Nathan_Jr

When he starts high school I'm sure we will get a full initiation. High school will be public and racially, ethnically, religiously, politically, economically diverse - precisely what I want him to experience. Right now he is in a very white, very affluent, very homogenous.... bubble. Unless accreditation requires demonstrable implementation of SEL, his middle school wouldn't bother.

My son goes to a private Baptist K-8. (Neither of us are Baptist.) We haven't experienced any of this... yet.

I would never. The bit is from a Denis Miller radio show. It satirizes the very issues raised in this thread. I'll find it and post it.

I'll take this as your own stylized way of showing me instead of telling me just how very f*cked all this is.

An issue was fabricated?

Wow. That's a real issue. Academics should be the priority. The very nature of school socializes children. Why do I need to even write those sentences?

Banning books because of hurt feelings? Where's the social and emotional learning in that? (Norm Macdonald had a brilliant bit on the solution to the hurt feelings caused by that book.)

Would a school district or state embracing SEL ban or teach Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?

So, no discussion? What a gyp. The materials from CASEL seem vague and innocuous, even common-sensical, but it seems critics see SEL as a way for schools to teach CRT and alphabet city. Not really sure there needs to be a program for this... not really sure what the program is. Teaching a child he is a born racist is as wickedly stupid and as spiritually irresponsible as teaching him he is a born sinner.

Go ahead. Get into the details. How are the kids getting brainwashed? (Asking for a dad whose son will be in public school in thirteen months.)

Not sure if it is discussed anywhere within these 44 exhausting pages, but it’s worth repeating. Victor’s “lost teaching” exhorts duped sycophants to master the written, scrubbed edition of PFAL and the collaterals - the foundational fundamentals. BUT the Advanced Class is conspicuously missing from the list of materials to be mastered. Could it be because the AC is a self indictment? VP teaches in the AC that cancer is devil spirit possession. Victor paul wierwille himself died of cancer, a devil spirit possession he did not know how (H-O-W) to cast out. He was unwilling to cast out any of his devil spirit possessions because he was unable - ability=willingness. If only he could have rightly beleeeved big enough…

I’ve been thinking about it for days. It seems to me only three types of people think/believe/act as if anything victor said or wrote matters: 1. The naive 2. The confused, delusional 3. The willfully ignorant

Yep and yep. Not even a chance it’s true. ABC…. Accuracy! Hey! I didn’t right the book.

If one expects victor paul wierwille, charlatan, to have a modicum of honesty the size of a glass eyeball glint, one might expect victor paul wierwille’s last teaching to be an exhortation to track down the guy who “taught” him the bastard Jew bar mitzvah story, since victor, in spite of his throughly renewed mind, just could not remember where he got it. Once Victor got it, he knew what to do with it. That’s riiiight! You’ve got to know what’s available and how (H-O-W) to get it. This is a class on how (H-O-W). Only then, Then, THEN will you know what (W-H-A-T) to do with it. Hey! I didn’t write the book.

Welcome, Rusty. Thank you for sharing your very familiar story — it is the legacy of victor paul wierwille, charlatan and destroyer. You are not alone. Apparently, there’s some fresh, full-strength coffee served in new, unused cups around here somewhere.

He wasn’t a real doctor and those weren’t real tools.

And, of course, four crucified, six denials, crowing cocks crowed differently in “Bible times,” boundaries of the mind, lesbian sex between Eve and a snake, Jesus was given a bastard bar mitzvah, and on and on and on…. Those and thousands of other claims and assertions are NOT backed up with Biblical textual evidence.

Mmmmph

Damn those facts to hell! Good for nothing time wasters facts are. If evidence and reason aren’t sandy enough, I’ve got to worry about those facts clogging up my beleeeving machine.

This is very close. I don't know exactly how I'd phrase it, but it follows this line of thought. And, for me, it applies to any scripture, not just Judeo-Christian scripture. I'm not trying to get into this argument. I just liked what you said there, Chock. I don't think I've seen that sentiment expressed before in the café.

No, they do not. Nor does victor's definition of NEIGHBOR agree with Christ, as I showed above. WordWolf succinctly explains Christ's definition of NEIGHBOR further up thread. Much of what victor taught was antiChrist. The evidence for this is not faulty, as Mike imaginatively claims. The evidence is right there in WHAT victor said, WHERE he said it, HOW (H-O-W) he said it, and TO WHOM he said it. Hey! I didn't write the book.

He didn't say exactly that, but that is exactly what he meant. If you want, I can send you the transcript. Here's the Q&A at the end of the Corps "teaching" between victor paul wierwille and Loy Craig Martindale: LCM: How much does you behavior that people do not see influence your example to them? VPW: It doesn't, unless you believe it will. LCM: You understand what I asked? VPW: I sure did and I gave you the proper answer. LCM: I asked, How much does you behavior that people do not see influence your example to them? VPW: Alright, Kurt? KURT: In verse 15 of chapter 14....

Mmmmph

Yes. I've heard the same argument. There is no term for anyone who doesn't believe in astrology, either. The atheists I have known and read are simply unconvinced of any reason to believe in an any god. The theist says there are gods. The atheist says the theist's evidence for Zeus or Yahweh or Isis is insufficient. The atheist doesn't have to prove the negative, the burden of proof is on the theist for his positive claim. Ultimately, it's up to each atheist what that term means for him. It's a loaded and misleading term. I don't find it very useful. victor paul wierwille, cult founder and charlatan, said the atheist beleeeves that no god exists, so even the atheist is a beleeever in something. That's inaccurate. (Add it to the pile.) The atheist doesn't beleeeve at all because he hasn't found sufficient reason or evidence to beleeeve. So it seems to me.

In that same "teaching" to his Corps in the glory days of 1973, victor paul wierwille "taught" what a neighbor is. Victor's definition goes against what Christ taught. Victor's teaching is antiChrist.