The second half of this post is comprised of a comment of mine taken from spiritualtyranny.com, where we are discussing this issue, along with others, in the comments thread of John Immel’s latest post. You can view it here.
Another commenter there posited the notion that utter self-sacrifice is the absolute standard of moral good; and that God alone possesses the ability to achieve it. The example he used was Christ on the cross, which John summarily dismantled. I likewise inserted my disagreement with this perspective, which presumes that Christ profited nothing in sacrificing Himself for mankind; that His sacrifice was of no actual value or benefit to Him, and therefore qualified as meeting the requirements of the moral benchmark. I thought this a massive stretch of logic, to the point of breaking it altogether. I went on to explain why this assumption is not only wrong but impossible by pointing out that since existence is absolute– you ARE, and thus you cannot be what you are NOT; and you possess no inherent ability to be what you are NOT whilst being what you ARE…for this is a contradiction in terms–yes, since existence is absolute, one cannot sacrifice himself to the point of NON-existence–of literally NOTHING–which is the rank opposite of absolute existence, and which, by definition, cannot exist. That nothing cannot actually exist is axiomatic. For if it existed, it would be something. Which…no.
In other words, Christ cannot sacrifice himself into non-being, which is precisely what absolute altruism demands. Christ’s sacrifice is a categorical extension of His SELF, not a denial of it. Further, it was a choice, which means he must have had a reason for doing it, and that reason is inexorably a part of the object of His sacrifice: man. Which means that humanity cannot possess zero value to Him; for it is the existence of humanity which is the necessary cause of Christ’s having a reason for sacrificing Himself. Meaning, without man, the sacrifice is irrelevant and pointless…utterly devoid of any definition at all. Man is the root purpose of the sacrifice. It was for man, and thus man must possess not only some value to Christ, but ALL the relevant value by which the sacrifice has any meaning. And this must then mean that the benefit to Christ personally is utterly apparent…for if there is no benefit to Christ for sacrificing Himself for man, then there is no reason, which makes the sacrifice irrelevant and meaningless. Where there is value, there MUST be benefit.
I then extrapolated this idea to the false assumption that God does not “need” man; that God’s creative process was of ZERO value to Himself, of ZERO benefit, and therefore constitutes an act of perfect altruism, of absolute self-sacrifice. Benefiting Him nothing, it was a total denial of Himself.
This is categorically impossible, and this is how I explained it:
*
The idea of exclusive external-to-man absolute forces RULING him at any given moment is the Achilles heal of all determinists philosophies. Be it one force (the Standard Model of Physics which reveals a “nature” which “governs”) or several of them (depravity, grace, God’s will), either all at once (Christians are both “sinners” and “righteous), or temporally (depravity morphing into righteousness).
Finally, God’s altruism.
Why would God create anything in the first place if He gets no benefit from it? This would make creation the single greatest act of irrelevancy ever perpetrated. If God derives NO benefit from His work then there can be no point to the creative process whatsoever. Which makes God the author of nonsense. If Creation is absolutely irrelevant TO the Maker, then Creation is itself, irrelevant TO ANYTHING, including itself. It is purposefully designed to be irrelevant…meaningless, useless.
Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that Creation cannot even be defined as existing; for “to be itself” indicates a purpose…a purpose which is precluded if we assume that it is of ZERO benefit or value to God; God possessing no reason to create it. If God has no reason for it to BE, then its creation is predicated on NO meaning nor purpose,not even “to be itself”, which equals nothing.
But if we concede that we do exist we must ask why. But more than that we must ask: who gets to decide why? God does…which means God’s creation of man cannot be utterly altruistic. Man must pose some objective, legitimate value to God in order for man’s existence to have been manifest in the first place.
