Charity

I know this thread is about the importance of considering evidence that contradicts your beliefs and admitting to the possibility that you could be wrong. My posts have focused more on those people who find this practically impossible to do because unlike the majority of posters on GSC, they have not left twi and/or are not aware of how toxic Waybrain thinking can be. If I should find it difficult to consider evidence and/or admit I might be wrong on a different matter, it helps to understand why this might be. The article you mentioned is excellent. One thing it says is, "Disorganized attachment has both emotional and cognitive effects. Emotionally it can lead to disorganized or trauma bonding – a powerful, entangled bond – with the caregiver." The word "co-dependency" came to my mind when I read this. (Mental Health America describes co-dependency this way: "People with codependency often form or maintain relationships that are one-sided, emotionally destructive and/or abusive." Without an understanding of co-dependency, a person will not recognize that he/she is in a co-dependent relationship with cult's leaders. This "powerful, entangled bond" will prevent people from considering the evidence provided to them by those outside the cult. I feel Johnathan Swift's quote is conditional, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into." It's kind of like saying you can't get blood from a stone.

Thanks, I have edited my post.

You mentioned from the article: "disorganized attachment, cognitively disable and threats." These all describe why a follower was "not reasoned into" joining and staying in a cult. I interpreted the word "reason" in Swift's quote, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into" to mean "think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic" and logic to mean "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity (or factually sound)." I think someone who is exposed to disorganized attachment, cognitively disable and threats could become quite defensive with people who are trying to reason with them about their loyalty to the cult's leader and their unwillingness to leave.

I like the framework Twinky. Not allowing arguments as such would prevent strong emotions from arising and overtaking a participant as can happen in some debates, political or otherwise.

We do a lot of things based on emotions - no problem whatsoever with that. My question was in the context of my whole post (reason, evidence, etc.) "The question remains as to why such strong emotions are attached to our positions on r & p where you don't even want to listen to the other side." "Instead "emotional" personal attacks, rumors and conspiracy theories are hurled out to defend one's position." Have you seen this happening both in religion and politics.

There's a saying that religion and politics (r & p) are two things that are not to be discussed in polite conversation. A quote by Johnathan Swift in 1721 may give a possible reason for this, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into." Another reason can be the strong emotions that are attached to our beliefs in both r & p. Applying Swift's quote to r & p suggests that one reason for our refusal to consider the other side is because the side we stand on was never based on reasoning. We know that with both r & p, a charismatic leader can prevent "reasoning" from happening. With twi, a lot of people were drawn in because of the "cheerfulness experienced when first attending fellowships" (as was outlined in a thread), or the "love bombing," or the promise of answers to their questions, or a number of other factors. These were all done so we would take the class. How much time went by from our first fellowship to signing up for the class where what we were taught morphed into our own personal beliefs. Many of us did not reason into these beliefs, we simply accepted them as truth because of all the hype given to it and vp and twi before, during and immediately afterwards. It's why we could not be reasoned out of them by concerned family and friends. I believe something similar to this happened a couple of years ago outside of twi when a charismatic person got many to believe in something that was not based on actual evidence. Nevertheless, thousands of followers (aka believers) eventually acted very grievously, not because of proven facts but because they believed their leader (who many thought could do no wrong). The question remains as to why such strong emotions are attached to our positions on r & p where you don't even want to listen to the other side. Instead "emotional" personal attacks, rumors and conspiracy theories are hurled out to defend one's position. In my experience, I think one reason is fear - fear that if what I believe is wrong, my whole way of life based on that belief will fall to pieces. I think that's why a lot of people won't consider the evidence about twi until they realize that what they have believed in is beginning to cause them pain or cognitive dissonance in their life. That's when their minds become open to reason and to considering the evidence. Anyone have other reasons why we attached strong emotions to our close-minded beliefs which were never grounded on evidence in the first place?

johniam wrote that 'Christians should be prosperous' was one of the good things vp did. That one I did work out for myself and it was one of the main reasons I left in '86 after being accused by some high-rank leader that I was professing to know more than vp and who then walked away like I wasn't worth his time. I might look into '4 crucified' on my own after all.

