Rocky

Good points. Oh and let's not forget Gallegher's new doctrine to ensure bondage to church leaders... My point actually had been not that they needed to continue off on hubris-like course of thinking they were coming up with the latest and greatest revelation from God since the First Century, but rather becoming humble and recognizing that they actually don't need to be pioneers in order to walk on the path of God's will.

What will you be doing to broaden your understanding of cult behaviors and tactics in the meantime?

Tell me, what does that prove? "Apparently" appears to mean you don't really know. What DO you know about that?

I wonder if they're going to expand their learning horizons beyond what they've become fossilized in with TWI dogma.

To understand beyond the surface intent may require you to learn key concepts outside the realm of TWIness. I would ask them AND ask you to consider how on God's green Earth they could do anything different from what they've practiced for 40 and 50 years if they can't give thought to any knowledge (teaching) from any source other than the cult they've become fossilized in already.

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24457-revival-and-restoration/

It's almost as if they already had LSD back in those days.

Hi George, Did you get the memo? This thread is about whether vp cited his sources (i.e. plagiarism).

An intriguing reflection on American history (going back 500 years) puts interesting perspective on that point. Fantasyland. “A provocative new study of America’s cultural history . . . -- Newsday

I guess you and I were the only ones who got the memo. Oh well.

For perspective, I would simply ask how any of the discussion of dispensations/administrations and such has anything to do with the thread title/subject? This seems to now belong in the doctrinal forum.

Of course, I've heard that too. I tend to think that some of us who grew up in various cultures and subcultures that were intolerant to homosexual individuals may not be closet gays themselves... but those of us who did live through macho cultures and religious cultures like twi have had the opportunity to grow out of that intolerance. I might be reasonable to figure that those who have left those intolerant cultures but remain intolerant themselves MIGHT have some of those tendencies. Some time in the 1990s, I started recognizing the humanity in persons who were attracted to persons of the same sex. Now I have plenty of gay friends.

I agree!

How do you know it's either/or? Why not throw both/neither into the mix too. Take your pick... vanity or meaningless. 1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. 2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. (Ecclesiastes 1 KJV) The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem: 2 “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless.” (Ecclesiates 1 NIV)

C'est le guerre.

Perhaps Loy was freaking out because, right under his nose, his wife and his chief rival for the power of the purse in TWI were doing the nasty. The connection is plausible.

No argument from me on who was responsible for his conduct and manner of life. And indeed, one could have reasonably expected a minister of the Gospel to have been meek before the Lord...

A sub-topic in the linked wikipedia page on Socrates references the Socratic method. Perhaps his most important contribution to Western thought is his dialectic method of inquiry, known as the Socratic method or method of "elenchus", which he largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts such as the Good and Justice. It was first described by Plato in the Socratic Dialogues. To solve a problem, it would be broken down into a series of questions, the answers to which gradually distill the answer a person would seek. The development and practice of this method is one of Socrates's most enduring contributions, and is a key factor in earning his mantle as the father of political philosophy, ethics or moral philosophy, and as a figurehead of all the central themes in Western philosophy. The Socratic method has often been considered as a defining element of American legal education. French philosopher Pierre Hadot suggests that the dialogues are a type of spiritual exercise. Hadot writes that "in Plato's view, every dialectical exercise, precisely because it is an exercise of pure thought, subject to the demands of the Logos, turns the soul away from the sensible world, and allows it to convert itself towards the Good."

Thank you Waysider. Thank you T-Bone. And thank you Skyrider for starting this thread. Given that critical thinking is the antithesis of the Wierwille mystique, it should surprise no one, especially here at GSC, that the R&R RR is stuck in neutral. Anyone who tries to duplicate -- albeit refine and distill the organizational model back to how it was in the good old days of TWI -- has ZERO chance to establish a thriving fellowship centered on godliness. At it's core, the model of bombarding "students" with hours and hours of bible teachings, in which they ONLY are given information and expected to absorb it, can do very little critical thinking. To build churches, fellowships, and a way corpse that would actually be better described without the letter "e" in the title, would have to honor the students with the dignity of allowing them to think... critically. The approach is called, Socratic. The student is actively engaged and CHALLENGES the teacher. But if the teacher cannot cope with that kind of student, you get cults instead. Does that make sense?

At this point, it pretty much goes without saying, yes, they HAVE lost all grasp thereof... as WE did when we fell under the influence of Wierwille, a master manipulator. However, it also has occurred to me that "critical thinking" is the antithesis of the Wierwille Mystique. Skyrider, perhaps you could weigh in on that idea. Very brief and cursory research on the subject brought my attention to the following excerpts from a few people who have written on the subject of critical thinking: Someone with critical thinking skills can: Understand the links between ideas. Determine the importance and relevance of arguments and ideas. Recognize, build and appraise arguments. Identify inconsistencies and errors in reasoning. Approach problems in a consistent and systematic way. Reflect on the justification of their own assumptions, beliefs and values. In essence, critical thinking requires you to use your ability to reason. It is about being an active learner rather than a passive recipient of information. Critical thinkers rigorously question ideas and assumptions rather than accepting them at face value. They will always seek to determine whether the ideas, arguments and findings represent the entire picture and are open to finding that they do not. 6 Crucial critical thinking skills (and how you can improve them) Critical thinking is a skill that allows you to make logical and informed decisions to the best of your ability. For example, a child who has not yet developed such skills might believe the Tooth Fairy left money under their pillow based on stories their parents told them. A critical thinker, however, can quickly conclude that the existence of such a thing is probably unlikely—even if there are a few bucks under their pillow. Critical thinking is the objective analysis of facts to form a judgment.[1] The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. The habits of mind that characterize a person strongly disposed toward critical thinking include a desire to follow reason and evidence wherever they may lead, a systematic approach to problem solving, inquisitiveness, even-handedness, and confidence in reasoning. Critical thinking...the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself. Critical thinking can be seen as having two components: 1) a set of information and belief generating and processing skills, and 2) the habit, based on intellectual commitment, of using those skills to guide behavior. It is thus to be contrasted with: 1) the mere acquisition and retention of information alone, because it involves a particular way in which information is sought and treated; 2) the mere possession of a set of skills, because it involves the continual use of them; and 3) the mere use of those skills ("as an exercise") without acceptance of their results. Critical thinking varies according to the motivation underlying it. When grounded in selfish motives, it is often manifested in the skillful manipulation of ideas in service of one’s own, or one's groups’, vested interest. As such it is typically intellectually flawed, however pragmatically successful it might be. When grounded in fairmindedness and intellectual integrity, it is typically of a higher order intellectually, though subject to the charge of "idealism" by those habituated to its selfish use. Critical thinking of any kind is never universal in any individual; everyone is subject to episodes of undisciplined or irrational thought. Its quality is therefore typically a matter of degree and dependent on, among other things, the quality and depth of experience in a given domain of thinking or with respect to a particular class of questions. No one is a critical thinker through-and-through, but only to such-and-such a degree, with such-and-such insights and blind spots, subject to such-and-such tendencies towards self-delusion. For this reason, the development of critical thinking skills and dispositions is a life-long endeavor.

You might be right, but I figure it's up to the Taxi man to clarify for himself.

Didn't you just today claim (on another thread) that you had never been exposed to VP?

Some of them lost any remnant of critical thinking they might have had... going on 50 years ago now. Do you think they could even define critical thinking if their lives depended on it?