Some may argue: okay, man exists to be absolutely altruistic, for this is the moral benchmark…to utterly sacrifice himself to God, because God is the greatest GOOD (making everything else ipso facto “less good”, which demands either an impossible value hierarchy to the absolute of GOOD (moral relativism), or making everything else patently evil, which makes God the creator of evil). To sacrifice not only what he has but what he is to God is man’s purpose. But this is nothing more than the same argument worded a different way. This argument simply says that man was created in order to NOT be himself. He was created as himself, so that he could utterly deny himself for God’s glory. On its face, ridiculous!
Why create man in the first place? If man’s greatest moral good is to fully deny himself–to be NOT himself–then why even bother with him at all? It is an act of utter divine insanity. No…if man exists as himself then he is divinely intended to BE HIMSELF. And no one and nothing else. His metaphysical singularity is SELF, and as an absolute, the point of the SELF is: to be.
And who gets to decide what that looks like? Man does. Because ACTION is a direct function of the absolute of his BEING, which is the root source and purpose of man. Anything else is mysticism…and impossible to argue rationally.
unreformingtheology 
Argo, are you familiar with Game Theory? Specifically “The Prisoner’s Dilemma”? I think looking at Christianity as a finite game or infinite game is an interesting exercise.
I’m familiar with the PD. Not sure I see what you mean. Can you explain how you see Christianity in terms of the PD?
Sounds interesting.
In finite games you get Master Players: they know the rules and boundries and you get to play only if you play by the predetermined rules and boundries. I would hazard a guess that certain SGM leaders fit the bill.
http://gospelfutures.org/2013/04/04/the-games-we-play/
Argo, maybe I am stretching it but the PD seems to play out nicely with the whole SGM saga in that the perpetrator/s and their handlers both cooperated and stayed silent so long as it was possible. In fact, all seemed to be prisoners of this whole stupid game. A very big one built on trust and cooperation. My question is how did the perps get to trust the system? The system was clearly demarcated or was it based on relational bonds within the system. SGM’s constant reinforcement of its system and its power structures became its own tower of Babel.
That is the whole beauty (sic)(sick) of it all. These guys who cream it at the top must be psychopaths at the very least. If we hold that the guys at the top are “evil” then people like BD who are masters at the intricacies of the system are the most evil as they hold the most power or are they somehow defectors of a higher moral code. Why did BD not jump sooner? Did he decide he was going to work the system until he could expose its rottenness? Or was he perhaps just looking for a better edge to play the game. Does he still think he can play the game? I don’t know – he certainly outplayed the others. Maybe we should give him more credit. Maybe the most evil becomes the most good??
Methinks for one, Grace as an element to the game was the grease that kept the game running as there could have been no true repentance. Were people standing in for God? Were specific elders playing High Priest? Certainly. You expose this idea of elders being god men in your exposition of high Calvinism.
POD/ SGM certainly stands out as the most prideful, egotistic and maniacal of all the shepherding/ 3rd Wave/Apostolic Reformation/Neo-Cal groups. Frankly they make Weiner, Stevens and other fallen heroes of the 80’s look like Saints by comparison.
So a People of Destiny was not such a bad name after all.
SCDP,
Yes…I see what you mean. Abusers
and (leadership) opted for the rational strategy of cooperation. Otherwise, mutually assured destruction…or so they thought. The perps get turned in, they expose the leadership’s control mechanisms. They both lose.
But I think they all assumed a finite game when in fact it was an infinite one. There was no way to account for all the variables, especially since there were SO MANY victims. And they did not fore see the internet, I’m sure.
Interesting take on this.
As far as Brent goes, he waited until he was tossed from the org before going public to the church (and the rest of the world). He should have “told it to the church” well before that if the level of abuse by CJ was indeed so massive and his resistance to “correction” so infinitely firm. But he waited until he didn’t have anything to lose, which speaks volumes to me about his character. Further, he was instrumental in writing the SGM Sound Doctrine Playbook and then refused to play by his own rules. CJ and Co. called him on his hypocrisy and that pissed him off. And that is the sum and substance of his story. Period.