John S. continues to teach four crucified. https://spiritandtruthonline.org/resources/the-four-men-crucified-with-jesus-christ/ John Juedes wrote an article that refutes it but I was too tired at the time to read it closely. I'll go back to it at some point.

Hi, I've been to this church a few times in the past and I know how welcoming and accepting they are even if you believe differently about their beliefs. They were involved in community outreach as well. The senior pastor was Ed Kolar, and he retired this past year. Interesting thing though: years ago, he and I talked about the trinity. The discussion mainly focused on the Holy Spirit part. Well I met up with him after he retired, and he no longer believes in the trinity. Without any help from me, he bought the book "One God and One Lord" by Schoenheit, Lynn and a third author. He teaches online on Schoenheit's ministry's website, I think every other Sunday even though some of his beliefs are different (e.g., original sin, sin nature). Kind of blew my mind when I heard this. Anyway, there is a new pastor now - someone who was involved in the church since I first went. I'll get to see how things are now - what has changed and what has remained the same.

Thank you Charity. What you've said spoke to a longing that's been hiding beneath the surface, too afraid to come out. I know this because of how my emotions immediately began to rise and the tears began to fall. You also wrote, "All this comes, Charity, from a simple trust relationship. I have only my God to rely on." I know we are social beings and that the ability to trust is essential in healthy relationships. Knowing this and living this can be two totally different things as it is for me. This is why I need God and Jesus Christ in my life because of the fear I have around both these areas. "I mean, the more I trust God, the more I am able to trust God in and for the future." is another thing you shared. For me, my first step will be to rely both on the love that God always has for us as well as on the love we were rooted and grounded in when we were born again. (Perfect love casts out fear.) My second step is to attend the church I know fits your description above.

I have to strongly disagree with you using words like "sledgehammer, hate, rumor mills and loving anti-idol worship" (not sure what it is but it sounds bad). Posters on GSC are not dealing with rainbows and cupcakes. They are dealing with some pretty dark and nasty sh* t which people have experienced because of their involvement with twi. Why won't you try, Mike, to walk in the shoes of those who post on GSC (many of whom are former corps members) or the shoes of Charlene Edge and Kristen Skedgell? If you did, you would better understand what people say on GSC. Disagreeing with them by saying things like "well, it wasn't so bad where I was" or "I never saw any of those things happen" just doesn't cut it. Sticking one's head in the sand is not a viable excuse for pleading ignorance about twi's behavior when the facts are readily available in Charlene and Kristen's books. If you don't want to understand and accept where we are coming from on GSC, at least do not call it hate. In my opinion, what you are seeing here is righteous anger, concern and pain - not hate. - Righteous anger not only because we know from experience what ungodly things happened in twi (especially those who were in the corps), but also because these things that oppose God continue to be covered up, whitewashed and denied by people who are still promoting twi. - Concern for twi people who have left or are still involved who are struggling with fear, grief, confusion, anger, self-doubt, suicidal thoughts...the list goes on and on. They are fighting for these believers who seriously need the validation, help and support that GSC gives. - Pain can be frustrating and upsetting when the hurt we feel in our own lives or in the lives of others should never have happened in the first place if the leaders had loved as Jesus loved.

The person low enough to use the compliment (not!) that "you're spiritually mature enough to meet the (sexual) needs of the man of God or of a leader" in order to assault or rape someone would be low enough to justify to themselves it was also "good for their marriage."

I've noticed how so much of what you do is in concert with people you know. It shows the value of being with others when you want to demonstrate God's love in serving your community

Looked it up - The first time that name Jesus was ever used was in June of 1632. Jesus, which is the name used by most English-speaking people today, is an English transliteration of a Germanic adaptation, of a Latin transliteration, of a Greek transliteration of an originally Hebrew name, that is simply Yeshua. Biblical research is such fun

I thought of it today when I was reading "The Way Changing" thread but decided to ask my question on this thread. I've had to overcome a strong aversion to saying "Jesus" because of twi, probably because of one of the reasons you give above. I can remember now hearing that Jesus was the humiliated man - mocked, beaten and crucified, and how it fit together with twi's teaching that the gospels were not written to us - they were only for our learning. And since our learning was suppose to come from pfal materials and the epistles, I hardly read the gospels. It all led to the absent Jesus in my life a well as the absent Christ. To know Jesus' life as a man, who can relate to all our pain and suffering because he was a man, to see his relationship with his father, both as a man and as the son of God leads to the conclusion that the gospels are a trove of learning for believers today.

