People move on with their lives all the time and it is not contingent upon them forgiving their abuser. Some murder victims forgive the accusers others don’t. Life moves on in either case.
The topic has been “forgiveness”. So going to the Bible to define that term as opposed to using your past discussion as the standard for truth seems the most logical. How God does it is pertinent. How people forgive each other is also pertinent.
The whole point of figures of speech is language that doesn’t fit direct speech. It has nothing to do with what is nice for me to call. Again if you believe it is direct tell me what works greater you’ve done.
It is not going down a rabbit hole to ask for an example if it is direct language. But making excuses and dodging the question certainly leaves you in a rabbit hole.
I eat sleep drink as Christ did - those works I’ve done. A little teaching and ministering but on a minuscule comparative scale. No man with a withered hand manufactured account for me. Nobody healed born blind. No dead resurrected. And I didn’t get up from the dead nor have I ascended. So mostly it is a no to the same works Christ did.
How about you?
With cults it is not really the interpretation of scripture that is the main problem, but rather the problem is making shipwreck the family faith, and all the abuse detailed in the BITE model. The RCs are a large cult also. But they accept and collaborate with other Christians. do not isolate people and control them to the same degree.
Whatever interpretation you are going through should direct you to a more virtuous life or it’s not worth it. And it may inspire you differently.
But make no mistake the “greater works” verse we are discussing the Way interprets to mean leading people into SIT. And that is accomplished for them by getting them in “the class”.
I don’t think Jesus was prophecying about running PFAL when he mentioned greater works. That is 100% a cult construct.
The topic has been “forgiveness”. So going to the Bible to define that term as opposed to using your past discussion as the standard for truth seems the most logical. How God does it is pertinent. How people forgive each other is also pertinent.
Hmmm... wow, thank you for illuminating how UNCLEAR I was in conveying my intended message in the OP and for the discussion on this thread.
Forgiveness was STL's topic. Mine IS about whether and to what extent WE knew that we knew that we knew.
Perhaps STL or you, chockfull, might be interested in starting a discussion thread about forgiveness.
Whatever interpretation you are going through should direct you to a more virtuous life or it’s not worth it. And it may inspire you differently.
But make no mistake the “greater works” verse we are discussing the Way interprets to mean leading people into SIT. And that is accomplished for them by getting them in “the class”.
I don’t think Jesus was prophecying about running PFAL when he mentioned greater works. That is 100% a cult construct.
I'm not discounting the insight you presented in the comment from which the above quoted excerpt originated... however, it is totally
The SECOND point I intended to make about Victor Wierwille and Loy C Martindale was with regard to AUTHENTICITY.
To illustrate authenticity or lack thereof, I (perhaps not as successfully as I had hoped) the concept of self-deprecation and related humor.
I did so because establishing legitimate connection with people a leader wishes to lead requires a willingness to become vulnerable with and to those people.
Did Victor Wierwille or Loy C Martindale, in YOUR experience, establish a compassionate connection with you or did they influence you by other tactics/strategy?
The THIRD point I intended to make about Victor and Loy, to illustrate the underlying fault with them and the organization they started and took over relates to HOW they handled CONFLICT.
Did they approach or handle conflict in constructive ways?
I'm reasonably confident their (practical/practiced) approach did NOT reflect the love, mercy, and peace one finds in the Acts of the Apostles other books of the New Testament.
Please, by all means expound on THESE THREE main topics of this thread. Preferably reflecting on your experience in Victor's private interpretation ministry.
Also, I commend STL and chockfull especially for having identified tangents and enabled me to redirect and distill my intentions on this thread. You're wonderful.
On the topic of self-deprecating humor, this YT clip provides some hints about why Victor and Loy would have benefited from use of self-deprecation but, only for an example, doing so might not work for Mike.
The THIRD point I intended to make about Victor and Loy, to illustrate the underlying fault with them and the organization they started and took over relates to HOW they handled CONFLICT.
Did they approach or handle conflict in constructive ways?
