Rocky

And WHY do we buy those demands? It's certainly NOT logic. Could it be the human condition of needing/wanting to belong to a group with whom we FEEL comfortable, sharing beleeefs in common?

Why would you believe you have a right to demand or expect obedience or compliance or anything else from anyone? As I understand it, that's not how life works. Whether or not I am authentic is not something, from my perspective, that's at all dependent on whether I ever meet your expectations. In case you MIGHT be interested, here's a gentle reminder of something someone important to me shared recently on FB. If you're not interested, by all means, disregard it. "When someone is at war with themselves, it will be very hard for them to be peaceful with you. Remember that." If you want "real connection" with me, you've been going about it all wrong. As far as what I want, from you or anyone else, is to honor emotional boundaries. I can't expect if from you by demanding it of you. I am NOT trying to woo or control or influence or manipulate you for ANY kind of relationship. As I DID say to you recently, you and I have NO relationship of any kind that would cause me to want to manipulate you for any reason. My wholeness (emotional or otherwise) is in no way dependent on you or anyone else, either here or IRL.

The only thing I challenge(d) was that willfully ignorant people were the only ones who couldn't/wouldn't recognize it. Those who are blissfully ignorant (by default) usually can't see it either. Perhaps that's why pictures of crowds of Germans saluting their fuhrer and only one person declining to do so is so stark. Human nature is human nature. Having to suffer before people begin to recognize the absurdity is part of human nature, perhaps unfortunately.

Gramsci argued that consent to the rule of the dominant group is achieved by the spread of ideologies—beliefs, assumptions, and values—through social institutions such as schools, churches, courts, and the media, among others. These institutions do the work of socializing people into the norms, values, and beliefs of the dominant social group. As such, the group that controls these institutions controls the rest of society. Cultural hegemony is most strongly manifested when those ruled by the dominant group come to believe that the economic and social conditions of their society are natural and inevitable, rather than created by people with a vested interest in particular social, economic, and political orders. [...] In his essay “The Intellectuals,” written between 1929 and 1935, Gramsci described the power of ideology to reproduce the social structure through institutions such as religion and education. He argued that society's intellectuals, often viewed as detached observers of social life, are actually embedded in a privileged social class and enjoy great prestige. As such, they function as the “deputies” of the ruling class, teaching and encouraging people to follow the norms and rules established by the ruling class.

I disagree with your claim as to who can't, won't or doesn't see them. It's a matter of cultural hegemony. Most Americans, IMO, CANNOT even see the problem because of the cultural hegemony of Christian thought in our society/culture. Unfortunately, countering cultural hegemony takes much more than pointing it out. It takes. IMO, significantly pervasive artistic expression. Cultural hegemony refers to domination or rule maintained through ideological or cultural means. It is usually achieved through social institutions, which allow those in power to strongly influence the values, norms, ideas, expectations, worldview, and behavior of the rest of society. Cultural hegemony functions by framing the worldview of the ruling class, and the social and economic structures that embody it, as just, legitimate, and designed for the benefit of all, even though these structures may only benefit the ruling class. This kind of power is distinct from rule by force, as in a military dictatorship, because it allows the ruling class to exercise authority using the "peaceful" means of ideology and culture.

How true. Unfortunately, logic is pretty much not associated at all with cult decision making anywhere.

Why would I? Why would you care?

I realize this is but I ask Stayed Too Long's indulgence. More than a decade ago, I faced a hurricane of a storm in my life. My GSC posts at that time reflected the storm I was then immersed in. I came out of the storm not the same person. I'm thankful for having gone through the storm and survived and grown as a person.

That's sad, but I don't doubt the veracity of the study.

Another excerpt from the WaPo article some of you may find this interesting: Religion offers ready-made answers to our most difficult questions. It gives people ways to mark time, celebrate and mourn. Once I vowed not to teach my children anything I did not personally believe, I had to come up with new answers. But I discovered as I went what most parents discover: You can figure it out as you go. Establishing a habit of honesty did not sap the delight from my children’s lives or destroy their moral compass. I suspect it made my family closer than we would have been had my husband and I pretended to our children that we believed in things we did not. We sowed honesty and reaped trust — along with intellectual challenge, emotional sustenance and joy. Those are all personal rewards. But there are political rewards as well. My children know how to distinguish fact from fiction — which is harder for children raised religious. They don’t assume conventional wisdom is true and they do expect arguments to be based on evidence. Which means they have the skills to be engaged, informed and savvy citizens. We need citizens like that.

I don't wish to continue bickering with you at this time. Are you willing to leave it at that?