There is no just judgment of SGM or CJ without a complete renunciation of reformed theology. Brent has never recanted one iota of his doctrine. Nor have any of the former SGM churches which left the movement. Their actions are just too fucking convenient to mean anything of any real value. They are twice as evil as SGM. They scatter like cockroaches when the logical consequences of their doctrine are realized. An then they have the nerve to point fingers and scapegoat those who at least act consistently to what they’ve preached. They are like Nazis who don civilian clothing and scurry out of Berlin. They don’t give a shit about victims. They give a shit about the only thing a Calvinist can give a shit about: themselves.
Brent is NO hero. He built his brand on SGM and now builds it upon their ashes. But he isn’t selling anything new.
“If you play, you may only play as long as you stick to the parochial system; otherwise you are out. Blogs—from religious to atheist—will make little progress in relational transformation if a zero-sum mentality demands winners and losers.
In these zero-sum games, a community builds a petty game with rules and beliefs that exclude a multitude of other realities, creating a system of thought that is placed above people and transforming relationships.”
Well if what you say about BD is true then he was outfoxed by the best and by his own finite game. I would not give him all the credit though.
The polity of SGM was always going to be a finite game – but Christianity cannot be a finite game. If so, then what’s the point? It becomes evolution – survival of the fittest/elect whatsoever the rulers want it to be.
The problem with “shepherding” and the “covering doctrine” is that there must be a Godfather. The godfather must always have his ring kissed and the godfather controls patronage to his beloved/chosen sons. It is a win-win situation all around until someone gets a better offer (okay not trying to be cynical), sees the light or gets an offer they cannot refuse.
The Mafioso got their model from the Roman Empire and the stupid Christian church thought that was what the model Paul had in mind for the church.
I think “game” implies some form of insincerity as if SGM’s leadership are merely a bunch of hucksters pedaling a cure that they know perfectly well is really snake oil. I understand why people come up with this . . . it seems to be the only explanation for why these men persisted with actions that were so “obviously” harmful that it must have been willful. Much like the aftermath of National Socialist Germany, people ask how is it possible that a whole nations could be driven to willfully take such horrific action. The answer comes back it was just a bunch of psychopaths at the top playing a game, seeing how long they could play. The rest of the people were just duped.
But this explanation actually serves the very disaster everyone is railing against. It obscures the root of the issue: the power of philosophy; the power of integrated ideas . This is no game . . . and the “players” are acting with perfect sincerity. They are acting perfectly consistent with their foundational ideas. What we are seeing in SGM and the rest of the New Calvinist movement IS the doctrine.
CJ Mahaney is a true believer. As is Joshua Harris … as is John Loftness as is Brent Detwiler. All of these men are committed to the ideas at the root of Reformation Theology. They are fully persuaded that they are acting in accord with the absolute truth. Everything else, all of the other ugliness is fully, totally subordinate to their commitment to the doctrine. You see a cover up of sexual pathology and they see the tragic outcome of sinful mankind: it couldn’t be helped, it can’t be fixed. As leaders of the flock it is their job to shepherd the sheep towards higher truths. Temporal authorities and earthly laws are distant considerations. And I guarantee that just like the National Socialists at Nuremburg they think THEY are the victim. They are true believers. Their world view allows and accounts for no other possible perspective. As Paul Doshe has so perfectly pointed out, Reformed Theology is not merely an interpretation of scripture, it is a total philosophical statement to interpret reality. This is what makes Calvinism so disastrous and so vile.
And Argo, you are correct. Brent Detwiler … OMG. The rational atrocity being committed by Brent and in his behalf . . . I can’t think of a condemnation severe enough to express my moral outrage. And any blog owner that defends or endorses this man . . . yea . . . you are just as vile.
Anyway . . .