I'm reasonably confident their (practical/practiced) approach did NOT reflect the love, mercy, and peace one finds in the Acts of the Apostles other books of the New Testament.
Please, by all means expound on THESE THREE main topics of this thread. Preferably reflecting on your experience in Victor's private interpretation ministry.
Also, I commend STL and chockfull especially for having identified tangents and enabled me to redirect and distill my intentions on this thread. You're wonderful.
Sorry you’re losing me with whatever the topic of the thread is. So now it’s down to 3 main topics, but they aren’t anything to do with the posts I was responding to. Okay.
The teach and da forehead were fallible, they didn’t use self deprecating humor, and they did t display love mercy peace handling conflict?
Okay. Those seem to me to be characteristics as opposed to discussion points.
I don’t know what you mean by when they knew that they knew that they knew. That’s another repetitive type of statement like we saw in PFAL. Most narcissists and con artists believe their own lies. Is this what you mean - when did they start believing their own lies? Who knows?
I was never in TWI. I can't relate to a direct experience with victor or loy or the corporation. I was able to discern within the first 12 minutes of PFAL that victor was complete fraud.
However, my life was adversely affected by people who were CORPS in the late 70s or early 80s and by people whose worldview, moral compass and "spiritual maturity" conformed to victor's PI doctrines
It seems to me, from reading and listening to victor's own words, and from the witness testimonies here, belief mattered more to vic and Loy than knowing. Victor didn't really know that he knew that he knew. That was just another distracting pithy piece of bullshonta. Victor didn't know much. He believed much.
What he knew was that if he could get others to believehim, he could make a materially successful life for himself. And he was right. He knew that that he knew that he knew if anyone ever found out the truth, he would be done. That was his greatest fear - being found out for who and what he really was.
He had to be right, he couldn't be wrong, lest his supply dry up. Hence, M&A every and any liability potentially exposing him.
1) I didn't say they were undeserving of forgiveness. I didn't think I was implying it either.
2) Looking back on the post and comments I made above, I'm wondering how you may have come to conclude, or even infer I was equating either of them to murderers. If you'd be so kind, I would appreciate you expounding about that on this thread.
3) Considering the two decades of people writing about their experiences on GSC, let me clarify my intent as being to criticize the actions each of the two of them took as cult leaders, and criticize the cult structure and conduct related thereto. There's plenty to show and tell about the power dynamics in and of themselves.
4) Again, thank you for reading and watching the videos.
This was Rocky’s initial response when I posted about forgiving VPW and LCM and there was no concern about going off topic. In 4) Rocky thanked me for reading and watching the video.
Even as chockfull and I have been going back and forth for several days no concern was shown until today.
This was Rocky’s initial response when I posted about forgiving VPW and LCM and there was no concern about going off topic. In 4) Rocky thanked me for reading and watching the video.
Even as chockfull and I have been going back and forth for several days no concern was shown until today.
Your point is?
I hope you're not offended that I redirected the focus of the thread I started. I had a couple of days to chew on it. I still thank you for reading and offering your thoughts.
Eventually it occurred to me that you missed what I was getting at and therefore I needed to clarify.
What he knew was that if he could get others to believehim, he could make a materially successful life for himself. And he was right. He knew that that he knew that he knew if anyone ever found out the truth, he would be done. That was his greatest fear - being found out for who and what he really was.
Perhaps he KNEW on a subconscious level. That could account for why he could never tolerate disagreement or anyone showing him up or exposing his bullshonta.
Perhaps he KNEW on a subconscious level. That could account for why he could never tolerate disagreement or anyone showing him up or exposing his bullshonta.
He couldn't even tolerate simple questions after a class. Some teacher.
Notice how few questions were allowed at the end of the Corps "teaching" on Romans. The transcript is available. I've posted most of the Q&A already. I could post the rest. Less than ten question were permitted. Victor's frustration is palpable in the text.
Victor held forth for hours and hours and days and days on Romans. It was a small Corps class. It was the class LCM was in. These kids asked real questions. Victor HATED that, because he couldn't keep track of his bullshonta and didn't want to get caught.
