Cognitive Distortion #1: Lies and Deceit

[_wenglund]

I see it far more WORKABLE than becoming judgemental, accusatory, hyper-sensative, dis-respectful, unloving, non-charitable, closed-minded, unnecessarily hurtful and angry and grieving and venting in a way that may tend to precipitate a cycle of hurt and anger and grief.

We all know Wade is a model and exemplar in this regard. For example, he would never think of calling exbelievers fundamentalists and/or bigots, neither would he accuse people of being "judgmental, accusatory, hyper-sensitive, disrespectful, unloving, non-charitable, close-minded, unnecessarily hurtful and angry" because, after all, he's trying to stop the cycle of hurt and anger and grief.

You are a raging hypocrite, Wade. You consistently attack exbelievers, your entire focus is attacking exbelievers and accusing them of "cognitive distortions" (and fundamentalism and bigotry) and yet you imagine you can argue for tolerance, charity, nonjudgmental attitudes, etc - with any degree of moral authority?

Gee, I wonder if we should re-post the material from his "Sexual Attraction Disorders" webpage, and discuss how many WORKABLE solutions it offers up.

That would make sense if the CSSAD up to this point had intended to present solutions. Since it hasn't, then, as expected, it doesn't make sense for you to do that.

"Do you agree that a WORKABLE solution involves at least partially implicating the Church? If not, why not?"

No. As previously explained, the BLAME GAME is a critical part of the dynamic and cycle of hurt and anger and grief. Your supposed "solution" entails that critical part of the dynamic/cylce. In other words, what you suggest actually and unwittingly fosters and foments the problem, rather than providing a solution to it.

Mr. B CHOSE to REACT by blaming. Then, Mr. A CHOSE to REACT by blaming back. And, around and around they went in mutual hurt and anger and grief. This was dysfunctional. This didn't WORK.

On the other hand, Mr. D CHOSE not to REACT by blaming, but to ACT charitably and to lovingly respect the difference of opinion and rightly trust that all parties had and have ACTED in good faith. And, in terms of whether the Church was supposedly lying about what it claims to be (there may be other challenges that he faced), he was able to easily move on in peace and contentment, free of hurt to himself and others, free of anger and grief within himself or engendered in others (please note, folks, that he wasn't repressing negative emotions. Rather, he didn't experience the negative emotions). This was functional. This WORKED.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

I see it far more WORKABLE than becoming judgemental, accusatory, hyper-sensative, dis-respectful, unloving, non-charitable, closed-minded, unnecessarily hurtful and angry and grieving and venting in a way that may tend to precipitate a cycle of hurt and anger and grief.

We all know Wade is a model and exemplar in this regard. For example, he would never think of calling exbelievers fundamentalists and/or bigots, neither would he accuse people of being "judgmental, accusatory, hyper-sensitive, disrespectful, unloving, non-charitable, close-minded, unnecessarily hurtful and angry" because, after all, he's trying to stop the cycle of hurt and anger and grief.

You are a raging hypocrite, Wade. You consistently attack exbelievers, your entire focus is attacking exbelievers and accusing them of "cognitive distortions" (and fundamentalism and bigotry) and yet you imagine you can argue for tolerance, charity, nonjudgmental attitudes, etc - with any degree of moral authority?

Gee, I wonder if we should re-post the material from his "Sexual Attraction Disorders" webpage, and discuss how many WORKABLE solutions it offers up.

That would make sense if the CSSAD up to this point had intended to present solutions. Since it hasn't, then, as expected, it doesn't make sense for you to do that.

"Do you agree that a WORKABLE solution involves at least partially implicating the Church? If not, why not?"

No. As previously explained, the BLAME GAME is a critical part of the dynamic and cycle of hurt and anger and grief. Your supposed "solution" entails that critical part of the dynamic/cylce. In other words, what you suggest actually and unwittingly fosters and foments the problem, rather than providing a solution to it.

Mr. B CHOSE to REACT by blaming. Then, Mr. A CHOSE to REACT by blaming back. And, around and around they went in mutual hurt and anger and grief. This was dysfunctional. This didn't WORK.

On the other hand, Mr. D CHOSE not to REACT by blaming, but to ACT charitably and to lovingly respect the difference of opinion and rightly trust that all parties had and have ACTED in good faith. And, in terms of whether the Church was supposedly lying about what it claims to be (there may be other challenges that he faced), he was able to easily move on in peace and contentment, free of hurt to himself and others, free of anger and grief within himself or engendered in others (please note, folks, that he wasn't repressing negative emotions. Rather, he didn't experience the negative emotions). This was functional. This WORKED.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Who is "Mr. D", Wade? Do such people as Mr. D even exist? Or is this just some figment of your and juliann's imaginations? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that "Mr. Ds" exist, or are you totally and completely speculating?

[_Sam Harris]

While you are correct that I am not married nor have I had children. However, as explained earlier in the thread, the PRINCIPLES that I have CHOOSEN, and would CHOOSE in the unlikely event that I changed paradigms, are PRINCIPLES that I believe WORK in relationships in general, and not just in terms of one's relationship with the Church and/or relationships with those in the Church.

Granted, having a faithful spouse and children would increase the complexity of the challenge when walking away. But, even still I believe the most WORKABLE way to manage and perhaps surmount the more complex challenge is as explained. In fact, given the greater permutations of relationships and complexity, I believe the CHOICES I outline above are even more viable and critical to preserving and potentially enhancing those realtions.

In other words, you haven't a clue what it's like for them, but you're going to deny their experiences just the same. Typical.

