Rocky

Hey Maya, I'll affirm all of what Modgellan said. Thanks for telling your story; we know enough to recognize that children aren't at fault for the actions of adults; and you have some very good insight on your experience. I hear you about the frustration with your mother not recognizing the parallels between twi and scientology. You've got plenty of supportive ears to share your frustrations here.

Really? How could that have changed the outcome for any mass shooting perpetrator? I'd suggest that there's a lot going on in the life of such a shooter that you seem to be massively unaware of. Also, that there's a lot going on in society that doesn't seem to factor into how you assess such situations.

In case you may have been unsure, my post you quoted was not intended to suggest you should answer it or answer to me. Yet, it seems you felt compelled to dismiss the points I made. I simply was affirming the post Spectrum49 made and contrasting it with how you started this thread (and how you have attempted to make most of your points on GSC). Spectrum49 cited scripture but importantly reflected on his understanding of those passages. His argument was scripture-based but his thought process was demonstrably different than yours... at least from how you present your arguments. It will not be useful for you to dismiss this comment or my previous one. You seem to convince few, if any, people here with your approach. But if you don't want or need the insight. That's okay too.

THAT is an argument. One that's worth the time to consider. (Contrast that with Spectrum49's use of the word argumentative above) I do not necessarily endorse it as my view of life or the Bible... but that's okay. But It is a legitimate presentation of a reasonable thinking process that incorporates one person's understanding of the Bible without trying to shove something down anyone's throat. It's not a regurgitation of something in an anachronistic class presented by a cult.

A brilliant essay with tremendous insight on the social, emotional and mental manipulation in The Cult that Wierwille Built.

okay.

That is a great post and IMO an excellent demonstration of the issue at hand. Thanks WW. What did Jesus say? Wasn't it something about those who have eyes to see and ears to hear?

I'm telling you that I believe your vague claim that all you've really been trying to get at is "the general message of the Bible" is dubious. You've made specific claims about specific things in the Bible while at no time offering either an actual argument about those specific claims. What difference does it make how long it took me to complete any course? Here's an example, "The Bereans didn't demand Paul back up all his claims (Acts 17:11)." That's a specific claim about a specific message in the Bible. There's a lot of background we're not getting about that situation... either from you or from a plain reading of the verse you cited. Before I take any claims from the Bible at face value, I want to critically evaluate them. PFLAP was intended to do just the opposite -- get people to believe VPee's claims without critically evaluating them. In fact, criticism was stifled by way of peer pressure and leadership direction.

Yep, that pretty much nails it.

Actually, it's not a dubious claim at all. It's a declaration that your argument is faulty. Which is fundamental to whether or not you have anything that can be responded to. What general message of the Bible? You've made specific claims about the specific meaning of specific messages of the Bible apparently without understanding how to make a valid argument. If you'd like to bone up on the subject, you could start here. Or somewhere else, but it's important to understand the basics of logic and argument.

And Aikido too.

Of course, we know (at least those who submitted themselves to VPee's corpse indoctrination) that doulos means bond SLAVE. He applied Dale Carnegie principles to convince us that slavery was a good thing (appeal to nobler motives). I just picked up a book at my local library that sheds light on how Christianity was a part of the zeitgeist of the 18th Century (of course, starting earlier). Toni Morrison this year published The Origin of Others. My point is that in spite of what we now know about the horrors of slavery in the history of the United States, it was generally accepted for far too long that slavery was justified for the good of those owned by slaveholders. Morrison quotes physician and slaveholder Samuel Cartwright (1851), "According to unalterable physiological laws, negroes, as a general rule, to which there are but few exceptions, can only have their intellectual faculties awakened to a sufficient degree to receive moral culture, and to profit by religious or other instruction, when under the compulsory authority of the white man." Back to Wierwille... we also already know that he had a strong proclivity to twist his "research" to justify his beliefs... can you imagine how it would have gone had Wierwille actually had actual intellectual prowess to concoct his doulos doctrine?

You seem to have forgotten to include your closing html tag "/sarc."

Actually you did ask the reader (me) to do your homework... here's one thing I believe: TWI was and is a cult. PFLAP was an effort (often successful) in conditioning the indoctrinee to not think critically about what VPee declared to be God's Word. I'm not "completely uninterested in considering" if your post is valid or not. I already determined that -- from a critical analysis perspective -- it is not. Again, what you seem to consider "hounding the author" I consider legitimately calling you out for making claims but refusing to support those claims, even from the perspective that (as you put it) "the word" is the standard. All of what you have claimed in this thread is based solely on taking for granted what is presented in PFLAP.

Nothing in any internet forum discussion suggests the reader is responsible for looking up anything to support the writer's claim(s). You only saved yourself the time associated with making an actual argument worth any one's consideration. Let's not "confine the discussion to what the word [not capitalized] says." You haven't established that The Word (if that is, indeed, what you are referring to) is the authority for what the Creator of Heaven and Earth actually means.

And what on this website suggests that ANY one here has ANY such book?

I don't know but maybe Raf or Pawtucket know.

Unfortunately, it appears he does not realize that's what he's doing.

Yet, you still don't seem inclined to provide ANY documentation of what, where or when those countless others said what you believe.

The only reason you're not engaged in "any kind of meaningful discussion" is because you seem averse to having your claims challenged and my asking you to at least give YOUR explanation rather than defaulting to someone else's words.

Again, that's not a statement of how you arrived at your conclusion. In fact it's not a statement of anything that YOU arrived at. At least explain YOUR reasoning for taking that particular verse and defaulting to it. All you did was state a default position written by someone else. You gave no explanation.

So, really all you want to do here is claim a position of moral superiority without justifying that position with any legitimate argument? Awfully lazy.

That's a completely backward understanding of the process of communication. It is the listener/reader who determines whether or not to ask for clarification, not the speaker/writer. Your statement is also fairly characterized as a cop out... and another bogus claim made with ZERO support.

Please explain why you believe "The Bible" and academia are most definitely at odds and how you arrived at said conclusion. Then explain why you so easily dismissed that point as insignificant... unless you suggest it is not insignificant. In which case, please explain the significance you believe it holds.