last night I finished reading it. Here's the review I posted on Amazon and on Goodreads. I love it. But that doesn't say enough. I love the historian that Tara Westover has become.I love her insights on the religious and emotional dysfunction in which she grew up.I love the way she portrayed the spark that drove her to crave education. Because THAT is what humans do and have done for thousands of years.I love the frankness and humility with which she told her story. I only wish I had that humility and curiosity when I was younger.How many of us grow up in dysfunctional families? IDK. Mine had its share. I'm confident my daughter would say so too.How many of us have experienced religious fundamentalism? Of course, Westover disclaims her memoir as having anything against Mormonism. It's clear in her story that her family's take on religion was different than many even in their own church.I've experienced religious fundamentalism too. But not as a child. In my case, it was after I left home, while I was a young adult searching for meaning. It was a different flavor of Christian fundamentalism. I'm thankful that I outgrew it too. I've been on a quest to learn many things about life since.Because of my experience with a fundamentalist sect and when I and many of my friends left it, I relate and empathize with Westover's narrative on belonging and family and the emotional tension she had to cope with in deciding what to do about those issues herself.I enthusiastically recommend Educated to anyone interested in learning, in belonging, or in stories of emotional growth. --------- One point I didn't make in the review but will try to do so here is that many Greasespotters may have a sense of having wasted years of their lives in TWI. I get that. I used to believe that too. But your experience in TWI, good/bad/indifferent, is part of what makes you you. If you spent a big chunk of you life in TWI, it's a big part of what you have to give for the rest of your life to those you encounter. You will likely want to restructure what you think that experience meant/means now, but it can be valuable insight for ministering to others. Peace.

I know what the Feast of the Epiphany is. I was born into the Catholic religion. I was making a joke. I hope I didn't offend you.

Doctrinal (or, doctrine) 1. (Philosophy) a creed or body of teachings of a religious, political, or philosophical group presented for acceptance or belief; dogma 2. a principle or body of principles that is taught or advocated [C14: from Old French, from Latin doctrīna teaching, from doctor see doctor] doctrinal adj doctrinality n docˈtrinally adv ˈdoctrinism n ˈdoctrinist n Again, includes but in not limited to presentation of the Bible for acceptance or belief. Mark, I'm not sure whether you were inviting me to participate in your new (yet to be started) thread or something else.

Includes but is not limited to...

Happy Birthday Tom Strange!

Fundamentalism is what Wierwille sold us. Of course, it was his interpretation of all the words in The Word that mattered in TWI. Nevertheless, on Sunday evening I found this article about how religious fundamentalism works in the human brain. Notably, In moderation, religious and spiritual practices can be great for a person’s life and mental well-being. But religious fundamentalism—which refers to the belief in the absolute authority of a religious text or leaders—is almost never good for an individual. This is primarily because fundamentalism discourages any logical reasoning or scientific evidence that challenges its scripture, making it inherently maladaptive. [...] refers to ideas as “memes” (the mental analog of a gene), which he has defined as self-replicating units that spread throughout culture. We are all familiar with many types of memes, including the various customs, myths [stories], and trends that have become part of human society. [...] ideas spread through the behavior that they produce in their hosts, which is what enables them to be transmitted from one brain to another. For example, an ideology—such as a religion—that causes its inhabitants to practice its rituals and communicate its beliefs will be transmitted to others. Successful ideas are those that are best able to spread themselves, while those that fail to self-replicate go extinct. In this way, some religious ideologies persist while others fade into oblivion. Frankly, the sooner Wierwille-ism fades into oblivion, the better, IMO. Many of us who have been a part of the GSC community for a time are familiar with much of the dysfunctional behavior associated with the teachings and social structures Wierwille taught and/or established. That's why I was concerned about the topic of Myth(s) of Hell. But by all means, Mark, start a new thread with a more narrow scope about your understanding of the biblical basis for understanding hell. I'm not quite as interested in that and may not get involved in such a thread.

Hello Thomas. Did you have an epiphany today?

You and almost all of the rest of humankind.

Accidentally, eh? When I first began writing op-eds and letters to editors that local newspapers published, I told people that if I hadn't sat down to the keyboard and started typing, it would have spilled all over the floor. I have a six month free subscription to kindleunlimited... I'll check it out.

For whom? Your readers? Is that what feedback tells you?

I don't think I can agree with that. But it's not important enough for me to go off on a long tangent.

No prob

Rocky didn't say what you quoted. Rocky quoted Mark S as having said it. Not my call whether it's off topic or not.

OMG!

I appreciate the clarification of your position.

Parable - a form of story.

Seeking clarification on this point. Are you saying, the Bible (containing the revealed Word of God) does not contain ALL of the Word of God? To clarify my intent, I am not interested in arguing for or against, just understanding your point. Thanks.

The reason I highlighted by strikethrough, that part of your comment is because I fail to see the relevance of that question to the topic of this thread. Perhaps if you were to start another thread that focused the topic on the biblical basis for understanding of hell, that might be relevant. But I digress. Modgellan's correct about multiple reasons for asking questions. It's also important in discussions like this one to recognize that just because something pops into one's head (or thinking, or consciousness) doesn't mean it's necessarily true, logical or "spiritual." Empiricism "Empiricism is the philosophy of knowledge by observation. It holds that the best way to gain knowledge is to see, hear, touch, or otherwise sense things directly. In stronger versions, it holds that this is the only kind of knowledge that really counts. Empiricism has been extremely important to the history of science, as various thinkers over the centuries have proposed that all knowledge should be tested empirically rather than just through thought-experiments or rational calculation." Epistemology Epistemology (pronounced eh-PIH-stem-AH-luh-jee) is the study of knowledge. It raises questions like What is truth? Do we really know what we think we know? How can knowledge be made more reliable? ----- I am willing to tell you, Mark, that I do read the Bible but NOT the way (fundamentalism) we learned to do from Wierwille, twi or the PFLAP class. There's MUCH more knowledge and understanding of lots of areas of life to be learned when we don't limit our learning to ONLY the Bible. The Bible contains LOTS of STORIES. We humans often learn best from stories. That's why Television and motion pictures are such a powerful influence in today's Western Culture. Because they tell stories. Among the stories are the Myth(s) of Hell. Anyway, we grossly limit ourselves and limit our understanding of Christianity and spirituality by stuffing ourselves into the box of fundamentalism when reading and studying the Bible. One of the grandest ways we did that with Way Brain was to think that we got revelation about the meanings of Biblical stories by parsing Greek and Hebrew words.

Yes, I have asked you questions. Unless I've missed it, you seem to have -- for the most part -- not answered them. Also, in light of Raf's comments today, I'm wondering how relevant to the topic of this thread your last sentence (highlighted above) is.

But Mark, what's the difference? Are you saying that somehow the notion, not first conceptualized in the Judeo-Christian tradition, somehow got corrected as time went on? What about the sociological usefulness of the entire notion of hell? Are you suggesting that somehow it's not actually something useful to religions needing to find a way to hook enough followers into them to justify the time and labor of their ministers (who then would need to make a living)? Don't forget that you're the one who opened this can of worms in the first place.