I suspect that the reason Brent didn’t “tell it to the church” sooner is because Brent didn’t think the world at large was entitled to know anything until he deemed it appropriate to tell them. I suspect that Brent is mystified as to why his “diligence” to “God’s word” didn’t work. In his mind he was just following orders, and that is all that needs be said in his defense. And if he missed it, then we are ALLLL just sinners … right?
John, now that is just the point: I don’t think any of these guys, albeit firm believers, really understood what they were doing and believing. Probably making it up as they went along. O look, shepherding works. How about some Manifest Sons of God stuff, a little Word of Faith, a touch of this and some of that. And then Neo Cal reformed icing to smooth all tge shit over. Game Theory does not neccessarily imply insincerity btw. It can be learned behaviour or the result of tge boundries set up.
I’m not denying that SGM theology was all over the map. I made this specific point in my book Blight in the Vineyard. SGM (CJ, Larry, Brent and Garry Riccucci (sp?) have been around Christianity since the 70’s so they have, like all good christens, grazed over the smorgasbord of ideas and eaten whatever suited them and called the rest heresy. But this bunch has always gravitated towards an authoritarian model of governance. The problem they always had was that their Charismatic-ish doctrines were not comprehensive philosophical statements. So they could never really close the doors to doctrinal usurpers.
Until the move to Reformed Theology in the 90’s you could get doctrinal whiplash listening to CJ’s sermons. He was all over the map. And Larry has always been a motivational speaker in sheep’s clothing. He’s never had anything substantive to say. The result was, CJ and Larry both had serious credibility problems. At least they had the same problem that most Charismatic preachers had: What doctrine gives me authority today?
The move to Reformed Theology was a master stroke really. It gave CJ immediate academic cache. It gave him all the “authority” he would ever need.
Game theory doesn’t mean insincerity of course, but my comment wasn’t about the game theory but rather addressing the tendency to ascribe a lack of conviction to SGM leadership actions. I was observing that the explanation for their action was rooted in a sociological ponzi scheme (can’t think of a better way to describe what I read above) that they were using to dupe the masses. But these guys don’t believe they were duping anybody. They do believe they are the last best hope for “true” Christianity. Their actions are in service to that conviction.
Early in their Reformed Theology adoption, (1992ish) maybe it could be said they didn’t know what they were doing. I had many conversations with the leadership about the specific doctrinal outcomes. Of course they tut tut tutted my objections insisting they would not be “extreme” in their doctrine. And indeed they made some efforts to illustrate their doctrinal moderation. But as all philosophical statements do, the most consistent formulation wins. By 1995 they were unapologetic in their Calvinist doctrine and committed to the outcomes.
The thing I am specifically objecting to is that these men are in any way an aberration. That they are somehow unique and therefore not indicative of exactly what Reformed Theology becomes. The explanation that they are true believes committed to the specifics of the Reformed Tradition is sufficient to explain exactly who they are.
Jason,
I think game theory applies to SGM in this way, too: successful play is interpreted not via the yardstick of justice, but of rule following. In this case external CONCEPTS (rules) are given absolute causal, epistemological, and moral power. Human life is entirely subservient to the “absolute truth” of the rules and the parameters of strategy that they allow. Reason is beside the point. For example, the quickest way from point A to B is always dictated by the rules, nothing else. All other reality is excluded as an illusion. Only the context of the game is legitimate. The game itself then while it’s played becomes absolute reality, and man is merely a character. The only standard of truth is the game, and it requires no justice, only the sacrifice of SELF, starting with philosophy/thought.
“And I guarantee that just like the National Socialists at Nuremburg they think THEY are the victim. ”
John,
This is what blows my mind. It is hard to get one’s head around. But then you see the power of group think, predicated upon a cohesive philosophy which BEGINS with a metaphysical assumption that people simply haven’t been raised to deny…then you see how easily such evil can take hold. And I totally agree. They are utterly convinced that they have done nothing wrong. That ALL of it is according to God’s will.