I am grateful to have had some fantastic teachers in my life. I am even grateful for the bad ones -- they provide contrast. Victor was one of the top three worst "teachers" I have ever encountered.
Is it possible they could have actually believed it? Is it possible any of us actually did trust them, should we have?
What might the implications or ramifications be one way or the other?
Things like that.
My impression was that VPW was more of a natural narcissist and generally believed his own lies and hype. Craig was more of a narcissist by imitation but was a very diligent student. I think he also believed his own lies.
Yes I trusted them and should not have as it added two decades of bondage to my life path that I probably could have done without.
Thats the ramifications for me. I guess everyone can speak for themself.
He couldn't even tolerate simple questions after a class. Some teacher.
Notice how few questions were allowed at the end of the Corps "teaching" on Romans. The transcript is available. I've posted most of the Q&A already. I could post the rest. Less than ten question were permitted. Victor's frustration is palpable in the text.
Victor held forth for hours and hours and days and days on Romans. It was a small Corps class. It was the class LCM was in. These kids asked real questions. Victor HATED that, because he couldn't keep track of his bullshonta and didn't want to get caught.
I am grateful to have had some fantastic teachers in my life. I am even grateful for the bad ones -- they provide contrast. Victor was one of the top three worst "teachers" I have ever encountered.
Hey Nathan that sparked an idea about the policies for PFAL. As a class coordinator you were not to answer questions directly, but defer them to a Q and A session at the end of the class. This policy was highlighted to the new students from day one.
With all of the mental acrobatics that the new student is taken through in the class, the net effect of this policy is like Nathan is observing in the U of L Romans class to not answer questions at all directly and to defer the answering of questions to the class coordinator.
In all of the years of running classes and all the classes I ran I never once saw this policy result in anything other than people forgetting about their questions or them getting ignored. Peer pressure for Corps would prevent escalating any questionable areas where legit questions arose.
How many of you ever experienced a last session of the class where any questions of substance were asked or answered? None for me.
I postulate that this is a clear example of brainwashing techniques.
How many of you ever experienced a last session of the class where any questions of substance were asked or answered? None for me.
I postulate that this is a clear example of brainwashing techniques.
I observed no such Q/A sessions either. Indeed, it certainly is somehow related to the brainwashing to which we willingly but not knowingly subjected ourselves and each other. Thanks for your insight.
He couldn't even tolerate simple questions after a class. Some teacher.
Here's a simple thought experiment for readers on this thread,
Victor fancied himself as MOGFODAT, man of god for our day and time. Since the archetype seemingly was Paul the Apostle, how do each of us imagine Paul conducted himself in discussion sessions on Mars Hill?
The biblical significance of Mars Hill is that it is the location of one of Paul’s most important gospel presentations at the time of his visit to Athens during his second missionary journey (Acts 17:16–34). It was where he addressed the religious idolatry of the Greeks who even had an altar to the “Unknown God.” It was this altar and their religious idolatry that Paul used as a starting point in proclaiming to them the one true God and how they could be reconciled to Him. Paul’s sermon is a classic example of a gospel presentation that begins where the listeners are and then presents the gospel message in a logical and biblical fashion. In many ways it is a classic example of apologetics in action. Paul started his message by addressing the false beliefs of those gathered there that day and then used those beliefs as a way of presenting the gospel message to them.
We know that when Paul arrived in Athens he found a city “given over to idols” (Acts 17:16). In his usual manner, Paul began presenting the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. He started by “reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers” (Acts 17:17) and then also proclaimed the gospel “in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there” (Acts 17:17). While at the marketplace he encountered some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (Acts 17:18) who, having heard Paul proclaim the resurrected Jesus Christ, wanted to learn about “this new doctrine” he was teaching, so they “brought him to the Areopagus” to hear more from him (Acts 17:19–20).
