Oh yeah...the boundaries of the mind...when you move the landmarks taught in pflap and the wierwilles (they say the word but we know the word=wierwille) then you become open for posession. Thats how I heard it from martindale
I cant say for sure but that may be a reason mike wont engage anyone here unless its him lecturing and going about his nostalgic, imagined point of view. Eve considered what the devil had to say. When you move the boundaries of the word those nast deebil spuurts get in there..
I'm taking a break from my Twinky Tome,
and this post caught my eye.
Why?
Because I can totally empathize with it.
By the Summer of 1985 the ministry was already way over the line, crossed the boundary, in overdoing the whole devil spirit thing, especially possession.
That said, that I can relate to your complaint there, and can even add to it, if you want to discuss it… after my Twinky Tome is finished, and then trimmed down.
*/*/*/*/*
One last thing: please let me re-work your post a little bit:
6 hours ago, OldSkool said:
Oh yeah...the boundaries of the mind
...when you move the landmarks taught in pflap and the wierwilles
(they say the word but we know the word=wierwille)
then you become open for posession.
Thats how I heard it from martindale
I cant say for sure
but that may be a reason mike wont engage anyone here
unless its him lecturing and going
about his nostalgic, imagined point of view.
Eve considered what the devil had to say. When you move the boundaries of the word those nast deebil spuurts get in there..
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
I color coded things to untangle the mixed topics, and to help me explain things.
Everything I colored can be removed, but all for different reasons.
(they say the word but we know the word=wierwille) That is just a distraction. A burst of anti-praise for the anti-idol, that is not part of the discussion. You see these same human dynanaics in some churches, where the praise bursts can be rhythmic and involving others. I’ve seen it done tastefully, but when it is for the whole church service it is distracting and mind numbing.
Thats how I heard it from martindale This is good history, and belongs at the end to not distract.
Eve considered what the devil had to say. This is complicated theology in itself, and is worthy of a lot of discussion, but is a distraction here.For future discussion: Remember, Eve had a perfectly renewed mind, and needed not consider anything outside the boundaries God gave her. Sometimes we need to grope around and see what fits.Even Jesus “considered” the devil’s words in the desert, until the Scriptures were wrongly divided.
When you move the boundaries of the word those nast deebil spuurts get in there..
This is wrong in the sense that it is just a parody, and as such, a distraction to the logic.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Removing the colored text:
6 hours ago, OldSkool said:
Oh yeah...the boundaries of the mind.
heard it from martindale:
IF you move the landmarks taught in PFAL, Corps teachings, and the T.V.T.
THEN you become open for possession.
I can’t say for sure
but that may be a reason mike wont engage anyone here.
He seems to make exceptions for him lecturing, and going on-and-on about his nostalgic experiences, and constructed point of view.
*/*/*/*
Now that would be something I could engage in. I edited it from food-fight mode to the gentlemanly discussion mode.
My quick answer to that thoughtful question is “No.” I’m not worried about any of those things that went wild in the Corps program, at some times and some places and with some people. Acknowledging, Twinky’s request that I pull back on the food-fight aimed at the Corps.
I think lots of boundaries are open to experimentation, or temporary moving to see what happens. There are only a few boundaries or doctrines, for me, that have reached the stage of “untouchable” in my working them and incorporating them into my life.
There are always some boundaries that I am experimenting with, gingerly, almost all the time.
And I am sorry I do go on-and-on when I am in food-fight mode. But there are ALSO lots of times I switch off that mode and present material for discussion. My complaint is that they are almost always ignored or improperly dealt with, by the standards of a gentlemanly conversation.
I am pursuing the truce idea still.
*/*/*/*/*
Does anyone know the reason for all the hostility in the food-fight mode?
I do.It’s a long strange trip.
For the first few days (maybe a week?) I got along with everyone, and it was moving in a good civil discussion like direction… until suddenly I was recognized by a poster, and immediately targeted as being a REAL BAD CRAZY guy.
There was a FASTDigital Decision by lots of people against me and the food fight started. There were a few more DDs against me, and it all set in stone.
After 20 years, I’d like to break out of that stone, and switch WAY OVER to the gentlemanly discussion mode, and if Twinky wants to join, I can drop the use of “gentlemanly” but I think on this Christmas Eve, it is just us few gentlemen on the board.
I am willing to discuss lots of boundary moving.It gets less and less, though as we approach the collaterals, though.The SNT tapes are pretty close, but not often.The T.V.T. (Twi Verbal Traditions) though are riddled with problems, and this teaching by Martindale sounds like one of the TVTs that needs to be nailed.I can see oodles of problems in what is reported here, and in what I witnessed of this boundary TVT outside the Corps.
*/*/*/*
I had enough of a break from my Twinky Tome,
and will make some coffee,
before I check back in, and see who is on-line.
Mike on another thread is determined that we should see him as "empathetic." Right. Really.
What's empathy?
Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, that is, the capacity to place oneself in another's position.[1] Definitions of empathy encompass a broad range of social, cognitive, and emotional processes primarily concerned with understanding others (and others' emotions in particular). Types of empathy include cognitive empathy, emotional (or affective) empathy, somatic empathy, and spiritual empathy.[2][3][4][Wikipedia]
(In nice big font, Mike, so that you can't miss it.) The article is lengthy, so it may take you some time to read, but you may learn quite a lot from it.
Here's another much shorter article. Please read it, Mike. And carefully watch the video at the end (and learn from it).
Because Mike persists in shrieking about "Nazi Corps" without ever thinking about how much some people have given to enter the Corps program; what it has cost them physically, emotionally, in relationships; in other opportunities. Without doubt everyone tried their best to do the program as directed. Unfortunately, that included being stomped on from great height, repeatedly, for the most minor infractions - and for that same behaviour to be mimicked by trainees (in rez Corps). The joy of service and the enthusiasm for service was crushed nearly out of existence, for many of the "Nazi Corps." And who "Nazi'd" them? The man who set up the program. So in condemning "Nazi Corps" Mike is, in effect, condemning VPW, the man who had empathy for none and understood none who had empathy for others.
Now he has a different target in his sights: Charlene. Charlene, who as a young woman, heard the word and received it with joy. It filled her heart with enthusiasm and she wanted more and more of it. In Mikeology, she "snapped." Because she didn't hang around for 20 years "thinking about it" before she made a decision to follow the Lord (except, unfortunately, it wasn't the Lord but the Liar that she followed). Mike condemns her for this. She was too hasty. I wonder what he knows of her circumstances, that made this choice attractive to her? Where's his empathy for Charlene? Did I miss something?
Mike, how long did the first disciples take before they joined Jesus on his mission? Did they take 20 years? Or did they hear, make a quick decision, and leave their nets and follow him? Gave up their businesses and their previous lives, and went with someone they'd come to trust because he spoke of the God they longed to know? Did they "snap," too?
What about Lydia in Acts 16? She immediately received the word and set about witnessing to others, her whole household, and wanted Paul to stay with her. Did she "snap"? Paul writes very well of her later and she did much to fund his ministry.