If anyone asks whether the holocaust could happen again, answer: it never actually ended.
Now if only SGM had run with the NAR. Wagner could have deployed a super-apostle endowed with all the power to make this mess go away. The only way out of THIS game is to abandon it. SUICIDE BUTTON.
Of course, I agree with John that a game, or even a scheme, is the furthest thing from their minds. As he said, if you want to know why they do they evil they do, without blush of shame nor a wink of sleep lost, one needs to look no further than the doctrine.
This has been my point since I started commenting on “discernment” blogs almost three years ago. I knew these men personally…there was no “open” evil; no abject maliciousness; no rank psychopathy. They merely defended CJ because, ipso facto, he was the authority their doctrine demanded, and they all understood this. Therefore, they understood that Brent was the hypocrite, and was, as such, nothing more than a troublemaker and a sonofabitch. And they were right. He was. THEY were acting consistently to the doctrine by ignoring CJ’s obvious incompetence and the exploitation of his position. Because HOW CJ acts is irrelevant…he was CALLED to LEAD. Period.
As such, they were doing the right thing by speaking out against Brent and other detractors, and they slept the sleep of the just.
It was the doctrine then, and it is the doctrine now. Evil is strongest when its purveyors ABSOLUTLEY assume that it isn’t evil at all. And how does this happen? By believing that what things and events appear to be on their face is made “real” only by attributing them to the machinations of a specific determinist philosophy. This is precisely how the third reich, Stalin’s Marxist state, the Khmer Rouge mass murdered millions and yet remained unfazed in the face of such obvious atrocity.
“The only way out of THIS game is to abandon it. SUICIDE BUTTON.”
Exactly. And that’s why I quit the doctrine INSTANTLY after I realized it was the problem. I didn’t wait. I didn’t need to. Once the light went on, I saw the truth immediately.
Jason,
But I think your game theory idea is very apropos. And I must say it fascinates me. I think there is more to say here.
“Further, it was a choice, which means he must have had a reason for doing it, and that reason is inexorably a part of the object of His sacrifice: man. Which means that humanity cannot possess zero value to Him; for it is the existence of humanity which is the necessary cause of Christ’s having a reason for sacrificing Himself. Meaning, without man, the sacrifice is irrelevant and pointless…utterly devoid of any definition at all.”
It really is sad so many people MISS this. The zero value of humanity is expressed in the very popular penal substitutionary theory of atonement. God’s anger had to be assuaged so He poured out His wrath on……er….. Himself. In that theory, the ESS doctrine of a pecking order in the Trinity works better.
The truth is God becoming human, His life and the cross/resurrection screams the value of humans to God.
“But this explanation actually serves the very disaster everyone is railing against. It obscures the root of the issue: the power of philosophy; the power of integrated ideas . This is no game . . . and the “players” are acting with perfect sincerity. They are acting perfectly consistent with their foundational ideas. What we are seeing in SGM and the rest of the New Calvinist movement IS the doctrine. ”
There are so many things that serve the very disaster everyone is railing against. Like going the other extreme. Now the big thing is Tullian and his Grace which is basically the flip side of the SGM coin with antinomianism. Everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. Wade is saying you are not preaching the Gospel unless you are accused of antinomianism. TWW is awash in it now because Wade said so, I guess. And the constant bragging about being sinners.
Jesus actually called the Pharisees lawless. 1st John actually calls sin “lawlessness”. How do they explain this?
Sheesh, makes one want to hide the silver and lock up the kids. What is the point of a blog discussing spiritual abuse evils if antinomianism is the answer? Why would sin matter since their definition of grace abounds? Why is CJ bad if Grace abounds?
Here is another one that plays right into evils hands: Censorship. New warning at TWW on masthead:
“New Policy: No sexual innuendos out of respect to those who have been abused. No references to Nazism. No name calling to one another or even to those with whom you disagree. We need to take it up a notch so pls understand that moderation slows things down since we are not chained to the computer.”