We know from history that theEpicureanphilosophers generally believed that God existed but that He was not interested or involved with humanity and that the main purpose of life was pleasure. On the other hand, theStoicphilosophers had the worldview that “God was the world’s soul” and that the goal of life was “to rise above all things” so that one showed no emotional response to either pain or pleasure. These groups and others with their dramatically opposing worldviews loved to discuss and debate philosophy and religion. Intrigued by what they considered Paul’s “babblings” about the resurrection of Christ, they brought him to the Areopagus where the Athenians and foreigners “spent their time in nothing else but to tell or hear some new thing” (Acts 17:21).
As mentioned earlier, Paul’s presentation of the gospel is a great example for us, both as a pattern for how Paul identified with his audience and as an example of apologetics in action. His connection with his audience is seen in how he begins addressing those gathered at the Areopagus. He begins with the observation that they were “very religious,” based on the fact that they had many altars and “objects of worship” (Acts 17:23) including an altar to “the Unknown God.” Paul uses that altar to introduce them to the one true God and the only way of salvation, Jesus Christ.
His apologetic method and his knowledge that they did not even know what God is really like leads him to go back to Genesis and to the beginning of creation. Having a completely wrong view of God, those gathered that day needed to hear what God really was like before they would understand the message of the gospel. Paul begins explaining to them the sovereign God who created all things and gives life and breath to all things. He continues to explain that it was God who created from one individual all men and nations and even appointed the time and boundaries of their dwelling (Acts 17:26). His message continues as he explains the closeness of God and their need to repent of their rebellion against Him. Paul completes his message by introducing them to the One before whom they would all stand one day and be judged—Jesus Christ, whom God had raised from the dead.
Of course, many in the audience scoffed at the idea that Christ was crucified and rose from the dead on the third day because the idea of the resurrection to the Greeks was foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:23). Yet a few believed what Paul said and joined him.
What happened on Mars Hill is important because of the many lessons that can be learned, not only from how Paul presented the gospel and presented a biblical worldview, but also in the varied responses he received.
Did Victor ever have, after "developing the PFLAP class series," any such Mars Hill experiences?
Did he ever publicly encounter philosophers (thinkers) and hold forth his version of the Gospel to them?
How did or would have such an event have looked/sounded in the moment?
Did or would Victor have angrily ranted at them like he did on numerous occasions with "his corps" trainees?
I can envision him meeting with local chambers of commerce informally at Adolph's to hold forth... but in such a setting would he have held their attention?
Or perhaps in town council meetings or a chamber of commerce to proudly announce plans for the Rock of Ages, thereby soliciting logistical support for supplying food for tens of thousands of people for a week or two, and other infrastructure needs, like water and sewer.
In my mind, that presents a totally different interaction dynamic where Victor could elicit cooperation because of the financial/economic benefit the broader community would gain.
Is it possible they could have actually believed it? Is it possible any of us actually did trust them, should we have?
What might the implications or ramifications be one way or the other?
Things like that.
4 hours ago, chockfull said:
My impression was that VPW was more of a natural narcissist and generally believed his own lies and hype. Craig was more of a narcissist by imitation but was a very diligent student. I think he also believed his own lies.
Yes I trusted them and should not have as it added two decades of bondage to my life path that I probably could have done without.
Thats the ramifications for me. I guess everyone can speak for themself.
Yes, I believed them. Should I have - in hindsight, no. One ramification was critical thinking went out the door because of trusting in them and an implication would be that an extreme narcissist should never be allowed in any position of power.
For example: Can a narcissist who commits a crime from believing his own lies be held responsible for his crimes? Can his defense be that he truly believed his ball was stolen and was only trying to get it back when he committed the "said" crimes? In other words, everything he did to get his ball back was justified because his ball, according to him, was absolutely stolen. Also, since a narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition according to the DMS 5, a professional diagnosis could help him in his defense, but being that he has the disorder, he would never allow this to be brought up at trial.
Now, what if the narcissist is found not guilty or gets a slap on the wrist because he truly believed in a lie of his own making (or in someone else's lie which he then made his own) and is therefore free to pursue his obsession of becoming rich and powerful so he can seek revenge on people who persecuted and prosecuted him? Worse, what if enough people who believed all along that his ball was stolen (when in reality it wasn't) and/or liked him enough that they helped him to become rich and powerful? Could such an insane story really happen?