What about the jailor that Paul and Silas witnessed to when they were falsely imprisoned? Verse 34 tells us "The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household." Did the jailor "snap"?
There are many records in the book of Acts where it appears people were able to make a quick and lifechanging decision to follow the Lord.
Mike, just because you can't make a quick decision, doesn't mean that you have any right to condemn those who did.
And just because you have zero empathy for anyone else, doesn't give you any right to condemn or criticise anyone else. Go walk in someone else's shoes for days, weeks, months, or even 20 years. Come back and tell us if you learned anything.
Hi Twinky,
This is my response to your long post to me on empathy the other day. I trimmed a lot of text out of this, as superfluous for tonight’s response, but could be used elsewhere. I hope you are having a Merry Christmas.
Sincerely,
Mike
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Twinky, you wrote:
“Mike on another thread is determined that we should see him as ‘empathetic.’ Right. Really. …What's empathy? ”
You then gave me a wiki article, which was great but voluminous.I already gave you a brief report on what I liked most there.
I liked the short practical one better.It is aimed at therapeutic type of empathy, and, I admit, this deep an empathy is almost totally absent in my dealings when the food fights rage.
A weak version of this kind of empathy on my part can pop up passively for me as I read some posts, but the therapy model just doesn’t fit most of our adversarial confrontations.
Food-fights start off as debates that are important, and that could use some careful discussion, but for various reasons serious civil discussion here with me is pretty unstable, and those careful discussion crash to the ground.
In my personal live, off-line, I have actually been in a few situations where this deep caring therapy type of empathy is called for, but it has been a long time. Twice I was a twig leader and had a few people cry on my shoulder. My way of dealing with them was totally different than my ways here.I’d LIKE to practice that kind of empathy here but who would allow me? …something for future discussion.
I have asked a few, both on-line and in PMs what mode of conversation I could have with Penworks, should she show up while I’m discussing her book in this thread.Here the empathy tug and the theology debate tug are opposite directions, making it difficult and delicate. …and only a big maybe in being possible.
I take it Charlene wasn’t hit hard with the sex aberrations of TWI, but by the mind-control and the research department anomalies. With Charlene I feel MAYBE it could be appropriate, MAYBE we two could have friendly, civil disagreement and discussion without a food-fight mode setting in.
If it were Kris Skedgell, though, I’d have a much, much, much more difficult time. With Kris I would have to be in therapy mode empathy ONLY, from what I heard, and that would be impossible on-line in public, and she would most certainly not agree to it happening. I also would count myself as incompetent.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote: “Why is that relevant to this thread? … Because Mike persists in shrieking about ‘Nazi Corps’ without ever thinking about how much some people have given to enter the Corps program; what it has cost them physically, emotionally, in relationships; in other opportunities. … Without doubt everyone tried their best to do the program as directed.”
Ok, I hear you.This has happened, and I admit no empathy during those posts.
I can cut way back on them.
One reason I persisted there was to demonstrate that I do not agree with everything VPW did or how he did it. He admitted to us at lunch one day that he was totally wrong in his approving the project to have PFAL’77 replace the PFAL’68 film.I think he was partially wrong in how he set the Corps trainers loose, especially after 1982.
I am not a zombie eyed VPW zealot, but a careful critic of him at times. The difficulties that arose in and from the Corps I feel should be separated far from the collateral discussions.
Another big reason for me crying foul about the Corps is when I see some of the nasty practices that arose within the Corps being used on me in the food fights.
So Twinky, please try and remember my stand against VPW’s regarding the Corps.I hope it can help you you and the others pull back on constantly labeling and treating me like a VPW idolator.That mis-characterizing of me prevents much good discussion, and just helps force the food fights.
And strong disagreements can happen in good civil discussion, but that civlilty breaks down when the logical competitions start resembling the tactics of confrontation that were inappropriately used in the Corps, especially after the big melt-down in 1986.
*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“Unfortunately, that included being stomped on from great height, repeatedly, for the most minor infractions -and for that same behaviour to be mimicked by trainees (in rez Corps). The joy of service and the enthusiasm for service was crushed nearly out of existence, for many of the "Nazi Corps."”
Here you are describing some of those tactics. It would be nice to see them not imitated so much in future discussions, thus helping their civility.
*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“[ And who "Nazi'd" them? The man who set up the program. So in condemning "Nazi Corps" Mike is, in effect, condemning VPW’”
Yes, you got it right. You are making the same point I made above. We are in agreement here, and I have known it for years. But because of the food fight camouflaging, this seems to be a new revelation to you.I have often said it, unheard.
*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“Now he has a different target in his sights: Charlene. Charlene, who as a young woman, heard the word and received it with joy. It filled her heart with enthusiasm and she wanted more and more of it. … In Mikeology, she snapped." Because…”
As I stated before and several times now in other threads, I am not targeting her at all.Furthermore, I think she would agree with me that she could have done better taking the advice she got, even from grads, to go slower. I am not saying all she says in her book is wrong, because she went too fast 50 years ago.
It is clear that she documents in detail that her emotions made her decision process not the best, and that she went faster than most of us to commit to the Corps.I am not saying that my slow way of committing to go WoW was the right way. In fact, I have admitted that I may have gone too slow. I am not attacking myself for saying I went too slow and I am not attacking her by picking up from her book that she went too fast.Please check out the other places where I have expanded on the few things I have posted on her book.I am not in attack mode at all.
Think empathetically how I feel with a false accusation.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“…she didn't hang around for 20 years "thinking about it" before she made a decision to follow the Lord (except, unfortunately, it wasn't the Lord but the Liar that she followed). Mike condemns her for this. ….”
Not a condemnation. I was just reading what she wrote. I think everyone has to admit she went faster than most.Sometimes I wish I could do that better.
*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“She was too hasty. I wonder what he knows of her circumstances, that made this choice attractive to her?”
Yes!She made it obvious in her writing. It was the love in the fellowships, the new doctrines, and her mourning for her lost mother, and a few other factors. Maybe she never again made such a fast decision. I don’t know. I’m only about a third through the book.
*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“Where's his empathy for Charlene? Did I miss something?”
Yes, you missed how little I got read so far meant I have not run into that much (besides her mom) that would generate empathy. You may have formed a misimpression, as my few words on her so far were disagreeing with her stated theology early in the book and gradually building.I disagree with her theology as stated scantly, so far.How am I to show empathy when disagreeing?Impossible. I got to switch from one mode to the other, and can’t ride them both simultaneously.
*/*/*/*
The next 5 items were you correctly pointing out good fast decisions in the Bible, to which I already agreed with you about.
*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“Mike, just because you can't make a quick decision, doesn't mean that you have any right to condemn those who did.”
Right. I agree.
...and I deny doing it, at least in this instance with Charlene. Not a drop of condemnation.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“And just because you have zero empathy for anyone else, doesn't give you any right to condemn or criticise anyone else.”