Way to go. The Nazi’s are a perfect example of how group think coalesces in groups/nations. And censorship was a key component. It did not even start off as official censorship. It started off as being accepted in the group meant one just did not say certain things.
There is so much we NEED to understand today about the rise of Nazism in such an educated populace. But note how many people want to censor any discussion that includes those lessons for us today. Being a student of history I have learned to spot red flags many groups/situations because I studied so much on the rise of Nazism in Germany.
Their new policies will actually help false teachers, spiritual abusers and child molesters. Evil has to be outed and most folks don’t pick up on the vileness of it without details. That is why people put trigger alerts on posts for the survivors who are not ready to handle reading it.
“Here is another one that plays right into evils hands: Censorship. New warning at TWW on masthead:
“New Policy: No sexual innuendos out of respect to those who have been abused. No references to Nazism. No name calling to one another or even to those with whom you disagree. We need to take it up a notch so pls understand that moderation slows things down since we are not chained to the computer.”
Oh…for fuck’s sake. Here we go. The free flow of ideas is the anti-venom to despotism and abuse, not the cause of it.
My goodness. The last thing on anyone’s mind after 20 years of abuse victims being cowed into silence should be the idea that commanding people to SHUT UP is the way to help the suffering masses.
It has ALWAYS been about protecting the men in charge of the doctrine. How ironic that Wartburg is becoming its own cautionary tale.
LOL!!!! Wartburg is too funny. I just can’t get over it!!
Me shaking my head.
I wonder if they will sensor me after the TANC dealeo. I’m gonna talk about National Socialism … a LOT.
John,
I am really looking forward to your presentation. I think we all are.
lol I’m glad you are.. I’m filled with shivers and shakes. I bit of the big end of this candy bar. I’m working on Kant’s analytic synthetic dichotomy right now between blog missives just so I can explain how a bunch of Lutheran Christians committed to socialism can arrive at the final solution.
“I’m working on Kant’s analytic synthetic dichotomy right now between blog missives just so I can explain how a bunch of Lutheran Christians committed to socialism can arrive at the final solution.”
Well…it’ll deliver, of that I’m sure. Though, yes…I don’t envy the task. Then again, it kinda sounds awesome.
I like America’s final solution better: blow up a bunch of priceless German shit until they stagger out not knowing which way is fucking up.
“lol I’m glad you are.. I’m filled with shivers and shakes. I bit of the big end of this candy bar. I’m working on Kant’s analytic synthetic dichotomy right now between blog missives just so I can explain how a bunch of Lutheran Christians committed to socialism can arrive at the final solution.”
John, I am so glad you are taking this on! You know my reading of history showed how people just wanted to forgot what happened for many reasons even the Zionists! . the historical focus has been on the final solution. missing are the sociological, psychological reasons it happened and as you say a bunch of Lutheran Christians even went along with the Aryan laws! And let me emphasize the European assimilated Jews did not believe it would get that bad.
We never really learned from it the most important lessons. Now folks on “discernment” blogs are not allowed to bring it up as an example and discuss the similarities in how tyranny starts.
Argo, go read the thread. They are being ‘watched’ by the big dogs so want to tone it down. I mean that blog has never been in your face. Not sure what they are so worried about?
numo is doing to eagle what she is so good at. Eagle is the only one who gets it over there. He understands you face evil head on.
But even with their example the whole deal with censorship is confusing. no one really knows what they mean especially about the parallels with the rise of national socialism.
They don’t seem to understand that the underlying philosophy is the same. They think a pastor has to murder 6 million Jews first before you can make a comparison with the ideology.
It is like watching what we talk about here in action. Eagle made a good point that this sort of censorship and making people reluctant that they might say the wrong thing is exactly what happened with sgmsurvivors .