Narcissists like vp and others are adept at persuading people to trust them whether they believe their lies to be true or not? A narcissist can even be pleased that he can tell a whopper like God spoke audibly to him because of an out-of-season snowstorm/blizzard or another one can say he could shoot someone and, in both cases, believe they will not lose followers. How sure are they not only of themselves but in people's need or desire to believe in someone who will show them "the" way.
My point is that an extreme narcissist can believe that he knows that he knows he is speaking truth when in reality he is not, and I know now how big a problem this becomes when others believe and support him.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
28
7
15
7
Popular Days
Sep 2
23
Sep 3
15
Sep 1
10
Aug 30
5
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 28 posts
Stayed Too Long 7 posts
chockfull 15 posts
Nathan_Jr 7 posts
Popular Days
Sep 2 2023
23 posts
Sep 3 2023
15 posts
Sep 1 2023
10 posts
Aug 30 2023
5 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
Whenever the topic of cults and the evil actions of founders and top leaders come up, there is always this argument present. I call this the “whitewash argument”. It masks as forgiveness, but th
Nathan_Jr
I was never in TWI. I can't relate to a direct experience with victor or loy or the corporation. I was able to discern within the first 12 minutes of PFAL that victor was complete fraud. However
Nathan_Jr
Forgiveness is for the forgiver. Forgiveness is never for the forgiven. For the awakened, reality and truth are presented on the end of a club whacked upside the head. The ringing bell is violent
chockfull
People move on with their lives all the time and it is not contingent upon them forgiving their abuser. Some murder victims forgive the accusers others don’t. Life moves on in either case.
The topic has been “forgiveness”. So going to the Bible to define that term as opposed to using your past discussion as the standard for truth seems the most logical. How God does it is pertinent. How people forgive each other is also pertinent.
The whole point of figures of speech is language that doesn’t fit direct speech. It has nothing to do with what is nice for me to call. Again if you believe it is direct tell me what works greater you’ve done.
It is not going down a rabbit hole to ask for an example if it is direct language. But making excuses and dodging the question certainly leaves you in a rabbit hole.
I eat sleep drink as Christ did - those works I’ve done. A little teaching and ministering but on a minuscule comparative scale. No man with a withered hand manufactured account for me. Nobody healed born blind. No dead resurrected. And I didn’t get up from the dead nor have I ascended. So mostly it is a no to the same works Christ did.
How about you?
With cults it is not really the interpretation of scripture that is the main problem, but rather the problem is making shipwreck the family faith, and all the abuse detailed in the BITE model. The RCs are a large cult also. But they accept and collaborate with other Christians. do not isolate people and control them to the same degree.
Whatever interpretation you are going through should direct you to a more virtuous life or it’s not worth it. And it may inspire you differently.
But make no mistake the “greater works” verse we are discussing the Way interprets to mean leading people into SIT. And that is accomplished for them by getting them in “the class”.
I don’t think Jesus was prophecying about running PFAL when he mentioned greater works. That is 100% a cult construct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Hmmm... wow, thank you for illuminating how UNCLEAR I was in conveying my intended message in the OP and for the discussion on this thread.
Forgiveness was STL's topic. Mine IS about whether and to what extent WE knew that we knew that we knew.
Perhaps STL or you, chockfull, might be interested in starting a discussion thread about forgiveness.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'm not discounting the insight you presented in the comment from which the above quoted excerpt originated... however, it is totally
For this thread's discussion topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Herein, I will try to narrow down what I presented in the first few posts/comments I used to begin this thread.
Among the subterfuge Victor Wierwille used to trap each of us in his subculture organization, was that HE knew that he knew that he knew?
But DID HE REALLY? We don't and can't know to what degree he knew what he claimed. But he made outrageous claims nevertheless.
Was HE more fallible IN the private interpretation of the Bible than he both claimed and otherwise alluded to?
