Rocky

Deconstructing Fundamentalism Independence Day Six years ago today, I lifted my three sleepy children into their car seats, hastily threw our belongings into trash bags, and shut the door on my abuser forever. I had 1,041 miles to drive. I weighed 105 pounds. I had no job and no home. I was scared to death. But I knew the exhilaration of freedom the minute I pointed my wheels south and stepped on that gas pedal. I was done sleeping with my keys and wallet hidden under my pillow. I was done trying to protect little eyes and ears from witnessing his anger. I was done with years of systematic abuse hollowing me into a shell of a person. The times that I tried to leave, and the things that he had done to me to stop me from leaving. For years afterword, my hands involuntarily shook when I said it out loud. Me too. Me f**king too. (more)

Disagree all you want, but it's a fact that ideology justifies bad behavior and the building of faulty cultural systems (subcultures).

Thank you Jerry Maguire! 40 years ago, as a twentysomething, I didn't have much of an EQ. Today, maybe a little bit more. It boggles my mind how long it has taken to figure somethings out.

EQ = Emotional Intelligence. At times, MUCH more important than IQ. For most people, emotional intelligence (EQ) is more important than one’s intelligence (IQ) in attaining success in their lives and careers. As individuals our success and the success of the profession today depend on our ability to read other people’s signals and react appropriately to them. Therefore, each one of us must develop the mature emotional intelligence skills required to better understand, empathize and negotiate with other people — particularly as the economy has become more global. Otherwise, success will elude us in our lives and careers. “Your EQ is the level of your ability to understand other people, what motivates them and how to work cooperatively with them,” says Howard Gardner, the influential Harvard theorist. (more)

BAM!

My recollection is that he only got the "heavy revvie" about such things when he didn't wager any money.

Maybe you missed this the first time I posted it...

No. I didn't watch the (American) football game. I boycott the NFL because it really is too violent and players almost always end up with chronic brain injury. Anyway, Twinky said this: " I don't intend for this to be or become a Mike-bashing or even a Mike-questioning thread, just a place where he can share his current journey through old threads, and only if he chooses." I suspect that if you do choose to share that journey through old threads, you might get some company. Otherwise, what's there for anyone else to say?

Did you provide chapter and verse on your claims that various individuals in the biblical records made self-referential statements about themselves before doing anything to so demonstrate... and I just missed it?

aka narcissism.

With corpse required to read Dale Carnegie's book on persuasion, on reflection it's very clear.

Dennis Prager hosts political talk.

It's about church history and contemporary conduct. It also relates directly to Wierwille's sense of entitlement and inability of the cult to recognize the ramifications of its practice in the lives of victims. I did not cite any politicians or suggest any need for legislation. While politics has to do with people, and this is about people, it's most definitely NOT about suggesting public policy remedies to a most obvious problem. Also, we know that Wierwille's first successor was confronted in court, with not necessarily fulfilling or completely satisfying outcomes for victims of sexual assault in the cult. But thanks, Raf, for defining (sort of) a boundary for the discussion.

Rachael Denhollander was the first woman to publicly accuse former USA Gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar of sexual abuse. As she worked to find justice for herself and the doctor’s other victims, Denhollander began to turn a critical eye on a community that she depended on dearly for support ― her church. Denhollander, an evangelical Christian, saw that Biblical teachings about grace and repentance were being weaponized against victims, pressuring them into offering an easy forgiveness to their abusers. At the same time, churches lacked accountability structures that treated victims with compassion and respect. It soon became clear to her that when it comes to properly caring for survivors of sexual abuse, the church has a long way to go ― and experts HuffPost spoke to agree. Denhollander opened up about her disappointment with the American evangelical church in an interview Wednesday with Christianity Today’s Morgan Lee. “Church is one of the least safe places to acknowledge abuse because the way it is counseled is, more often than not, damaging to the victim,” said Denhollander, who now works as a lawyer in Kentucky. “There is an abhorrent lack of knowledge for the damage and devastation that sexual assault brings. It is with deep regret that I say the church is one of the worst places to go for help.” (continued) As far as I'm concerned, Ms Denhollander is a righteous warrior. Her insight obviously applies to what took place during Wierwille's reign of error (and terror).

What mattered was that Mike got the point. He apologized. If that's the end of it, I'll be satisfied.

Got it. Thanks.

You are such a troll. Just yesterday you claimed to recognize the need to get a life. The highlighted sentence in the quote above further underscores your acknowledged inability to communicate. Unless you can motivate people to be interested in your words, you are nothing but a troll.

You are such a troll. Just yesterday you claimed to recognize the need to get a life. The highlighted sentence in the quote above further underscores your acknowledged inability to communicate. Unless you can motivate people to be interested in your words, you are nothing but a troll.

THIS statement reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of the process of communication. For you to acknowledge failing to communicate (i.e. "... you merely don't understand"), and blame it on ANYONE other than yourself, is reprehensible. You are not a worthy opponent in this debate. And that's a fair inference based directly on your own words.

No, you won't. Not only is your admission (that you have failed to communicate anything here) significant, but it also strongly suggests you knowingly troll here.

That's an admission that you are satisfied with your failure to communicate. Failing to communicate is, by definition, not getting the intended listener/reader to understand the message you said/wrote as you meant it.

Blah blah blah... I am glad you're realizing you need a life.

That's bull$hit, Mike. You don't even come close to proving ANYthing, not even two tiny items. Everyone else: if you let Mike have the last word, he might then stop.

"I'm seriously re-considering what it is I'm doing here. I think I may have broke So_crates merrygoround. I think similar things are happening with other posters. THAT is not my intention. I thought that BY NOW, after a couple of months of posting, that the shock value of my message would have worn off a little. It seems it is not. "Is there any way I can discuss these things, even answer questions, without provoking such negative emotions?" Mike... you are widely perceived as being overtly disingenuous and toying with others here. So, NO there isn't any longer a way that you can post without provoking so much.