Nathan_Jr

"Her lips were like freshly cut figs." Siddhartha, Herman Hesse

He could have said that in the filmed class I saw. I may be conflating that with the Loy lesbian "teaching," to Mike's point. But what is crystal clear to me is the, "I have no proof, it's just a feeling." It's clear in my memory because THAT is what is memorable to me, not some man made private interpretation - those are a dime a dozen and victor's interpretations were as private and as vividly imagined as anyone's. Like the bastard bar mitzvah "teaching," it's not the implausibility of the private interpretation that woke me up from the droning slog of PFAL, it was the citation of "someone told me once, gee, can't remember his name, but it was some guy, boy, if I can ever remember...." This is astonishingly poor scholarship! From a guy who insisted on being called by an academic title he purchased through the mail! It is an incredibly stupid, intellectually and spiritually, thing to say. It goes to his credibility, his integrity, his propensity towards accurate research.

In the CF&S class victor is recorded on film as saying he cannot prove it because there is no textual evidence, extant or to be found someday in the future when Walter goes back to Germany, he just had a feeling he was right. He didn't linger on this "teaching." If one isn't paying attention, because one is watching with pinwheeled eyeballs of devotion and reverence, one could miss it.

He knew he was being filmed when he said his feelings trumped the evidence. Because he knew he could be caught on film, he wasn't willing to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, as he did so often, by attributing such wicked stupidity to the Father.

No. Are you?

Check the record. I'm open to being proven wrong. mmmph

All of them. One should appear to be equitable. That way no one gets missed - victor said that, too.

You think wrongly. I'm not making it up. Watch it for yourself. "It's true, even if you don't beleeeve it." victor said that, too. it's in the record.

Sure, But lesbian sex? Bestiality is as far as I feel like reading it into the text.

victor paul wierwille, charlatan, said Eve's lesbian escapade with the snake was the original sin. He said he couldn't prove it, because it lacked textual evidence, he just had a feeling it was true. He didn't sound embarrassed to spew such agonizing stupidity, he sounded gleeful in his kerchief and loudly plaid suit. (An ironic homo-erotic image.) Victor was recorded on film saying this for the CF&S class. Anyone can view this record for themselves on archive.org.

Use the keys to clear the unclear.

OJ’s bloody murder glove didn’t fit in the courtroom..but it DID fit… even though it didn’t… (It really did, it was HIS glove.) Got to MAKE it fit, or make it NOT fit.

Tenacity is the salve for cognitive dissonance.

Beleeeving is so important when ignoring errors. I mean, above all, stand. Hey! I didn’t write the book. Got to MAKE it fit, even when it doesn’t.

Something about a lost teaching urging dupes to focus on the victor’s written materials.

“I think we were willing to brush off his mistakes because we really believed we should keep our focus on God’s Word, not Wierwille’s human errors. However, I know editors who tore out their hair trying to fix Wierwille’s transcribed sermons, making them presentable to print in The Way Magazine and in Way books.“

Surely

Thanks, Charlene! Excellent little interview. Had me laughing out loud at the familiar absurdity of it all. And congratulations on the honor from FAPA. From the interview: I think we were willing to brush off his mistakes because we really believed we should keep our focus on God’s Word, not Wierwille’s human errors. However, I know editors who tore out their hair trying to fix Wierwille’s transcribed sermons, making them presentable to print in The Way Magazine and in Way books. In general, we didn’t want to appear too sophisticated because Wierwille often scoffed at educated people, accusing them of being on ego trips. Dr. (Hello, Irony! I seeee yooouuu.)

Thanks. He most certainly does.

I think about this everyday, because it is very real for me and my son. I challenge him. Anything he says that I discern as regurgitating the thoughts or dogma of peers, deluded adults, media, wierwillian stupidity... I ask him questions, I challenge him, I challenge the dogma, the opinions. I don't necessarily provide answers, because he gets enough "answers." The questions are what others are NOT "teaching" him. Even if I agree with an idea he regurgitates, I ask him, "Says who? How did they come up with that? How do they know? How do YOU know? Why is the opposite false? Why? How?..." I try to challenge him to think about ideas, their source, what they mean. He sees and hears so much of WHAT. What to believe, to think, to know. So I challenge him to think about WHY he should accept any of it. I don't always tell him outright WHAT to think, rather, I try to help him HOW to think. I try. Occasionally, he will text me something he sees on social media. And he will simply ask, "BS?" This always warms my heart. He is 13. I always provide an answer. I haven't yet taught him how to correctly spell beleeef, but one day I will.