I sense you could have written that better, but I get the gist.I want to pump up my empathy in our civil discussions.That is difficult when we are always adversarial and intensely, and that is impossible in a food fight.Lets try some truce attitudes and lean toward good discussion, where disagreement can take place, and empathy not lost in the shuffle.
I'm taking a break from my Twinky Tome,
and this post caught my eye.
Why?
Because I can totally empathize with it.
By the Summer of 1985 the ministry was already way over the line, crossed the boundary, in overdoing the whole devil spirit thing, especially possession.
That said, that I can relate to your complaint there, and can even add to it, if you want to discuss it… after my Twinky Tome is finished, and then trimmed down.
*/*/*/*/*
One last thing: please let me re-work your post a little bit:
6 hours ago, OldSkool said:
Oh yeah...the boundaries of the mind
...when you move the landmarks taught in pflap and the wierwilles
(they say the word but we know the word=wierwille)
then you become open for posession.
Thats how I heard it from martindale
I cant say for sure
but that may be a reason mike wont engage anyone here
unless its him lecturing and going
about his nostalgic, imagined point of view.
Eve considered what the devil had to say. When you move the boundaries of the word those nast deebil spuurts get in there..
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
I color coded things to untangle the mixed topics, and to help me explain things.
Everything I colored can be removed, but all for different reasons.
(they say the word but we know the word=wierwille) That is just a distraction. A burst of anti-praise for the anti-idol, that is not part of the discussion. You see these same human dynanaics in some churches, where the praise bursts can be rhythmic and involving others. I’ve seen it done tastefully, but when it is for the whole church service it is distracting and mind numbing.
Thats how I heard it from martindale This is good history, and belongs at the end to not distract.
Eve considered what the devil had to say. This is complicated theology in itself, and is worthy of a lot of discussion, but is a distraction here.For future discussion: Remember, Eve had a perfectly renewed mind, and needed not consider anything outside the boundaries God gave her. Sometimes we need to grope around and see what fits.Even Jesus “considered” the devil’s words in the desert, until the Scriptures were wrongly divided.
When you move the boundaries of the word those nast deebil spuurts get in there..
This is wrong in the sense that it is just a parody, and as such, a distraction to the logic.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Removing the colored text:
6 hours ago, OldSkool said:
Oh yeah...the boundaries of the mind.
heard it from martindale:
IF you move the landmarks taught in PFAL, Corps teachings, and the T.V.T.
THEN you become open for possession.
I can’t say for sure
but that may be a reason mike wont engage anyone here.
He seems to make exceptions for him lecturing, and going on-and-on about his nostalgic experiences, and constructed point of view.
*/*/*/*
Now that would be something I could engage in. I edited it from food-fight mode to the gentlemanly discussion mode.
My quick answer to that thoughtful question is “No.” I’m not worried about any of those things that went wild in the Corps program, at some times and some places and with some people. Acknowledging, Twinky’s request that I pull back on the food-fight aimed at the Corps.
I think lots of boundaries are open to experimentation, or temporary moving to see what happens. There are only a few boundaries or doctrines, for me, that have reached the stage of “untouchable” in my working them and incorporating them into my life.
There are always some boundaries that I am experimenting with, gingerly, almost all the time.
And I am sorry I do go on-and-on when I am in food-fight mode. But there are ALSO lots of times I switch off that mode and present material for discussion. My complaint is that they are almost always ignored or improperly dealt with, by the standards of a gentlemanly conversation.
I am pursuing the truce idea still.
*/*/*/*/*
Does anyone know the reason for all the hostility in the food-fight mode?
I do.It’s a long strange trip.
For the first few days (maybe a week?) I got along with everyone, and it was moving in a good civil discussion like direction… until suddenly I was recognized by a poster, and immediately targeted as being a REAL BAD CRAZY guy.
There was a FASTDigital Decision by lots of people against me and the food fight started. There were a few more DDs against me, and it all set in stone.
After 20 years, I’d like to break out of that stone, and switch WAY OVER to the gentlemanly discussion mode, and if Twinky wants to join, I can drop the use of “gentlemanly” but I think on this Christmas Eve, it is just us few gentlemen on the board.
I am willing to discuss lots of boundary moving.It gets less and less, though as we approach the collaterals, though.The SNT tapes are pretty close, but not often.The T.V.T. (Twi Verbal Traditions) though are riddled with problems, and this teaching by Martindale sounds like one of the TVTs that needs to be nailed.I can see oodles of problems in what is reported here, and in what I witnessed of this boundary TVT outside the Corps.
*/*/*/*
I had enough of a break from my Twinky Tome,
and will make some coffee,
before I check back in, and see who is on-line.
Mike---you act as though you are just coming through here posting Bible verses and making happy remarks to everyone. I said what I said and I meant what I said.
Oh yeah...the boundaries of the mind...when you move the landmarks taught in pflap and the wierwilles (they say the word but we know the word=wierwille) then you become open for posession. Thats how I heard it from martindale
I cant say for sure but that may be a reason mike wont engage anyone here unless its him lecturing and going about his nostalgic, imagined point of view. Eve considered what the devil had to say. When you move the boundaries of the word those nast deebil spuurts get in there..
Mike---you act as though you are just coming through here posting Bible verses and making happy remarks to everyone. I said what I said and I meant what I said.
Oh yeah...the boundaries of the mind...when you move the landmarks taught in pflap and the wierwilles (they say the word but we know the word=wierwille) then you become open for posession. Thats how I heard it from martindale
I cant say for sure but that may be a reason mike wont engage anyone here unless its him lecturing and going about his nostalgic, imagined point of view. Eve considered what the devil had to say. When you move the boundaries of the word those nast deebil spuurts get in there..
I tried hard to engage with the meat of your post, which I boiled down to:
I can’t say for sure
but that may be a reason mike wont engage anyone here.
He seems to make exceptions for him lecturing, and going on-and-on about his nostalgic experiences, and constructed point of view.
Then I responded to that by saying "No, that is not the reason engagement by me is admittedly rare."
I'd like to respond further here by saying the situation is evolving, and I think more engagement can happen. I see no benefit to either of us to insist on the extreme adversarial nature of our conversations.
Let's see if we have some mutual interests that can benefit by civil conversation. I think we do stand to benefit by changing our modes of engagement.
T-Bone, because your thread "TWI the pseudo-Christian cult" is so new, I didn't want to upset it's evolution. I thought I'd respond to one small section of it here.
12 hours ago, T-Bone said:
The early Christians were warned by Paul and others “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard!”Acts 20
My very first experiences in TWI were totally different than what this verse lays out. There was no flock anywhere near my life in 1971 for any savage wolves to enter. There was nothing but the old drab Catholic Church, and there was the nothing and old drab Protestants, and no flock and no shepherd anywhere to be seen. I was on my own in the drab nothing religions of my culture, and any occult novelties I could find in old bookstores.