Does anyone remember if we were told in twi that it was wrong to use the stand-alone name, Jesus? If so, what reason was given for this?

Close enough

Beautifully written Twinky. I won't forget what you shared. Thank you.

I just happened to find the funniest thread last night - made me laugh out loud multiple times. It was "1976 corps meetings...fill me in." Here are a couple of quotes: Can some of you straighten out some terminology? Were the MAL packs somehow connected with the live chicken outdoor trips? Or were the live chickens part of the LEAD experience? Or were the LEAD trips done with MAL packs? Or were the live chickens part of the "Work Program?" "The original concept was to strap MAL packs on the chickens in transit to LEAD."

"Ordinary and typical is where life happens." I it!

OldSkool, you're a great champion for newbies like me on GSC. My first couple of thoughts were heavier ones like witnessing and going to a church. I feel Christ wants me to begin with the ordinary, typical person so I can learn not to be a respecter of persons and to just be myself around people. I'm sure he'll lead me into more as we go along. It'll be interesting to do so without all the way baggage you mentioned above. Do have the 4 seasons where you live? Are there places you like to go for a walk?

On my walk today, I was talking to Christ about what he wants me to do as a member of his body. After a few ideas went through my mind, I felt I knew what his answer was. It was to simply begin to love my fellow human beings. I have always been shy and preferred to be as invisible around people as possible. I often tell certain people that I would be happy living as a hermit. Other than my children, I have had little to no contact with my brothers and their families. I have had no desire to make or be with friends. So this is how I believe Christ wants to work with me. Just to begin acknowledging people when I'm out and about, to smile, and at times even talk with them. I know I can do this by being in fellowship with Christ and I want to do this because he's put it on my heart.

With regard to the seed of the woman in Genesis, what about vp's teaching that the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary, and the power of the Most High overshadowing her meant God had literally created a sperm (a perfect seed) in Mary which together with her egg, was the conception of Jesus? According to this teaching, it was this perfect seed that made Jesus the son of God? If, however, the seed of the woman was a symbol for the word of God, then God simply spoke the word and Mary became pregnant (like when God said "Let there by light" and there was light). I never took the seed in 1 Peter 1:23 to be a literal seed but as the receiving of holy spirit which gave us everlasting life and made God our Father and us his children. So while the use of the word "seed" in "corruptible seed" does refer to the literal seed involved in our first birth and is not everlasting, being born of incorruptible (seed), meaning the new birth of receiving of holy spirit, is everlasting. This incorruptible (seed), being the symbol for the word of God, is expanded upon in Romans 10:13,14 where the declaring of, hearing of, and believing in the message of Christ (the Word) leads to the calling on the name of the Lord which results in our salvation (receiving holy spirit) and finally ends with receiving an incorruptible body (1 Cor 15:53 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.) Please let me know if there are any problems with the above.

No thanks, I've wondered before what some of these combined letters meant, the latest being POV. I figured it out by noticing how it was used in another post. Last night, I had to ask Rocky what FB meant! Nathan replied with the answer. There are other times when I had to look up words - such was the case with "pitiable." The difference in meaning compared to "pitiful" was illuminating! Here's to increasing brain power . I agree on your assessment of twi being contemptibly poor or small. After reading the above posts about the serpent's seed and reading up to the POP chapter in Undertow, declaring twi as a Biblical research ministry is extremely pitiable. It's to the nth degree.

Hi Twinky, I used this emoji, not because of the rolling eyes, but because of the smile which is the only stand-alone smiley face I can see. I did not mean I was annoyed or bored by your picture.