"Belonging researchers" seem to be unsure what they mean or need to mean. Moveable goalposts help to divert the attention. Verbosity further distracts. I asked very early on, some 2K posts ago, why we feel the need to belong to anything. Similar answers were given then as now: We are social beings with an innate desire to belong. Indeed, we are social beings. But WHY do we desire to belong to a group? Why do we clutch and cling to something outside ourselves for strength? Can we participate in a group without attachment, without identifying with that group? What do we lack? Are we lonely? Insecure? Are we uncomfortable being alone? Must relationship with another imply attachment? Is love transactional? Must we identify with a group, a family, an ideology to feel whole, secure, strong? Can we pay attention to this? Can we look deeply at this? Are we truly aware of ourselves? I didn't fit in with my fellowship because I didn't DESIRE anything from them. They CLAIMED I NEEDED their ideology. They saw me as weak because I wouldn't submit and BELONG to their group identity. They resented that I could be so generous, kind, tolerant, forgiving, and at peace. My strength and identity and self worth was not dependent on my belonging to the "family" of the household of the word according to the bloody gloves of wierwille's demonstrably false private interpretations. I didn't need to be validated through belonging to their cult. I belonged to nothing, I attached to nothing. At least, I tried to pay attention to this. Fear is not of the unknown. Fear is of losing the known, the knowledge put together by the thoughts of man. Fear, emotional immaturity, weakness motivates attachment.

"While Baumeister and Leary were unable to recall why they chose the word “belong,” the more clunky “need to be accepted and belong” may be clearer, as is “the desire for social connections with both people and people in a group.” Belonging researchers also need greater agreement on terminology, measures, and definitions to create greater clarity around the implications of their findings for schools. They also need to improve how they communicate their findings to a broader audience." To build strong children reinforce their sense of desire for social connections with both people and people in a family by articulating exactly what is distinctive about your family. They should be able to say with pride “Our family rightly divides the word.”

We agree that it is an emotional condition, but I see it as a false sense of strength and not at all emotionally mature nor emotionally intelligent. The way I see it, a sense of belonging is a seductive illusion. it is a form of attachment that can devolve into codependency. The emotionally mature pays attention and is aware of the risk. Take the child raised in a family loyal to the "teachings" of victor paul wierwille. Surely, it is incumbent on this family to reinforce the child's sense of belonging. The child finds strength in identifying with the distinctiveness of the family. He is strong and maturing in the word, he is told. He is IN fellowship. He feels a sense of pride rightly dividing -- this is distinctive to what his family DOES. His identification with his family is comfortable, it is safe, it is warm, it is protective, it is strengthening. This reinforced identification with his family is not a sign of maturity or intelligence, rather, it is attachment. It is identification with something outside of himself that, though strong, is unhealthy. He is so emotionally strong, convinced, that the need to find an outside group to fulfill a desire for a sense of belonging is precluded.

I am, indeed, trying to understand your intended meaning. It's not a meme if the intended meaning has to be explained. I've addressed your intended meaning and have asked questions to advance the discussion. I'm not fighting with you. I just disagree with the proposition that strong children are made by reinforcing a sense of belonging and championing the distinctiveness of that sense of belonging. Though, I agree that emotional maturity has to do with inner peace and strength, we disagree that it is advanced through reinforcing a sense of belonging. I hope to always pay attention to this desire for sense of belonging. Does a desire for a sense of belonging reinforce emotional maturity? Or can one even experience a healthy sense of belonging before reaching emotional maturity? Is inner peace dependent of a sense of belonging to something outside ourselves? Or is inner peace a contentment that is not dependent on any variable or desire? A risk of seeking and finding inner peace and strength through reinforcing a sense of belonging is codependency and loss of individual identity. Conditions I hope we can agree is not the fruit of emotional maturity or emotional intelligence.

I'll ask, again, is emotional maturity and strength and inner peace built up by a sense of belonging? This is what I am questioning. This is where we disagree. And that is ok. It's not a matter of lack of curiosity or explanation. Agreed. Is reinforcing a sense of belonging emotional strength? Or is it a step towards codependency? It seems to me the emotionally intelligent can see this potential pitfall and pay attention to attachments. Those with inner peace and strength and emotional maturity do not feel the need to belong to any group, the need to find strength outside themselves. Perhaps the quoted text doesn't stand alone so well outside the context of the book. Maybe it's not an effective meme. To build strong children reinforce their sense of belonging to a family by articulating exactly what is distinctive about your family. They should be able to say with pride “Our family does X.”