What I experienced in PFAL and my early twig years was liberating and showed me how the Bible fits for my life. I saw how unsupervised, uneducated, young people with holy spirit could form a local extension of the Body of Christ. I got a relationship with the Father and with the Son out of the deal. All of that is intact, and thriving to this day.
I finally did see savage wolves start to move into TWI-1 slowly a few years later, and in 15 years they had ruined the ministry that had set me free. I am still free because I latched onto the Bible and the part of the ministry that was good, and avoided the parts that were not best.
I tried hard to engage with the meat of your post, which I boiled down to:
I can’t say for sure
but that may be a reason mike wont engage anyone here.
He seems to make exceptions for him lecturing, and going on-and-on about his nostalgic experiences, and constructed point of view.
Then I responded to that by saying "No, that is not the reason engagement by me is admittedly rare."
I'd like to respond further here by saying the situation is evolving, and I think more engagement can happen. I see no benefit to either of us to insist on the extreme adversarial nature of our conversations.
Let's see if we have some mutual interests that can benefit by civil conversation. I think we do stand to benefit by changing our modes of engagement.
Here -- I will change the wording to exclude you and I am quite civil everytime I have stated what I have stated. So I corrected my pronouns.
Oh yeah...the boundaries of the mind...when you move the landmarks taught in pflap and the wierwilles (they say the word but we know the word=wierwille) then you become open for posession. Thats how I heard it from martindale
I cant say for sure but that may be a reason mike most avid supporters of pflap wont engage anyone here unless its him them lecturing and going about his their nostalgic, imagined point of view. Eve considered what the devil had to say (this is not complicated theology). When you move the boundaries of the word those nasty deebil spuurts get in there..
I can have a civil conversation. It is just that there seems to be boundaries you put around it.
Anything negative about VP you refute then later try to claim you don’t idolize him.
You have some kind of weird vision about yourself that you are the reincarnation of Luke the physician sent to give an “accurate and loving “ account of TWI history.
The current written history of TWI consists of two channels: sanctioned and unsanctioned.
Sanctioned - Mrs VPW book which only covers before 1980s. I was around when this was being written and my feedback is it was highly coerced.
The Way Living In Love - the ONLY literary record of VPs KoolAid snowstorm story which was fact checked to be false by multiple sources. It was removed from sale in the bookstore at some point and can’t be bought there anymore.
Unsanctioned - 3 published books
Look in T bones footnotes for publishing links
All 3 unsanctioned books detail personal stories of negative overall impact in life of TWI.
Then there’s you - the only thing you have contributed with your false self vision is a running critical commentary as you are inching your way through one of those books that you previously self censored for years and are now challenged by us to actually read it.
Read the whole d@mn book. THEN after YOU are not jumping to conclusions write up thoughts and have a discussion that is semi intelligent.
What I experienced in PFAL and my early twig years was liberating and showed me how the Bible fits for my life. I saw how unsupervised, uneducated, young people with holy spirit could form a local extension of the Body of Christ. I got a relationship with the Father and with the Son out of the deal. All of that is intact, and thriving to this day.
I finally did see savage wolves start to move into TWI-1 slowly a few years later, and in 15 years they had ruined the ministry that had set me free. I am still free because I latched onto the Bible and the part of the ministry that was good, and avoided the parts that were not best.
Mike -- most people have a honeymoon phase (as I call it) in that little cornfielf cult. Apperantly you had the same experiences...except the savage wolves were there all along and it wasnt until later that you noticed...my experiences were the same. Except you can't see that the savage wolves cobbed together the savage doctrines they savagely teach and the end result is people are led away from Christ. That's the part I wish you could see...but yeah...
T-Bone, because your thread "TWI the pseudo-Christian cult" is so new, I didn't want to upset it's evolution. I thought I'd respond to one small section of it here.
My very first experiences in TWI were totally different than what this verse lays out. There was no flock anywhere near my life in 1971 for any savage wolves to enter. There was nothing but the old drab Catholic Church, and there was the nothing and old drab Protestants, and no flock and no shepherd anywhere to be seen. I was on my own in the drab nothing religions of my culture, and any occult novelties I could find in old bookstores.
What I experienced in PFAL and my early twig years was liberating and showed me how the Bible fits for my life. I saw how unsupervised, uneducated, young people with holy spirit could form a local extension of the Body of Christ. I got a relationship with the Father and with the Son out of the deal. All of that is intact, and thriving to this day.
I finally did see savage wolves start to move into TWI-1 slowly a few years later, and in 15 years they had ruined the ministry that had set me free. I am still free because I latched onto the Bible and the part of the ministry that was good, and avoided the parts that were not best.
Except the young people did NOT form a local extension of the body of Christ.
As Dr. John Juedes covers in his evaluation of PFAL, they were not witnessing Christ, they were witnessing “the class”.
In a time where I was seeking I too was attracted to people that came off like “serious Christians” who “really took their Bible study seriously”. I decided to “take the class” based upon SIT actually. I had experienced it, but my denomination had little material or teachings on it. The local pastor was less familiar with it and did not practice it in his prayer meetings like they did in my home church. He told me not to take it, that he was concerned they were a cult and would lead me away from Christ.
I judged him because he was less knowledgeable on one topic and took the class.
Yes I got into a contention over the trinity doctrine as they didn’t accept it. I caved in to the logic in the book, which is faulty.
They did as my pastor warned lead me away from Christ. It did consume more than two decades of my life, and much of the good young parts of my life.
Now I hope to perform Christian service in the TRUE body of Christ by warning others of the logical traps in cult doctrine and to help study to correct the logic errors that allowed this control over my life for decades.
Find YOUR OWN group members of Christian community within the body of Christ. Don’t cave in to laziness and return to the cult vomit logic. Forge your own path and be free.
Mike..perhaps confirmation bias hinders your objectivity...I'm a musician and have studied and applied various learning methods and confirmation bias can hinder efforts at times. Perhaps detach...detachment is really an effective method in learning breakthroughs where we climb out of a rut that's just become routine. Take yourself out of the equation and maybe that will help. I'm endeavoring to do the same...I'm not talking at you I'm just sharing techniques I use in my various endeavors. I have quite a few irons in the fire and as we all do hit walls often enough...a learning plateau if u will. Just a though and a suggestion that may help.
I totally appreciate the tone of this post from you. I’ll try to match it in my response.
I reformatted it again, but this time no words were changed or deleted.I just wanted to see it more clearly as you wrote it.
Mike..perhaps confirmation bias hinders your objectivity...I'm a musician and have studied and applied various learning methods and confirmation bias can hinder efforts at times.
Perhaps detach...detachment is really an effective method in learning breakthroughs where we climb out of a rut that's just become routine.
Take yourself out of the equation and maybe that will help. I'm endeavoring to do the same...I'm not talking at you I'm just sharing techniques I use in my various endeavors. I have quite a few irons in the fire and as we all do hit walls often enough...a learning plateau if u will. Just a though and a suggestion that may help.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
The rut I find us all in here is the “Food-Fight Follies” show we put on for the folks at home.It has run it’s course for 20 years and need fixing. The scene at TWI and with old grads who fled TWI is a lot different now that it was 20 years ago. I want help in getting down to productive discussion that can accomplish something substantial for us all.