I see this happen with every single discernment blog. The other side uses their spiritual abuse tactics against them and they fall for it. Threat of a lawsuit? Celeb pastors use them as an example of “hate”. What do they expect when they confront evil?
But I think I get it. When your position is that we all remain sinners and basically don’t change then the spiritual abusers can make the rules. Because they are just sinning like everyone else who claims Christ. So you can do all sorts of evil and be saved. No biggie.
“Eagle made a good point that this sort of censorship and making people reluctant that they might say the wrong thing is exactly what happened with sgmsurvivors.”
Lydia,
Exactly my point. Why on earth would someone resort to a moratorium on self-expression in the middle of confronting systemic child abuse which was covered up by intimidating victims and their families into staying quiet?
The fact that Dee jumps from defending victims to defending the very tactics which exacerbated and propagated the evil in the first place is just mind boggling.
Since when is she an expert on knowing how ideas make people FEEL, anyway? (Understanding that there is an observable difference between verbal abuse and self-expression…it’s not hard to tell the difference). I have noticed this shift in Dee happening for a while now. The more her blog grabs the attention of the very men she claims to confront (starting with fucking Wade), the more she assumes the right to dictate reality for everyone commenting on Wartburg. The more recognition and power she acquires, the more she affirms the abusers’ “sound doctrine”. Following the logical progression of THAT thought stemming from the metaphysical foundation of man’s total inability and manifest as the comprehensive idea of total depravity, she is now simply carrying out her doctrinal orders; and having acquired some modicum of influence in the “movement”, she has ipso facto become an elder of God’s Anointed Ones, appointed to shine the light of God’s will upon the ignorant masses. SHE will tell you what things mean, an how you will feel and what you should say and should think if you want to be a “good Christian”, as SHE has now been called to act as the proxy for “truth”, which exists as an absolute determining force outside of humanity.. For she is convinced that her blog is God’s will according to “orthodox” Reformed interpretive premises (which Wade has certainly closed the case on as far as she’s concerned), and as such, she has been called to bestow (force) God’s truth upon her followers. Her force is limited to blog moderation, but that is merely a function of the practical limitation of her power as it now stands. As power grows, so does more control. It’s a direct relationship, and it fosters all kinds of evil as we have observed in the neo-Calvinist movement for decades. Eagle is right: her blog is becoming nothing but a tertiary extension of the very philosophy which destroyed the lives of half a dozen children and their families. .
It’s the exact same thing as the suffocating neo-Calvinist movement, most radically observed in the SGM abuse scandal and cover up, just different window dressing. The guise is “compassion’, of course, which just so happens to be the very guise SGM used to muzzle its victims.
Chilling.
I think for the matter of discussion detractors and moderators throw up Godwin’s Law as a matter of keeping the discussion relevant and specific, and not allowing it to become a weapon to bludgeon the innocent and the deceitful with. I think the WW attempts to keep dialogue open between the different groups.I am certain that “moderates” from within or without SGM and friends pop in all the time and will cite this kind of stuff as a means to end dialogue or point out hyperbole or fact check people and situations. It is the nature of the beast. Having made that point, I know from experience that this type of censure only serves to anger and frustrate people all the more. I was actually a participant in a couple of “cult” watch type websites some years ago where the church involved actually hired consultants to rewrite Wikipedia entries and to cause mayhem and division amongst detractors of aforesaid ministry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
The Six Degrees of Godwin game seeks to compare something to Nazism within 6 steps.
Fortunately, we have places like this where the moderator doesn’t give a shit what the bastards think of him and neither is he bothered about evangelising those trying to rescue something (organisation/complex/religion) he believes is not worth a dog’s slobber.
“Having made that point, I know from experience that this type of censure only serves to anger and frustrate people all the more. I was actually a participant in a couple of “cult” watch type websites some years ago where the church involved actually hired consultants to rewrite Wikipedia entries and to cause mayhem and division amongst detractors of aforesaid ministry.”
