Rocky
-
Posts
14,686 -
Joined
-
Days Won
197
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by Rocky
-
I understood your point when you first said it. But as you noted, speaking in absolutes can be misleading to readers who don't immediately pick up on your message.
-
Indeed.
-
Just for the record, and not because I side with Mike, by definition I disagree with your claim, brother, that there's nothing good in PFLAP. It would be extremely difficult to sell the concept if it was ALL bad. However, I agree with you that overall, PFLAP is not good. Too much wrong with it.
-
You expect contentious debate? Well, here's my initial thoughts. Righteousness, as I understand (and believe) is (in the spiritual sense) is not connected to whether or not a person "is aware of" sin, guilt or shortcomings at all. Consciousness from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. noun The state or condition of being conscious. noun A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered characteristic of an individual or group. noun Special awareness or sensitivity. noun Alertness to or concern for a particular issue or situation. noun In psychoanalysis, the conscious. Righteousness, in action (rather than inaction), is IMO, a dedication to doing the right thing. from Wordnik. noun The character of being righteous; purity of heart and rectitude of life; the being and doing right; conformity in character and conduct to a right standard. noun Hence, also In theology, a coming into spiritual oneness with God, because for Christ's sake the believer in Christ is treated as righteous. noun A righteous act or quality; anything which is or purports to be righteous. noun Rightfulness; justice. noun The quality or state of being righteous; holiness; purity; uprightness; rectitude. noun A righteous act, or righteous quality. noun The act or conduct of one who is righteous. noun (Theol.) The state of being right with God; justification; the work of Christ, which is the ground of justification. In the 36 or so years of my post-twi/post-cult life, I've come to define righteousness (for me) in terms of dedication of my life to righteous causes, to justice. Looking back to the twi definition, as quoted in the OP for this thread, it seems to be framed such that it is easily used as the foundation for a life of debauchery personally, and as the frame in which the cult and cultish norms in twi were developed. If I, the cult leader am justified in whatever I do, because a god declared me "righteous," then I am the lord and king, displacing God and Jesus Christ.
-
Apparently, they don't think you're meek enough.
-
This is for Mike.The ICSA, International Cultic Studies Association has issued a call for papers to be presented at its June 2023 conference: Since Mike fancies himself a thinker, a thought leader, a researcher, and a quasi-academic, perhaps this conference would be THE place to present his hypothesis. Since it's apparent nobody on GSC seems to be interested in said hypothesis. Good luck, Mike.
-
In light of you latest comment, Twinky, I hope you don't mind me reiterating this comment from page 1 of this thread. I found Riggleman's description of his long journey escaping Mormonism to be salient in light of my experience "deprogramming" myself from waybrain. If you can borrow this book from a local public library, my hunch is you would agree.
-
Referring to Mike, of course.
-
-
-
Perhaps it'd be a good idea to challenging THAT hypothesis.
-
-
Follow us back into the FOG... LOL!
-
pub·lish (pŭb′lĭsh) v. pub·lished, pub·lish·ing, pub·lish·es v.tr. 1. a. To prepare and issue (a book, music, or other material) for public distribution, especially for sale. b. To prepare and issue a work or works by (an author). 2. To bring to the public attention; announce. See Synonyms at announce. v.intr. 1. To issue a publication. 2. To be the writer of works that are published.
-
This would make an excellent dictionary entry giving a poignant example of rationalization. So, you're now rationalizing having PUBLISHED online your book for discussion, claiming it's NOT published because it's not public ENOUGH? Mike, remember the first rule of holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
-
The entire thread is pricelessly valuable. And I see your insight here as particularly insightful. I'm reading Denver Riggleman's new book, The Breach. He is a former Member of Congress and a former religious cult member (his characterization of his experience in the LDS church). Chapter two THREE (Among the believers)in his book is an exquisite telling of him having challenged his religious beliefs and how he developed tangible skills to challenge certain cultic beliefs and actions. I highly recommend the book. It's not simply a repackaging of current affairs reporting, btw.
-
Uncanny really how you claim to have communicated successfully, when you did NOT succeed in communicating at all. That is, according to communication theory, which posits that success in communication consists of encoding a message, sending it, then having it received and accurately decoded by the intended audience. YOU do not succeed until YOU receive acknowledgment that YOUR message was accurately decoded by the intended audience. OTOH, you did claim to not have PUBLISHED your book. But your description of having put it here on GSC for other readers to hopefully someday read it contradicts said claim. That IS what publishing consists of. IOW, Mike, we have plumbed the depths of your intentions and actions based solely on words that you posted responding to my probing challenges to you.
-
No, YOU can ask any chemist or physicist about it. Bullshonta. You seem to KNOW (anticipate enthusiastically, perhaps). Instead of development of an esoteric hypothesis about free will, you might find it more fruitful to focus on YOUR OWN exercise of will and taking responsibility for your actions. KNOWING that you will stir up "that kind of commotion" belies your claims of non-responsibility... or perhaps IRresponsibility.
-
Yeah, 26 pages and having it pointed out to you pointedly. "On Facebook, in the discussion groups, I have had everyone take my chapters (or earlier portions of them) very seriously, and I can tell they read the text I offer. I've been seriously discussing my material there for approximately 5 years now, maybe more." If you are getting feedback there, why in the world do you feel a need to impose yourself on GSC?
- 1,462 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- dark persuasion
- delusion
- (and 10 more)
-
Talk to Raf or Pawtucket about the reasonableness of donation size. Of course YOU THINK you're right and I'm wrong about you taking over GSC. Far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise. What was it Wierwille use to say (quote), a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Nevertheless, for two decades you've been a thorn in the side of GSC and whenever you post, it ALWAYS becomes about YOU. As to ASD type behavior/conduct, I observe that you often do not pick up on verbal cues of other posters. Granted, written verbal cues are harder to pick up on than when non-verbals can be observed, but after a while one would think you'd get the point that NOBODY is taking your "thesis" seriously. I mean, 26 pages so far. Sheesh. Proverbs 21:2 New King James Version 2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, But the Lord weighs the hearts.
- 1,462 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- dark persuasion
- delusion
- (and 10 more)
-
Acting like a troll isn't the same as ASD. I'm confident you know that.
-
Months ago, Twinky noted the possibility that Mike was "on the spectrum." Others poo poo'd the notion. Mike's posting without being able to recognize that people are toying with him on this thread takes us back to Twinky's proposition. That he can't recognize the realities of social interaction he's in the middle of... AND fancies himself an intellectual in neurology matters, suggests he may indeed have some ASD even if not severe. Obviously, I'm not qualified to diagnose. I'm simply noting my observations of his behavior in our little ecosystem here.
- 1,462 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- dark persuasion
- delusion
- (and 10 more)
-
Again, the reality is posters on this thread are TOYING with you, almost certainly because (as has been documented in various comments) nobody is taking your "thesis" seriously... and because it is obvious to everyone (perhaps excluding you) that you're both full of bullshonta and freely posting without honoring either your fellow posters or the (legitimate) owner(s) of the website who make it available for you to publish your "book" without contributing financially.
- 1,462 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- dark persuasion
- delusion
- (and 10 more)
-
-
However, like the story WW relayed about the chef, just before my comment, whether Mike knows what he's doing or not is not relevant. That he refuses to OWN his responsibility for communicating his message clearly IS relevant. IMO, it's well past time to send Mike home. It's a poor communicator that communicates vaguely and then blames the audience for not seeing his points.
- 1,462 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- dark persuasion
- delusion
- (and 10 more)