Your use of the term “confirmation bias” has me guessing that your idea of the rut we are in is that I don’t allow people to force a decision to change my mind with their stories and/or evidence.I suspect that progress to you would be me submitting my fundamental beliefs to “critical thinking.”
But what I have tried to say many times here is that, when it comes to applying critical thinking skills to PFAL, I finished that stage of my life about 24 years ago.
I applied critical thinking to VPW, TWI, PFAL, and the Bible long ago, when I first was witnessed to.
I was trained to be a critical science thinker, and right at my start, before I took the class, people were laughing at me for my excessive critical thinking.I was famous for bringing paper and pen to twigs. I brought long lists of questions to meetings that would have a ministry leader visiting.
While many around me were making lifelong decisions, I was cranking away at critical thinking.
Slowly, over the course of years, the PFAL books and collaterals passed my tests.I adopted all sorts of attitudes during my critical thinking years, and often I was perceived by leaders as on the edge of tripping out with my questioning. I pressed on, in spite of frequent pressures to just join in and quit being so intellectual.
There were phases in my critical thinking years where I was quite angry at VPW.It was a roller coaster at times, but by 1998 it all settled down to me accepting the collaterals as my bottom line for inquiry. It was a careful unemotional decision that was carefully built over a course of over 26 years.
So when it comes to the issue of the collaterals being at the center of my life, I am no longer trying to be objective.That whole phase is over for me.
*/*/*/*/*
I have never seen an advocate of critical thinking skills have a plan for what to do when something PASSES THE TESTS, and the critical testing phase of it is over.What is there to criticize when something passes all the critical thinking tests?
Our culture, and especially academic culture, strictly forbids seekers from being finders.I reject that myopic point of view.A seeker must be prepared to change the game once the sought truth is found. Otherwise, such a seeker is not looking for truth, but for novelty.
When a truth is arrived at, confirmation bias is not the big disease that academia sees it as.In science confirmation bias is technically called “Normal Science” and it is a good mode of inquiry.Confirmation bias is good when you are sure of something, but you don’t know HOW sure.Sure can be led to more sure, with the right kinds of inquiry perspective.
So, my rut is non-civil conversation, and progress would be us first all recognizing and respecting our differing positions.From there we may be able to work out some applications of exploratory, non-adversarial, conversations that can help those wo left TWI years ago, and those who are in TWI-4 and coming out into the light.
The rut I find us all in here is the “Food-Fight Follies” show we put on for the folks at home.It has run it’s course for 20 years and need fixing.
Im down with that. I can do my part to be less snarky..Im a very direct person at times, but I am also a project manager in the construction industry where directness = survival. This is not that environment. Cheers!
Im down with that. I can do my part to be less snarky..Im a very direct person at times, but I am also a project manager in the construction industry where directness = survival. This is not that environment. Cheers!
When a truth is arrived at, confirmation bias is not the big disease that academia sees it as.In science confirmation bias is technically called “Normal Science” and it is a good mode of inquiry.Confirmation bias is good when you are sure of something, but you don’t know HOW sure.Sure can be led to more sure, with the right kinds of inquiry perspective.
Either you don't understand what Kuhn meant by normal science or you are simply unable to meaningfully and accurately convey the term. And to conflate confirmation bias with normal science is a huge misunderstanding - nothing but confusion can arise by asserting this error.
I can explain it all to you, but I don't have time right now.
Our culture, and especially academic culture, strictly forbids seekers from being finders.
1 minute ago, waysider said:
What???
I mean reaching the final answers to cosmic religious questions, is forbidden in modern culture.
"It can only be an opinion, and no one can know for sure" has assumed Ten Commandments status in our culture.
This is magnified in the attitudes you find in top science oriented Universities.
I have arrived at knowing that there is no consciousness after death as an absolute truth. That is a big no-no in modern academia.
Similarly, I am locked onto the end of my search that found Jesus Christ being raised from the dead, the dead sleep of zero consciousness.
Both of these I got from a month of twig and being able to buy the PFAL book in the little Bookstore at Rye, NY. I got these two truths planted for the first time in my life about 3 or 4 months before my first PFAL class.
I was a seeker, and these are two truths that I found at the END of my search. I had an open mind during my search, and when my search ended for these issues of life and death, I closed my mind on these issues.
That is what I meant when I said "Our culture, and especially academic culture, strictly forbids seekers from being finders."
Either you don't understand what Kuhn meant by normal science or you are simply unable to meaningfully and accurately convey the term. And to conflate confirmation bias with normal science is a huge misunderstanding - nothing but confusion can arise by asserting this error.
I can explain it all to you, but I don't have time right now.
Merry Christmas
I may have my terms a little confused. It may be there is a better name already to describe what I mentioned. I am very familiar with Kuhn (long story), but I am very unfamiliar with the term "confirmation bias."
I have a much better handle on the other terms I used.
Thanks, and you have a Merry Christmas.
And the New Year can mean some new modes of communication.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
155
52
146
54
Popular Days
Dec 23
92
Dec 26
75
Dec 24
70
Jan 30
68
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 155 posts
chockfull 52 posts
OldSkool 146 posts
Nathan_Jr 54 posts
Popular Days
Dec 23 2022
92 posts
Dec 26 2022
75 posts
Dec 24 2022
70 posts
Jan 30 2023
68 posts
Popular Posts
outandabout
I copied the emotion graph and wanted to comment on how it made me aware of the wide range of emotions we as humans are capable of. A little off topic but looking at it reminds me that we were taught
WordWolf
It's also interesting to see what happened and what did NOT happen. We all know that vpw never went to his congregation and confessed his sins against them. That would have been required after havi
chockfull
I think when VPW taught that sincerity is no guarantee for the truth that is what they call a “Freudian slip”.
Posted Images
Twinky
He was criticising anyone who tried to move grads off the truth of the Word (as taught by TWI).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Ohhhh...I haven't heard that side of this goofiness. Guess there was a problem with people leaving?...lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I'm taking a break from my Twinky Tome,
and this post caught my eye.
Why?
Because I can totally empathize with it.
By the Summer of 1985 the ministry was already way over the line, crossed the boundary, in overdoing the whole devil spirit thing, especially possession.
That said, that I can relate to your complaint there, and can even add to it, if you want to discuss it… after my Twinky Tome is finished, and then trimmed down.
*/*/*/*/*
One last thing: please let me re-work your post a little bit:
6 hours ago, OldSkool said:
Oh yeah...the boundaries of the mind
...when you move the landmarks taught in pflap and the wierwilles
(they say the word but we know the word=wierwille)
then you become open for posession.
Thats how I heard it from martindale
I cant say for sure
but that may be a reason mike wont engage anyone here
unless its him lecturing and going
about his nostalgic, imagined point of view.