I know! People have no idea what goes on out there in the name of Jesus. I saw some pretty amazing stuff in my mega seeker days behind stage that to this day, few people will believe. That is frustrating. And people give up. I have come to think we approach it the wrong way. I could care less if frauds, spiritual abusers and hypocrites who pose as representatives of Jesus Christ like me or not. They are NEVER going to consider what I say. And I have come to not care if their apologists like me or not. The people on the fence and the refugees matte
I came to the conclusion that Iwas approaching it the wrong way. We must analyze their teaching/behavior, make a bit of fun, use some hyperbole to take it to it’s logical conclusion. Get folks outside the box. Get their critical thinking skills engaged and many times taht starts with the unexpected.
At TWW the only thing they are really discussing is the “degree” to which something is bad/evil. And they have not really defined the line and that is giong to be hard since believers sin all the time as normal way of life and have mixed motives. Now the only thing they can do is define the degrees.
And there is where we come into Godwin’s law. There is a reason people did not even fathom where the unofficial censorship and group think would lead in early 1930’s Germany.
People just don’t think past their noses. If they could get by with it, how would the Neo Puritans/Calvinists deal with heretics today? How would Muslims in the US implement sharia law? The line to tyranny is not as thick as they think.
Now they are descending into the “tone” and “how you say it” is what counts tactic. I am always amused at who is the arbituer of such things. From what I have seen over at TWW, they have long time commenters who act as tone police for them and others in the clique pile on.
Poor eagle does not stand a chance in that environment. Numo will straighten him out, though.
Lydia,
Of course the tone argument. If you can’t get them on ideas, get them on how they “sound”. Typical. That’s the book they threw at me. Way to make an exceedingly non-specific argument the specific reason for censoring someone.
As far as Eagle. Shrug.
That dude had all the time in the world to observe and call out Dee and Deb’s doctrinal hypocrisy. And he never once defended me when they were using this exact same bullshit argument to moderate my comments into oblivion. In fact, he never once as far as I recall replied to any comment of mine I directed at him. Ever. And I was encouraging as hell to that guy…if I do say so myself.
Also, if you read his latest comments, he has a history of buddying up to dubious spiritual comrades. I think he needs to quit commenting and spend some time getting a proper education on things.
I admit, I’m having trouble mustering any sympathy for him. He affirmed their blog moderation hi jinks for years, but all of a sudden it matters?
Why now? Because he is the one being censored, that’s why. How convenient. I’m getting Brent Detwiler déjà vu.
“Why now? Because he is the one being censored, that’s why. How convenient. I’m getting Brent Detwiler déjà vu.”
This is the way it usually happens and that is why not discussing the red flags is so destructive. It becomes about personalities and who we like instead of red flags that should trip our radar.
Part of tripping my radar there was the allowance of liberal politics to be injected but if someone challenged a comment like that– all of a sudden a general call to not inject politics was announced. But never after the liberal made their comment. Only if they were responded to in disagreement. That was a huge red flag to me. Over there it was ok to insult George bush but not Obama or Clinton. Why not all of them–was my question? So anyone who does not buy into liberal politics was seen as some right wing fundy right off the bat. Very unfair and biased bent.
I have always taken the position that lefties were just as bad as right wing fundies only on different topics. The lefties want a nanny state and what little money we have left over after they kill the economy. The fundies want to legislate my bedroom, The fundies are actually less dangerous from a political pov. They have much more trouble getting their policies passed. We still have Roe. We have gay marriage in several states, more to come, etc. (Which should be a state vote anyway)
However the lefties can and do ruin lives financially with their collectivism. They are all for a 1% filthy rich and the rest of us lower class. What is interesting is that as the middle class shrinks, benefits shrink too. Where do they think that money comes from? If the current VA deaths (So administrators could get bonuses!) did not strike fear as to what government run healthcare will bring, I don’t know what will. Blindness.
But don’t offend the lefties!