Certainly, from the extensive experiences that I have had in a various types of relationship (familial, friendship, business, community, governmental, etc.)...[snip]

Extensive? Oh boy. Wade, you don't have experience in the most important relationship a man can have, so just how extensive can your experience be? You've never married anyone, never had children. There is NOTHING that Trump's that, nothing. You've been a son, you might have been a brother, but you've never been a husband or a father, and both of those are relationships that many of the "angry, dysfunctional" men you rail against have had and are trying to preserve. And if they vent their anger on line on an anonymous discussion board, instead of taking it out on their wife and family, more power to them.

... I see it far more WORKABLE than becoming judgemental, accusatory, hyper-sensative, dis-respectful, unloving, non-charitable, closed-minded, unnecessarily hurtful and angry and grieving and venting in a way that may tend to precipitate a cycle of hurt and anger and grief.

Your ignorance is showing. One has to go through the grief cycle in order to recover from any trauma. Circumventing the grief cycle can result in later dysfunction, PTS, depression, substance abuse, etc. If you don't know this, I suggest you go back and study your counseling curriculum again; you missed something very important the first time.

To me, the latter may well be, and has even been for me at times, a recipe for depression, anxiety, loneliness, discontent, bitterness, and so forth--things I would just as soon avoid like the plague.

And yet your "ignore it all and go on with life" can also result in exactly what you mention here. People have to deal with trauma, Wade. Shoving it in the closet and ignoring it more often than not results in dysfunction later.

Harmony, bottom line is Wade needs to get laid.

[_Yoda]

On the other hand, Mr. D CHOSE not to REACT by blaming, but to ACT charitably and to lovingly respect the difference of opinion and rightly trust that all parties had and have ACTED in good faith. And, in terms of whether the Church was supposedly lying about what it claims to be (there may be other challenges that he faced), he was able to easily move on in peace and contentment, free of hurt to himself and others, free of anger and grief within himself or engendered in others (please note, folks, that he wasn't repressing negative emotions. Rather, he didn't experience the negative emotions). This was functional. This WORKED.

And you know what, Wade? I agree that Mr. D reacted the right way in choosing to act charitably. (Don't faint at your computer screen. Yes, I'm agreeing with you.)

There is a point, however, that you seem to be missing. Many of us have stated that the proper course of action is to, indeed, act charitably toward others and "agree to disagree" on issues of faith. As Harmony pointed out in an earlier post, however, (not sure whether it was this thread or a different one), if Mr. D feels pain, anger, and grief, then in order to move past those feelings, he needs to acknowledge that they exist. After he acknowledges their existance, then he has the power to choose to act in a charitable manner, take control of his life, and move beyond it.

What I have been frustrated with are your assertions that Mr. D has no right to feel these emotions, or acknowledge that they exist. I agree that he needs to move past them, but the step of acknowledgement can't be ignored. Now, should Mr. D wallow in this state of anger and resentment? No. As long as he does, he won't be able to move forward in his life and be happy.

Does that make sense to you?

[_Yoda]

Harmony, bottom line is Wade needs to get laid.

LOL, GIMR!

Yes, sex is the universal panacea for all frustrations. ;) (See, Shades? This is when smileys would be fun! )

[_Runtu]

What I have been frustrated with are your assertions that Mr. D has no right to feel these emotions, or acknowledge that they exist. I agree that he needs to move past them, but the step of acknowledgement can't be ignored. Now, should Mr. D wallow in this state of anger and resentment? No. As long as he does, he won't be able to move forward in his life and be happy.

Does that make sense to you?

Precisely. That is exactly my problem with Wade's helpful hints. It's one thing to say that we need to get past those feelings; it is quite another to say that we had no right to have those feelings in the first place.

[_Yoda]

What I have been frustrated with are your assertions that Mr. D has no right to feel these emotions, or acknowledge that they exist. I agree that he needs to move past them, but the step of acknowledgement can't be ignored. Now, should Mr. D wallow in this state of anger and resentment? No. As long as he does, he won't be able to move forward in his life and be happy.

Does that make sense to you?

Precisely. That is exactly my problem with Wade's helpful hints. It's one thing to say that we need to get past those feelings; it is quite another to say that we had no right to have those feelings in the first place.

Great minds think alike, Runtu! ;)

[_Sam Harris]

Harmony, bottom line is Wade needs to get laid.

LOL, GIMR!

Yes, sex is the universal panacea for all frustrations. ;) (See, Shades? This is when smileys would be fun! )

Yeah, we need some smileys.

But seriously, it does relax you afterward. Man, sex burns calories, releases tension, gets rid of headaches, and if done right puts a perma-smile on your face.

Wade is just frustrated. That's all. We hedonists must feel for him.

[_Sam Harris]

What I have been frustrated with are your assertions that Mr. D has no right to feel these emotions, or acknowledge that they exist. I agree that he needs to move past them, but the step of acknowledgement can't be ignored. Now, should Mr. D wallow in this state of anger and resentment? No. As long as he does, he won't be able to move forward in his life and be happy.

Does that make sense to you?

Precisely. That is exactly my problem with Wade's helpful hints. It's one thing to say that we need to get past those feelings; it is quite another to say that we had no right to have those feelings in the first place.

Can I get an AMEN from the congregation?

"AMEN!!!"

Can I get a boomshakalaka?

"Booooomshakalaka!"

I had relatives who used to try that mess, "you have no right to feel that way". I don't know what I did, but they stopped. Now they just back away, arms extended, palms facing me, shaking their heads in fear. Hmmm...

[_Sam Harris]

No one is right...and no one is wrong...

Why does there have to one that is right or one that is wronga......all the time with you?????


I frankly think you have been trying way to hard to prove something you will never prove...because there is nothing to prove.............

Some people don't have folks around them to validate them, or deep inside they're just as insecure as the people they're "evaluating".

Some people will never feel whole or like their lives have meaning until they get others to think the way they do.

I don't care what you think, just think. Don't regurgitate, don't copy off the blackboard. THINK.