From Washington Post, today October 3, 2023: (all readers are able to read the rest of this WaPo essay for no charge because I subscribe by clicking the link) I like to say that my kids made me an atheist. But really what they did was make me honest. I was raised Jewish — with Sabbath prayers and religious school, a bat mitzvah and a Jewish wedding. But I don’t remember ever truly believing that God was out there listening to me sing songs of praise. I thought of God as a human invention: a character, a concept, a carry-over from an ancient time. I thought of him as a fiction. Today I realize that means I’m an atheist. It’s not complicated. My (non)belief derives naturally from a few basic observations: The Greek myths are obviously stories. The Norse myths are obviously stories. L. Ron Hubbard obviously made that stuff up. Extrapolate. The holy books underpinning some of the bigger theistic religions are riddled with “facts” now disproved by science and “morality” now disavowed by modern adherents. Extrapolate. Life is confusing and death is scary. Naturally, humans want to believe that someone capable is in charge and that we continue to live after we die. But wanting doesn’t make it so. Child rape. War. Etc. And yet, when I was younger, I would never have called myself an atheist — not on a survey, not to my family, not even to myself.

It's NOT about YOU. That's all I'm going to explain about it at this time. Not everything you (might) take personally is actually about you.

Please remember that. It's actually what I statements are ALL about.

Respectfully, on this thread, I don't find anywhere that I apologized to you for anything. I suppose you disagree with that. If so, please point it out, specifically. Thank you. I wish you nothing but health and happiness, all your days. (this is NOT related to anything I may have said that you believe contradicts what I said herein). What causes me to scratch my head is that your words seem to be saying (what you believe) is going on inside my head. Please clarify how you may have come to search out and determine what's going on between my ears. Thank you.

I have no insight about any aspect of your health, mental or otherwise. I disagreed with you. I did not make any statement, implicit or explicit about you. Not only did I refrain from making any assessment of any aspect of your life or health, I also did not make any statement about what you may or may not remember about anything. Further, I did not direct you to do or refrain from doing anything whatsoever. I wish you only health and happiness.

https://www.bumc.bu.edu/facdev-medicine/files/2011/08/I-messages-handout.pdf Thank you for asking. When you are in conflict, you may have difficulty clearly articulating your situation without escalating the conflict. Using an “I” message (also known as an “assertiveness statement”) can help you state your concerns, feelings, and needs in a manner that is easier for the listener to hear and understand. An “I-statement” focuses on your own feelings and experiences. It does not focus on your perspective of what the other person has done or failed to do. It is the difference, for example, between saying, "I feel that I am not being permitted to participate in office projects to the extent that others are” and "You always let Marge work on office projects, but you never ask me if I’m interested.” If you can express your experience in a way that does not attack, criticize, or blame others, you are less likely to provoke defensiveness and hostility which tends to escalate conflicts, or have the other person shut-down or tune you out which tends to stifle communication. Ultimately, I-messages help create more opportunities for the resolution of conflict by creating more opportunities for constructive dialogue about the true sources of conflict. That is but an excerpt of the handout linked above. Thank you for asking.

Please NOTE: this is an "I" statement. It is NOT an accusation about any aspect of chockfull's intentions, mental states/conditions, or actions is ANY way.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/gaslighting I don't believe chockfull's claim about inadvertently making mistakes constitutes gaslighting is at all correct. Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter’s manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth.

I certainly don't speak for Oldiesman, but my take was he meant his Mother in Catholicism was encouraging him to go back to Catholicism.

train up a child in the way he should go... there are some wise proverbs in the bible.

Is that all? Each of your points seems to be about what they wouldn't have to do. What WOULD they believe about life and creation? How do you envision answering the child's big questions? You posed an intriguing thought experiment.

I apologize in advance for offending you on this one. Are you sure of timing of the referenced personnel action above and that it was Victor Wierwille who did it?

Look. Fine. I'll kiss your BEE-hind. But I'm not insisting ANYthing about what you do or may not have remembered. THE thing I've been TRYING to do, however, imperfectly, is to redirect this "discussion." I don't give a RATS patootie what you remember or don't remember. You and I are NOT in any kind of relationship in which it would matter, except maybe between your ears. I hope you find peace. Based on your words, it sure doesn't seem like you have been succeeding in that regard the last few days. Take it or leave it however you'd like, but you might find solace in the message of this book: Stillness is the Key. I don't know you in person. I only know your words on GSC. I apologize for disagreeing with you (and therefore, having somehow offended you). ---- In NO way do I consider myself to be a victim of anything you have said or done.