Eve considered what the devil had to say.
When you move the boundaries of the word those nast deebil spuurts get in there..
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
I color coded things to untangle the mixed topics, and to help me explain things.
Everything I colored can be removed, but all for different reasons.
(they say the word but we know the word=wierwille)
That is just a distraction. A burst of anti-praise for the anti-idol, that is not part of the discussion. You see these same human dynanaics in some churches, where the praise bursts can be rhythmic and involving others. I’ve seen it done tastefully, but when it is for the whole church service it is distracting and mind numbing.
Thats how I heard it from martindale
This is good history, and belongs at the end to not distract.
Eve considered what the devil had to say.
This is complicated theology in itself, and is worthy of a lot of discussion, but is a distraction here. For future discussion: Remember, Eve had a perfectly renewed mind, and needed not consider anything outside the boundaries God gave her. Sometimes we need to grope around and see what fits. Even Jesus “considered” the devil’s words in the desert, until the Scriptures were wrongly divided.
When you move the boundaries of the word those nast deebil spuurts get in there..
This is wrong in the sense that it is just a parody, and as such, a distraction to the logic.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Removing the colored text:
6 hours ago, OldSkool said:
Oh yeah...the boundaries of the mind.
heard it from martindale:
IF you move the landmarks taught in PFAL, Corps teachings, and the T.V.T.
THEN you become open for possession.
I can’t say for sure
but that may be a reason mike wont engage anyone here.
He seems to make exceptions for him lecturing, and going on-and-on about his nostalgic experiences, and constructed point of view.
*/*/*/*
Now that would be something I could engage in. I edited it from food-fight mode to the gentlemanly discussion mode.
My quick answer to that thoughtful question is “No.” I’m not worried about any of those things that went wild in the Corps program, at some times and some places and with some people. Acknowledging, Twinky’s request that I pull back on the food-fight aimed at the Corps.
I think lots of boundaries are open to experimentation, or temporary moving to see what happens. There are only a few boundaries or doctrines, for me, that have reached the stage of “untouchable” in my working them and incorporating them into my life.
There are always some boundaries that I am experimenting with, gingerly, almost all the time.
And I am sorry I do go on-and-on when I am in food-fight mode. But there are ALSO lots of times I switch off that mode and present material for discussion. My complaint is that they are almost always ignored or improperly dealt with, by the standards of a gentlemanly conversation.
I am pursuing the truce idea still.
*/*/*/*/*
Does anyone know the reason for all the hostility in the food-fight mode?
I do. It’s a long strange trip.
For the first few days (maybe a week?) I got along with everyone, and it was moving in a good civil discussion like direction… until suddenly I was recognized by a poster, and immediately targeted as being a REAL BAD CRAZY guy.
There was a FAST Digital Decision by lots of people against me and the food fight started. There were a few more DDs against me, and it all set in stone.
After 20 years, I’d like to break out of that stone, and switch WAY OVER to the gentlemanly discussion mode, and if Twinky wants to join, I can drop the use of “gentlemanly” but I think on this Christmas Eve, it is just us few gentlemen on the board.
I am willing to discuss lots of boundary moving. It gets less and less, though as we approach the collaterals, though. The SNT tapes are pretty close, but not often. The T.V.T. (Twi Verbal Traditions) though are riddled with problems, and this teaching by Martindale sounds like one of the TVTs that needs to be nailed. I can see oodles of problems in what is reported here, and in what I witnessed of this boundary TVT outside the Corps.
*/*/*/*
I had enough of a break from my Twinky Tome,
and will make some coffee,
before I check back in, and see who is on-line.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi Twinky,
This is my response to your long post to me on empathy the other day. I trimmed a lot of text out of this, as superfluous for tonight’s response, but could be used elsewhere. I hope you are having a Merry Christmas.
Sincerely,
Mike
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Twinky, you wrote:
“Mike on another thread is determined that we should see him as ‘empathetic.’ Right. Really. … What's empathy? ”
You then gave me a wiki article, which was great but voluminous. I already gave you a brief report on what I liked most there.
I liked the short practical one better. It is aimed at therapeutic type of empathy, and, I admit, this deep an empathy is almost totally absent in my dealings when the food fights rage.
A weak version of this kind of empathy on my part can pop up passively for me as I read some posts, but the therapy model just doesn’t fit most of our adversarial confrontations.
Food-fights start off as debates that are important, and that could use some careful discussion, but for various reasons serious civil discussion here with me is pretty unstable, and those careful discussion crash to the ground.
In my personal live, off-line, I have actually been in a few situations where this deep caring therapy type of empathy is called for, but it has been a long time. Twice I was a twig leader and had a few people cry on my shoulder. My way of dealing with them was totally different than my ways here. I’d LIKE to practice that kind of empathy here but who would allow me? …something for future discussion.
I have asked a few, both on-line and in PMs what mode of conversation I could have with Penworks, should she show up while I’m discussing her book in this thread. Here the empathy tug and the theology debate tug are opposite directions, making it difficult and delicate. …and only a big maybe in being possible.
I take it Charlene wasn’t hit hard with the sex aberrations of TWI, but by the mind-control and the research department anomalies. With Charlene I feel MAYBE it could be appropriate, MAYBE we two could have friendly, civil disagreement and discussion without a food-fight mode setting in.
If it were Kris Skedgell, though, I’d have a much, much, much more difficult time. With Kris I would have to be in therapy mode empathy ONLY, from what I heard, and that would be impossible on-line in public, and she would most certainly not agree to it happening. I also would count myself as incompetent.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“Why is that relevant to this thread? … Because Mike persists in shrieking about ‘Nazi Corps’ without ever thinking about how much some people have given to enter the Corps program; what it has cost them physically, emotionally, in relationships; in other opportunities. … Without doubt everyone tried their best to do the program as directed.”
Ok, I hear you. This has happened, and I admit no empathy during those posts.
I can cut way back on them.
One reason I persisted there was to demonstrate that I do not agree with everything VPW did or how he did it. He admitted to us at lunch one day that he was totally wrong in his approving the project to have PFAL’77 replace the PFAL’68 film. I think he was partially wrong in how he set the Corps trainers loose, especially after 1982.
I am not a zombie eyed VPW zealot, but a careful critic of him at times. The difficulties that arose in and from the Corps I feel should be separated far from the collateral discussions.
Another big reason for me crying foul about the Corps is when I see some of the nasty practices that arose within the Corps being used on me in the food fights.
So Twinky, please try and remember my stand against VPW’s regarding the Corps. I hope it can help you you and the others pull back on constantly labeling and treating me like a VPW idolator. That mis-characterizing of me prevents much good discussion, and just helps force the food fights.
And strong disagreements can happen in good civil discussion, but that civlilty breaks down when the logical competitions start resembling the tactics of confrontation that were inappropriately used in the Corps, especially after the big melt-down in 1986.