THIS is point ONE of this thread.
And WERE/ARE each of us fallible/infallible in the degree to which we fell for his schtick... hook, line, and sinker?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The SECOND point I intended to make about Victor Wierwille and Loy C Martindale was with regard to AUTHENTICITY.
To illustrate authenticity or lack thereof, I (perhaps not as successfully as I had hoped) the concept of self-deprecation and related humor.
I did so because establishing legitimate connection with people a leader wishes to lead requires a willingness to become vulnerable with and to those people.
Did Victor Wierwille or Loy C Martindale, in YOUR experience, establish a compassionate connection with you or did they influence you by other tactics/strategy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The THIRD point I intended to make about Victor and Loy, to illustrate the underlying fault with them and the organization they started and took over relates to HOW they handled CONFLICT.
Did they approach or handle conflict in constructive ways?
I'm reasonably confident their (practical/practiced) approach did NOT reflect the love, mercy, and peace one finds in the Acts of the Apostles other books of the New Testament.
Please, by all means expound on THESE THREE main topics of this thread. Preferably reflecting on your experience in Victor's private interpretation ministry.
Also, I commend STL and chockfull especially for having identified tangents and enabled me to redirect and distill my intentions on this thread. You're wonderful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
On the topic of self-deprecating humor, this YT clip provides some hints about why Victor and Loy would have benefited from use of self-deprecation but, only for an example, doing so might not work for Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Sorry you’re losing me with whatever the topic of the thread is. So now it’s down to 3 main topics, but they aren’t anything to do with the posts I was responding to. Okay.
The teach and da forehead were fallible, they didn’t use self deprecating humor, and they did t display love mercy peace handling conflict?
Okay. Those seem to me to be characteristics as opposed to discussion points.
I don’t know what you mean by when they knew that they knew that they knew. That’s another repetitive type of statement like we saw in PFAL. Most narcissists and con artists believe their own lies. Is this what you mean - when did they start believing their own lies? Who knows?
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
It seems to me like the topic is sliding. From one point to three points.
But you do seem to get a charge out of telling me I’m wrong.
I will refrain from posting any more on this thread until I understand better what the topic is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I have zero interest in starting a thread on forgiveness.
I was just responding to someone lecturing me on this thread about how I was not doing it and needed to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Is it possible they could have actually believed it? Is it possible any of us actually did trust them, should we have?
What might the implications or ramifications be one way or the other?
Things like that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I apologize for giving you that impression.
Bottom line is STL missed my point, pretty much altogether. I simply wanted to refocus the thread.
Do what you want, reply or don't, as you wish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Completely understandable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I was never in TWI. I can't relate to a direct experience with victor or loy or the corporation. I was able to discern within the first 12 minutes of PFAL that victor was complete fraud.
However, my life was adversely affected by people who were CORPS in the late 70s or early 80s and by people whose worldview, moral compass and "spiritual maturity" conformed to victor's PI doctrines
It seems to me, from reading and listening to victor's own words, and from the witness testimonies here, belief mattered more to vic and Loy than knowing. Victor didn't really know that he knew that he knew. That was just another distracting pithy piece of bullshonta. Victor didn't know much. He believed much.
What he knew was that if he could get others to believe him, he could make a materially successful life for himself. And he was right. He knew that that he knew that he knew if anyone ever found out the truth, he would be done. That was his greatest fear - being found out for who and what he really was.
He had to be right, he couldn't be wrong, lest his supply dry up. Hence, M&A every and any liability potentially exposing him.
What did victor know?
Exactly what he was doing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
This was Rocky’s initial response when I posted about forgiving VPW and LCM and there was no concern about going off topic. In 4) Rocky thanked me for reading and watching the video.
Even as chockfull and I have been going back and forth for several days no concern was shown until today.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Your point is?
I hope you're not offended that I redirected the focus of the thread I started. I had a couple of days to chew on it. I still thank you for reading and offering your thoughts.
Eventually it occurred to me that you missed what I was getting at and therefore I needed to clarify.
