Especially for Wade - Cognitive Distortion #1

[_Who Knows]

Heres the ultimate deal breaker with your analogy wade. A rape victim could not be outraged at the situation you are bringing paralells to.

You raise a good point that is worth reclarifying. Were the issue with the Church (allegedly lying about what it claims to be) to be as self-evident and indisputable, not to mention of the same magnitude, as "rape", then I could see how it may be a "deal breaker". However, Mr. D certainly didn't think that it was. So, is it NECESSARY that Mr. B view it that way? Might the fact that Mr. D wasn't sucked into, or locked into, the dynamic and cycle of hurt and anger and grief like Mr. B and later Mr. A, perhaps give us an indication of what might WORK for highly disputable issues like whether the Church is lying about what it claims to be?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But Wade, not all rape victims react in the same way. Some may react like Mr. D. Some my react like Mr. B.

Why do you think that is? Why do different people react differently to the same situation?

[_Who Knows]

Heres the ultimate deal breaker with your analogy wade. A rape victim could not be outraged at the situation you are bringing paralells to.

You raise a good point that is worth reclarifying. Were the issue with the Church (allegedly lying about what it claims to be) to be as self-evident and indisputable, not to mention of the same magnitude, as "rape", then I could see how it may be a "deal breaker". However, Mr. D certainly didn't think that it was. So, is it NECESSARY that Mr. B view it that way? Might the fact that Mr. D wasn't sucked into, or locked into, the dynamic and cycle of hurt and anger and grief like Mr. B and later Mr. A, perhaps give us an indication of what might WORK for highly disputable issues like whether the Church is lying about what it claims to be?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's the problem with your entire analogy. To anyone who does not have an emotional or psychological need for the church to be "true," it is painfully self-evident and indisputable that the church has in fact misrepresented itself. That's why your analogy breaks down; you seem to want to treat leaving the church as a "no-fault" separation. Here's a hint: those few exmos I know who didn't experience anger know that the church lied to them. They didn't just decide that the church "was not for them."

Great point. Are issues with the church 'highly disputable'? Wade seems to think so. I think not.

[_wenglund]

Heres the ultimate deal breaker with your analogy wade. A rape victim could not be outraged at the situation you are bringing paralells to.

You raise a good point that is worth reclarifying. Were the issue with the Church (allegedly lying about what it claims to be) to be as self-evident and indisputable, not to mention of the same magnitude, as "rape", then I could see how it may be a "deal breaker". However, Mr. D certainly didn't think that it was. So, is it NECESSARY that Mr. B view it that way? Might the fact that Mr. D wasn't sucked into, or locked into, the dynamic and cycle of hurt and anger and grief like Mr. B and later Mr. A, perhaps give us an indication of what might WORK for highly disputable issues like whether the Church is lying about what it claims to be?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's the problem with your entire analogy. To anyone who does not have an emotional or psychological need for the church to be "true," it is painfully self-evident and indisputable that the church has in fact misrepresented itself. That's why your analogy breaks down; you seem to want to treat leaving the church as a "no-fault" separation. Here's a hint: those few exmos I know who didn't experience anger know that the church lied to them. They didn't just decide that the church "was not for them."

I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh with you, but all I've seen in your posts is a desire to convince everyone that the church is a good-faith actor. It's not and never has been.

I understand that from your point of view the Church has self-evidently and indisputably not acted in good faith, and allegedly never has. And, given how you have projected your point of view onto everyone else who doesn't have an "emotional and psychological need for the Church to be 'true'" (thus making it NECESSARY to view it that way), I can see why my analogy in general, and the Mr. D portion of my analogy in particular, is problematic for you.

I, personally, happen to be aware of not a few Mr. D's (some of whom are close relations and friends).

However, rather than counter-productively arguing who may be right or wrong about the existence of the Mr. D's of the world, I will simply offer Mr. D as a plausable and reasonable and WORKABLE alternative for those who may be interested enough to still consider my point of view. And, since you believe it self-evident and indisputable that the Church hasn't acted in good faith, then your mind is apparently closed on the matter, and there would be little or no point in your participating in my group discussion (which is dependant upon open minds). And, I will wish you well, and I am grateful for what you were able to contribute to the discussion up until now.

And, if there are others here whose minds are similarly closed as Runtu's, who believe that it is self-evident and indisputable that the Church hasn't acted in good faith, it may be helpful to also let me know, and I won't try and engage you further on the matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cacheman]

I understand that from your point of view the Church has self-evidently and indisputably not acted in good faith, and allegedly never has. And, given how you have projected your point of view onto everyone else who doesn't have an "emotional and psychological need for the Church to be 'true'" (thus making it NECESSARY to view it that way), I can see why my analogy in general, and the Mr. D portion of my analogy in particular, is problematic for you.

I, personally, happen to be aware of not a few Mr. D's (some of whom are close relations and friends).