*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“Unfortunately, that included being stomped on from great height, repeatedly, for the most minor infractions - and for that same behaviour to be mimicked by trainees (in rez Corps). The joy of service and the enthusiasm for service was crushed nearly out of existence, for many of the "Nazi Corps."”
Here you are describing some of those tactics. It would be nice to see them not imitated so much in future discussions, thus helping their civility.
*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“[ And who "Nazi'd" them? The man who set up the program. So in condemning "Nazi Corps" Mike is, in effect, condemning VPW’”
Yes, you got it right. You are making the same point I made above. We are in agreement here, and I have known it for years. But because of the food fight camouflaging, this seems to be a new revelation to you. I have often said it, unheard.
*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“Now he has a different target in his sights: Charlene. Charlene, who as a young woman, heard the word and received it with joy. It filled her heart with enthusiasm and she wanted more and more of it. … In Mikeology, she snapped." Because…”
As I stated before and several times now in other threads, I am not targeting her at all. Furthermore, I think she would agree with me that she could have done better taking the advice she got, even from grads, to go slower. I am not saying all she says in her book is wrong, because she went too fast 50 years ago.
It is clear that she documents in detail that her emotions made her decision process not the best, and that she went faster than most of us to commit to the Corps. I am not saying that my slow way of committing to go WoW was the right way. In fact, I have admitted that I may have gone too slow. I am not attacking myself for saying I went too slow and I am not attacking her by picking up from her book that she went too fast. Please check out the other places where I have expanded on the few things I have posted on her book. I am not in attack mode at all.
Think empathetically how I feel with a false accusation.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“…she didn't hang around for 20 years "thinking about it" before she made a decision to follow the Lord (except, unfortunately, it wasn't the Lord but the Liar that she followed). Mike condemns her for this. ….”
Not a condemnation. I was just reading what she wrote. I think everyone has to admit she went faster than most. Sometimes I wish I could do that better.
*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“She was too hasty. I wonder what he knows of her circumstances, that made this choice attractive to her?”
Yes! She made it obvious in her writing. It was the love in the fellowships, the new doctrines, and her mourning for her lost mother, and a few other factors. Maybe she never again made such a fast decision. I don’t know. I’m only about a third through the book.
*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“Where's his empathy for Charlene? Did I miss something?”
Yes, you missed how little I got read so far meant I have not run into that much (besides her mom) that would generate empathy. You may have formed a misimpression, as my few words on her so far were disagreeing with her stated theology early in the book and gradually building. I disagree with her theology as stated scantly, so far. How am I to show empathy when disagreeing? Impossible. I got to switch from one mode to the other, and can’t ride them both simultaneously.
*/*/*/*
The next 5 items were you correctly pointing out good fast decisions in the Bible, to which I already agreed with you about.
*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“Mike, just because you can't make a quick decision, doesn't mean that you have any right to condemn those who did.”
Right. I agree.
...and I deny doing it, at least in this instance with Charlene. Not a drop of condemnation.
*/*/*/*/*/*
Twinky wrote:
“And just because you have zero empathy for anyone else, doesn't give you any right to condemn or criticise anyone else.”
I sense you could have written that better, but I get the gist. I want to pump up my empathy in our civil discussions. That is difficult when we are always adversarial and intensely, and that is impossible in a food fight. Lets try some truce attitudes and lean toward good discussion, where disagreement can take place, and empathy not lost in the shuffle.
I will try my best.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Jumping to contusions sounds better than jumping to concussions. Just sayin'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Merry Christmas, Rocky. :)
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Merry Christmas, Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Mike---you act as though you are just coming through here posting Bible verses and making happy remarks to everyone. I said what I said and I meant what I said.
Oh yeah...the boundaries of the mind...when you move the landmarks taught in pflap and the wierwilles (they say the word but we know the word=wierwille) then you become open for posession. Thats how I heard it from martindale
I cant say for sure but that may be a reason mike wont engage anyone here unless its him lecturing and going about his nostalgic, imagined point of view. Eve considered what the devil had to say. When you move the boundaries of the word those nast deebil spuurts get in there..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
BTW - -- Merry Christmas Mike, and all of GSC!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I tried hard to engage with the meat of your post, which I boiled down to:
I can’t say for sure
but that may be a reason mike wont engage anyone here.
He seems to make exceptions for him lecturing, and going on-and-on about his nostalgic experiences, and constructed point of view.
Then I responded to that by saying "No, that is not the reason engagement by me is admittedly rare."
I'd like to respond further here by saying the situation is evolving, and I think more engagement can happen. I see no benefit to either of us to insist on the extreme adversarial nature of our conversations.
Let's see if we have some mutual interests that can benefit by civil conversation. I think we do stand to benefit by changing our modes of engagement.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
T-Bone, because your thread "TWI the pseudo-Christian cult" is so new, I didn't want to upset it's evolution. I thought I'd respond to one small section of it here.
My very first experiences in TWI were totally different than what this verse lays out. There was no flock anywhere near my life in 1971 for any savage wolves to enter. There was nothing but the old drab Catholic Church, and there was the nothing and old drab Protestants, and no flock and no shepherd anywhere to be seen. I was on my own in the drab nothing religions of my culture, and any occult novelties I could find in old bookstores.
What I experienced in PFAL and my early twig years was liberating and showed me how the Bible fits for my life. I saw how unsupervised, uneducated, young people with holy spirit could form a local extension of the Body of Christ. I got a relationship with the Father and with the Son out of the deal. All of that is intact, and thriving to this day.
I finally did see savage wolves start to move into TWI-1 slowly a few years later, and in 15 years they had ruined the ministry that had set me free. I am still free because I latched onto the Bible and the part of the ministry that was good, and avoided the parts that were not best.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Here -- I will change the wording to exclude you and I am quite civil everytime I have stated what I have stated. So I corrected my pronouns.
Oh yeah...the boundaries of the mind...when you move the landmarks taught in pflap and the wierwilles (they say the word but we know the word=wierwille) then you become open for posession. Thats how I heard it from martindale
I cant say for sure but that may be a reason
mikemost avid supporters of pflap wont engage anyone here unless itshimthem lecturing and going abouthistheir nostalgic, imagined point of view. Eve considered what the devil had to say (this is not complicated theology). When you move the boundaries of the word those nasty deebil spuurts get in there..Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I can have a civil conversation. It is just that there seems to be boundaries you put around it.
Anything negative about VP you refute then later try to claim you don’t idolize him.
You have some kind of weird vision about yourself that you are the reincarnation of Luke the physician sent to give an “accurate and loving “ account of TWI history.
The current written history of TWI consists of two channels: sanctioned and unsanctioned.
Sanctioned - Mrs VPW book which only covers before 1980s. I was around when this was being written and my feedback is it was highly coerced.
The Way Living In Love - the ONLY literary record of VPs KoolAid snowstorm story which was fact checked to be false by multiple sources. It was removed from sale in the bookstore at some point and can’t be bought there anymore.
Unsanctioned - 3 published books
Look in T bones footnotes for publishing links
All 3 unsanctioned books detail personal stories of negative overall impact in life of TWI.