Please pardon me for being fallible.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Perhaps he KNEW on a subconscious level. That could account for why he could never tolerate disagreement or anyone showing him up or exposing his bullshonta.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
He couldn't even tolerate simple questions after a class. Some teacher.
Notice how few questions were allowed at the end of the Corps "teaching" on Romans. The transcript is available. I've posted most of the Q&A already. I could post the rest. Less than ten question were permitted. Victor's frustration is palpable in the text.
Victor held forth for hours and hours and days and days on Romans. It was a small Corps class. It was the class LCM was in. These kids asked real questions. Victor HATED that, because he couldn't keep track of his bullshonta and didn't want to get caught.
I am grateful to have had some fantastic teachers in my life. I am even grateful for the bad ones -- they provide contrast. Victor was one of the top three worst "teachers" I have ever encountered.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
My impression was that VPW was more of a natural narcissist and generally believed his own lies and hype. Craig was more of a narcissist by imitation but was a very diligent student. I think he also believed his own lies.
Yes I trusted them and should not have as it added two decades of bondage to my life path that I probably could have done without.
Thats the ramifications for me. I guess everyone can speak for themself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hey Nathan that sparked an idea about the policies for PFAL. As a class coordinator you were not to answer questions directly, but defer them to a Q and A session at the end of the class. This policy was highlighted to the new students from day one.
With all of the mental acrobatics that the new student is taken through in the class, the net effect of this policy is like Nathan is observing in the U of L Romans class to not answer questions at all directly and to defer the answering of questions to the class coordinator.
In all of the years of running classes and all the classes I ran I never once saw this policy result in anything other than people forgetting about their questions or them getting ignored. Peer pressure for Corps would prevent escalating any questionable areas where legit questions arose.
How many of you ever experienced a last session of the class where any questions of substance were asked or answered? None for me.
I postulate that this is a clear example of brainwashing techniques.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I observed no such Q/A sessions either. Indeed, it certainly is somehow related to the brainwashing to which we willingly but not knowingly subjected ourselves and each other. Thanks for your insight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Here's a simple thought experiment for readers on this thread,
Victor fancied himself as MOGFODAT, man of god for our day and time. Since the archetype seemingly was Paul the Apostle, how do each of us imagine Paul conducted himself in discussion sessions on Mars Hill?
The biblical significance of Mars Hill is that it is the location of one of Paul’s most important gospel presentations at the time of his visit to Athens during his second missionary journey (Acts 17:16–34). It was where he addressed the religious idolatry of the Greeks who even had an altar to the “Unknown God.” It was this altar and their religious idolatry that Paul used as a starting point in proclaiming to them the one true God and how they could be reconciled to Him. Paul’s sermon is a classic example of a gospel presentation that begins where the listeners are and then presents the gospel message in a logical and biblical fashion. In many ways it is a classic example of apologetics in action. Paul started his message by addressing the false beliefs of those gathered there that day and then used those beliefs as a way of presenting the gospel message to them.
We know that when Paul arrived in Athens he found a city “given over to idols” (Acts 17:16). In his usual manner, Paul began presenting the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. He started by “reasoning in the synagogue with the Jews and with the Gentile worshipers” (Acts 17:17) and then also proclaimed the gospel “in the marketplace daily with those who happened to be there” (Acts 17:17). While at the marketplace he encountered some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers (Acts 17:18) who, having heard Paul proclaim the resurrected Jesus Christ, wanted to learn about “this new doctrine” he was teaching, so they “brought him to the Areopagus” to hear more from him (Acts 17:19–20).
We know from history that the Epicurean philosophers generally believed that God existed but that He was not interested or involved with humanity and that the main purpose of life was pleasure. On the other hand, the Stoic philosophers had the worldview that “God was the world’s soul” and that the goal of life was “to rise above all things” so that one showed no emotional response to either pain or pleasure. These groups and others with their dramatically opposing worldviews loved to discuss and debate philosophy and religion. Intrigued by what they considered Paul’s “babblings” about the resurrection of Christ, they brought him to the Areopagus where the Athenians and foreigners “spent their time in nothing else but to tell or hear some new thing” (Acts 17:21).
