Rocky

That wasn't the issue. I've known all along. The question, as I see it, is why it took so long to pin him down, rhetorically.

https://alexandercenter.com/alexandertechniquebooks.html

My view is Mike is completely free to have been a seeker who just decided. However, that's not what Mike's role as an activist for promoting all things Wierwille, PFLAP, and the associated written collateral materials... ARGUING (incredibly poorly) for that position. Last night, I tried to pin him down and get him to justify his position. He replied with what I read as extreme frustration, expressed with emotionally immature and accusatory language. I realized at that time the only way for me to reasonably respond to him when he does that is with compassion. I maintain that his advocacy for all things twi is worthy of reasonable and aggressive pushback. When he seems to go off the rails, that signals to me he needs to be responded to with compassion.

I mentioned recently I believe this topic is completely germane to the About the Way forum because Victor Wierwille built his entire enterprise on and around bibliolatry.

In Avalos' book, The End of Biblical Studies, he cites a past president of the Society for Biblical Literature, Morton S Enslin, who "sounded a near death-knell on December 27, 1945. In a presidential address titled "The Future of Biblical Studies," he posed the question "Is there a Future of Biblical Studies?" His initial answer is "Of course there is." But the rest of the speech is not so optimistic, and near the end he proclaims that "we are destroying our future through showing ourselves unworthy of having one." pg 308.

YW. I am confident you will benefit greatly from her message, her insight, her wisdom.

Yes, that's an astute assessment. Restated in the framework of Brené Brown's research, Mike is apparently too insecure to vulnerably show up as himself. Instead of "fitting in," he has spent more than two decades trying to make readers here fit in to his belief system, even though pretty much everyone he addresses has rejected that world view and belief system. Mike also adamantly heretofore has refused and rebuffed efforts to reach out to him with compassion. He doesn't engage in legitimate discussion. That's sad for him and sad for us.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57763399-the-power-of-vulnerability

And not in some hip contemporary sense of the word wicked.

I'm not an academic. I'm a curious person who reads. The only degree I hold is a bachelor's degree, in accounting. Are you really trying to say you need validation from people on GSC? My hunch is you're not likely to ever convince anyone here that Victor Wierwille, PFLAP, or the related collateral books are the will of God. I really hope you don't need me or anyone else on GSC to validate your beliefs. I can have compassion for you, yet I don't believe it's necessary for me to agree with you in order to do so. Btw, vulnerability is strength. If emotional strength is what you need, you'll more likely find it in the pages of book written by Brene Brown than in books you're already plenty familiar with from twi. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57763399-the-power-of-vulnerability https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22812284-daring-greatly https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22973083-spiritual-growth https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34564109-braving-the-wilderness https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19996676-i-thought-it-was-just-me-but-it-isn-t https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19984792-men-women-and-worthiness https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58330567-atlas-of-the-heart https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23511311-the-art-of-asking-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-let-people-hel If you wonder, 20 years of banging heads with people here probably hasn't been very fulfilling for you. If you want to try a different perspective, try vulnerability. Here's the key, you don't need to be always right, or even right at all to be accepted by people here. Good luck with that. Honestly, I don't care whether you ever spell out how you came to believe what you have about Victor Wierwille or his teachings. But if you continue to insist that "you're right," I'll be inclined to challenge you on it. One more thing, you'll probably be able to find at least some of these books in your local public library.

Nope. Might that really be projection?? That's what it sounds like. If you were to actually, in a way that demonstrated emotional maturity, make your case, I would be compelled to acknowledge YOUR OPINION. Sure, I certainly do not hold the PFLAP collaterals to be rife with credibility. But I'm pretty sure I didn't take any cheap shots at you. I can't claim your honestly held views or opinions, communicated clearly and honestly are invalid. But until you do so, you remain open to criticism. Projection occurs when a person attributes a quality to another person that really comes from themselves. FWIW, this is what you CAN avoid when you dare to use genuine "I" statements. Did I declare what YOUR motives were? Did I characterize your tactics using any emotionally loaded language? THIS kind of "civil discourse" would actually protect you from emotional attacks.

Hmmm...

Where did I say that? I asked you to explain how you came to, after 28 years of a process challenging your beliefs, to where you became a "blessed seeker." Again, declaring that I am somehow so perplexed that you don't tear up your beliefs seems to be the opposite of an actual "I" statement. Where did you read my words saying I was perplexed about you "tearing up your beliefs?" Where did you read my words saying it was impossible for you to be a "blessed seeker who found?" How did you decide that I might be an academic? I've taken ONE graduate (academic) class in my entire life. Where did you read my words saying I hate any idea, let alone that you would be finished with a nebulous process... which actually sounds more like you might never have actually challenged your beliefs. Instead, did you just up and decide one day to no longer challenge your position about Pflap and/or Victor Wierwille?

Please enlighten us as to how you carry out such a challenge. Many times change is incremental. Such a process does not typically involve, for anyone, "trashing one's current beliefs and picking up garbage to take their place." Doesn't that characterization actually belie the fact that you (as many of us have repeatedly observed) completely dismiss any and every one who disagrees with you? In which case, if you do (as we generally interpret your comments to mean) so dismiss others, how could you reasonably claim to engage in civil discourse?

Really? How is that anything like describing your decision and commitment process?

Okay. Perhaps. I guess I didn't see his self-justification in that context. Maybe I should give Mike some credit for trying. Yet, telling me I was mistaken; saying he didn't "fall in love" with VPW; claiming he knew Penworks' thinking process; saying John Juedes made up his mind in session one (even though he, MIKE took 28 years to arrive at his position); declaring "You folks just love to eat up that junk" as a result of (his characterization of our different position as loving to) hate PFAL and Victor Wierwille... I didn't see each of those things as Mike engaging in discourse. I saw/see them as him condemning those who disagree with his view/position. Sorry Waysider. Sorry Mike.

A poignant example of the opposite of an "I" statement. Not something the emotionally mature or emotionally intelligent person would normally do. From a recent Orlando Sentinel op-ed "indoctrination seeks to suppress other points of view so that the preferred point of view will go unchallenged. Critical thinking encourages community inquiry and discourse while indoctrination insists on the acceptance of hierarchical proclamations and the imposition of “correct” ideas onto others." While Mike might CHALLENGE any suggestion he seeks to suppress other points of view... regarding his bibliolatry, does he EVER engage in legitimate back and forth discussion which validates any position which contradicts his?

Got a link?

Of course. Didn't you claim VERY recently that you continually challenge your position?

However, it may be a matter of degrees...

What a lovely sentiment.