However, rather than counter-productively arguing who may be right or wrong about the existence of the Mr. D's of the world, I will simply offer Mr. D as a plausable and reasonable and WORKABLE alternative for those who may be interested enough to still consider my point of view. And, since you believe it self-evident and indisputable that the Church hasn't acted in good faith, then your mind is apparently closed on the matter, and there would be little or no point in your participating in my group discussion (which is dependant upon open minds). And, I will wish you well, and I am grateful for what you were able to contribute to the discussion up until now.

And, if there are others here whose minds are similarly closed as Runtu's, who believe that it is self-evident and indisputable that the Church hasn't acted in good faith, it may be helpful to also let me know, and I won't try and engage you further on the matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I guess that's where I'm confused, Wade. On the one hand, your analogy depends on the church being a good-faith actor, and on the other, you've repeatedly said that it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, but what is workable. Which is it?

If it doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong about the church, then my "closedmindedness" should not matter in the least, should it?

Edit: I am open to the remote possibility that the church is what it claims to be. I am not in fact entirely closedminded on this issue.

[_Who Knows]

And, since you believe it self-evident and indisputable that the Church hasn't acted in good faith, then your mind is apparently closed on the matter, and there would be little or no point in your participating in my group discussion (which is dependant upon open minds). And, I will wish you well, and I am grateful for what you were able to contribute to the discussion up until now.

And, if there are others here whose minds are similarly closed as Runtu's, who believe that it is self-evident and indisputable that the Church hasn't acted in good faith, it may be helpful to also let me know, and I won't try and engage you further on the matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Anyone seen Plutarch? :o

Wade - are you open-minded about the possibility of the church not being what it claims?

[_wenglund]

By the way, isn't a closed mind the epitomy of thinking one is RIGHT?

Is it any wonder that the dynamic and cycle of hurt and anger and grief is so unavoidable for some?

(I will await the onslought of mote-like accusation against the Church and its members from those looking past the beams in their own eyes on this score)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

And, since you believe it self-evident and indisputable that the Church hasn't acted in good faith, then your mind is apparently closed on the matter, and there would be little or no point in your participating in my group discussion (which is dependant upon open minds). And, I will wish you well, and I am grateful for what you were able to contribute to the discussion up until now.

And, if there are others here whose minds are similarly closed as Runtu's, who believe that it is self-evident and indisputable that the Church hasn't acted in good faith, it may be helpful to also let me know, and I won't try and engage you further on the matter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Anyone seen Plutarch? :o

Wade - are you open-minded about the possibility of the church not being what it claims?

Yes (see my interview with Tal).

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[_Runtu]

By the way, isn't a closed mind the epitomy of thinking one is RIGHT?

Is it any wonder that the dynamic and cycle of hurt and anger and grief is so unavoidable for some?

(I will await the onslought of mote-like accusation against the Church and its members from those looking past the beams in their own eyes on this score)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

All I'm asking for is some clarification. Does it matter or not whether both sides or either believe they're right? At one point, you said that it mattered not; now you're saying that I'm too closedminded about the church's rightness or wrongness to participate here.

[_Who Knows]

Wade - are you open-minded about the possibility of the church not being what it claims?

Yes (see my interview with Tal).

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Wow, I'm impressed. That's good to know.

[_wenglund]

I guess that's where I'm confused, Wade. On the one hand, your analogy depends on the church being a good-faith actor, and on the other, you've repeatedly said that it doesn't matter who is right or wrong, but what is workable. Which is it?

If it doesn't matter whether I'm right or wrong about the church, then my "closedmindedness" should not matter in the least, should it?

Two corrections: 1) my analogy doesn't depend on the Church being a good faith actor. In fact, it contains opposing perceptions. The solution, on the other hand, may very well produce that perception, but if so, seeing the Church as a good faith actor is dependant upon the solution, and not the other way around. 2) I haven't suggested that it doesn't matter who is right or wrong. My point is that FOCUSING on who is right and wrong, particularly in situations where where rightness and wrongness is at the heart of the debate, and is unresolvable in any definitive way to the satisfaction of all parties, it may be in people's mutual interest to shift the focus from who is right and wrong to what WORKS. Do you see the important difference?

Edit: I am open to the remote possibility that the church is what it claims to be. I am not in fact entirely closedminded on this issue.

Now I am confused. I thought the issue was whether the Church has been acting in good faith regarding what it claims to be, rather than simply whether the Church is what it claims to be (in other words, it is the difference between Mr. B and Mr. D, rather than between Mr. A and B). I also thought you said that, to your mind, and anyone else's who didn't have a vested interest in the Church being "true", that it was "self-evident and indisputable" that the Church hadn't acted in good faith. How can a mind be supposedly open to something it views as self-evident and indisputable to the contrary? In other words, how can yuo be open to dispute something you believe is indisputable?

This begs the question: if that is not closeminded, what would closedminded look like on this issue?

Now, as indicated, I am open to the idea that the Church may not have ever acted in good faith, because I don't see the issue as self-evident or indisputable. In fact, I think there is room for dispute.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-