As mentioned earlier, Paul’s presentation of the gospel is a great example for us, both as a pattern for how Paul identified with his audience and as an example of apologetics in action. His connection with his audience is seen in how he begins addressing those gathered at the Areopagus. He begins with the observation that they were “very religious,” based on the fact that they had many altars and “objects of worship” (Acts 17:23) including an altar to “the Unknown God.” Paul uses that altar to introduce them to the one true God and the only way of salvation, Jesus Christ.
His apologetic method and his knowledge that they did not even know what God is really like leads him to go back to Genesis and to the beginning of creation. Having a completely wrong view of God, those gathered that day needed to hear what God really was like before they would understand the message of the gospel. Paul begins explaining to them the sovereign God who created all things and gives life and breath to all things. He continues to explain that it was God who created from one individual all men and nations and even appointed the time and boundaries of their dwelling (Acts 17:26). His message continues as he explains the closeness of God and their need to repent of their rebellion against Him. Paul completes his message by introducing them to the One before whom they would all stand one day and be judged—Jesus Christ, whom God had raised from the dead.
Of course, many in the audience scoffed at the idea that Christ was crucified and rose from the dead on the third day because the idea of the resurrection to the Greeks was foolishness (1 Corinthians 1:23). Yet a few believed what Paul said and joined him.
What happened on Mars Hill is important because of the many lessons that can be learned, not only from how Paul presented the gospel and presented a biblical worldview, but also in the varied responses he received.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Did Victor ever have, after "developing the PFLAP class series," any such Mars Hill experiences?
Did he ever publicly encounter philosophers (thinkers) and hold forth his version of the Gospel to them?
How did or would have such an event have looked/sounded in the moment?
Did or would Victor have angrily ranted at them like he did on numerous occasions with "his corps" trainees?
I can envision him meeting with local chambers of commerce informally at Adolph's to hold forth... but in such a setting would he have held their attention?
Or perhaps in town council meetings or a chamber of commerce to proudly announce plans for the Rock of Ages, thereby soliciting logistical support for supplying food for tens of thousands of people for a week or two, and other infrastructure needs, like water and sewer.
In my mind, that presents a totally different interaction dynamic where Victor could elicit cooperation because of the financial/economic benefit the broader community would gain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Yes, I believed them. Should I have - in hindsight, no. One ramification was critical thinking went out the door because of trusting in them and an implication would be that an extreme narcissist should never be allowed in any position of power.
For example: Can a narcissist who commits a crime from believing his own lies be held responsible for his crimes? Can his defense be that he truly believed his ball was stolen and was only trying to get it back when he committed the "said" crimes? In other words, everything he did to get his ball back was justified because his ball, according to him, was absolutely stolen. Also, since a narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition according to the DMS 5, a professional diagnosis could help him in his defense, but being that he has the disorder, he would never allow this to be brought up at trial.
Now, what if the narcissist is found not guilty or gets a slap on the wrist because he truly believed in a lie of his own making (or in someone else's lie which he then made his own) and is therefore free to pursue his obsession of becoming rich and powerful so he can seek revenge on people who persecuted and prosecuted him? Worse, what if enough people who believed all along that his ball was stolen (when in reality it wasn't) and/or liked him enough that they helped him to become rich and powerful? Could such an insane story really happen?
Narcissists like vp and others are adept at persuading people to trust them whether they believe their lies to be true or not? A narcissist can even be pleased that he can tell a whopper like God spoke audibly to him because of an out-of-season snowstorm/blizzard or another one can say he could shoot someone and, in both cases, believe they will not lose followers. How sure are they not only of themselves but in people's need or desire to believe in someone who will show them "the" way.
My point is that an extreme narcissist can believe that he knows that he knows he is speaking truth when in reality he is not, and I know now how big a problem this becomes when others believe and support him.
Does a Narcissist Believe His or Her Own Lies? | Psychology Today
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.