Then there’s you - the only thing you have contributed with your false self vision is a running critical commentary as you are inching your way through one of those books that you previously self censored for years and are now challenged by us to actually read it.
Read the whole d@mn book. THEN after YOU are not jumping to conclusions write up thoughts and have a discussion that is semi intelligent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Mike -- most people have a honeymoon phase (as I call it) in that little cornfielf cult. Apperantly you had the same experiences...except the savage wolves were there all along and it wasnt until later that you noticed...my experiences were the same. Except you can't see that the savage wolves cobbed together the savage doctrines they savagely teach and the end result is people are led away from Christ. That's the part I wish you could see...but yeah...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yes...hes been trying for about 2.5 days to tell me how to word my posts...not bowing to mike censorship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Except the young people did NOT form a local extension of the body of Christ.
As Dr. John Juedes covers in his evaluation of PFAL, they were not witnessing Christ, they were witnessing “the class”.
In a time where I was seeking I too was attracted to people that came off like “serious Christians” who “really took their Bible study seriously”. I decided to “take the class” based upon SIT actually. I had experienced it, but my denomination had little material or teachings on it. The local pastor was less familiar with it and did not practice it in his prayer meetings like they did in my home church. He told me not to take it, that he was concerned they were a cult and would lead me away from Christ.
I judged him because he was less knowledgeable on one topic and took the class.
Yes I got into a contention over the trinity doctrine as they didn’t accept it. I caved in to the logic in the book, which is faulty.
They did as my pastor warned lead me away from Christ. It did consume more than two decades of my life, and much of the good young parts of my life.
Now I hope to perform Christian service in the TRUE body of Christ by warning others of the logical traps in cult doctrine and to help study to correct the logic errors that allowed this control over my life for decades.
Find YOUR OWN group members of Christian community within the body of Christ. Don’t cave in to laziness and return to the cult vomit logic. Forge your own path and be free.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I totally appreciate the tone of this post from you. I’ll try to match it in my response.
I reformatted it again, but this time no words were changed or deleted. I just wanted to see it more clearly as you wrote it.
Mike..perhaps confirmation bias hinders your objectivity...I'm a musician and have studied and applied various learning methods and confirmation bias can hinder efforts at times.
Perhaps detach...detachment is really an effective method in learning breakthroughs where we climb out of a rut that's just become routine.
Take yourself out of the equation and maybe that will help. I'm endeavoring to do the same...I'm not talking at you I'm just sharing techniques I use in my various endeavors. I have quite a few irons in the fire and as we all do hit walls often enough...a learning plateau if u will. Just a though and a suggestion that may help.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
The rut I find us all in here is the “Food-Fight Follies” show we put on for the folks at home. It has run it’s course for 20 years and need fixing. The scene at TWI and with old grads who fled TWI is a lot different now that it was 20 years ago. I want help in getting down to productive discussion that can accomplish something substantial for us all.
Your use of the term “confirmation bias” has me guessing that your idea of the rut we are in is that I don’t allow people to force a decision to change my mind with their stories and/or evidence. I suspect that progress to you would be me submitting my fundamental beliefs to “critical thinking.”
But what I have tried to say many times here is that, when it comes to applying critical thinking skills to PFAL, I finished that stage of my life about 24 years ago.
I applied critical thinking to VPW, TWI, PFAL, and the Bible long ago, when I first was witnessed to.
I was trained to be a critical science thinker, and right at my start, before I took the class, people were laughing at me for my excessive critical thinking. I was famous for bringing paper and pen to twigs. I brought long lists of questions to meetings that would have a ministry leader visiting.
While many around me were making lifelong decisions, I was cranking away at critical thinking.
Slowly, over the course of years, the PFAL books and collaterals passed my tests. I adopted all sorts of attitudes during my critical thinking years, and often I was perceived by leaders as on the edge of tripping out with my questioning. I pressed on, in spite of frequent pressures to just join in and quit being so intellectual.
There were phases in my critical thinking years where I was quite angry at VPW. It was a roller coaster at times, but by 1998 it all settled down to me accepting the collaterals as my bottom line for inquiry. It was a careful unemotional decision that was carefully built over a course of over 26 years.
So when it comes to the issue of the collaterals being at the center of my life, I am no longer trying to be objective. That whole phase is over for me.
*/*/*/*/*
I have never seen an advocate of critical thinking skills have a plan for what to do when something PASSES THE TESTS, and the critical testing phase of it is over. What is there to criticize when something passes all the critical thinking tests?
Our culture, and especially academic culture, strictly forbids seekers from being finders. I reject that myopic point of view. A seeker must be prepared to change the game once the sought truth is found. Otherwise, such a seeker is not looking for truth, but for novelty.
When a truth is arrived at, confirmation bias is not the big disease that academia sees it as. In science confirmation bias is technically called “Normal Science” and it is a good mode of inquiry. Confirmation bias is good when you are sure of something, but you don’t know HOW sure. Sure can be led to more sure, with the right kinds of inquiry perspective.
So, my rut is non-civil conversation, and progress would be us first all recognizing and respecting our differing positions. From there we may be able to work out some applications of exploratory, non-adversarial, conversations that can help those wo left TWI years ago, and those who are in TWI-4 and coming out into the light.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Im down with that. I can do my part to be less snarky..Im a very direct person at times, but I am also a project manager in the construction industry where directness = survival. This is not that environment. Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
THANKS !
Merry Christmas !!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What???
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Either you don't understand what Kuhn meant by normal science or you are simply unable to meaningfully and accurately convey the term. And to conflate confirmation bias with normal science is a huge misunderstanding - nothing but confusion can arise by asserting this error.
I can explain it all to you, but I don't have time right now.
Merry Christmas
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Impossibly unfair question to ask.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I mean reaching the final answers to cosmic religious questions, is forbidden in modern culture.
"It can only be an opinion, and no one can know for sure" has assumed Ten Commandments status in our culture.
This is magnified in the attitudes you find in top science oriented Universities.
I have arrived at knowing that there is no consciousness after death as an absolute truth. That is a big no-no in modern academia.
Similarly, I am locked onto the end of my search that found Jesus Christ being raised from the dead, the dead sleep of zero consciousness.
Both of these I got from a month of twig and being able to buy the PFAL book in the little Bookstore at Rye, NY. I got these two truths planted for the first time in my life about 3 or 4 months before my first PFAL class.
I was a seeker, and these are two truths that I found at the END of my search. I had an open mind during my search, and when my search ended for these issues of life and death, I closed my mind on these issues.
That is what I meant when I said "Our culture, and especially academic culture, strictly forbids seekers from being finders."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I may have my terms a little confused. It may be there is a better name already to describe what I mentioned. I am very familiar with Kuhn (long story), but I am very unfamiliar with the term "confirmation bias."
I have a much better handle on the other terms I used.
Thanks, and you have a Merry Christmas.
And the New Year can mean some new modes of communication.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.