1) Ted, as far as the procedure of this special newcomers board is concerned I think that it still is a good idea to appeal to the general community to post here only with great care for the thread opener. But, I do not think that by any means, we should create a comfty-zone to lure in new board members. If someone finds their way here and the way we talk about and discuss things, view and reflect them appeals to them and resonates with their intents and desires for data-exchange on the particular subject we happen to ponder - they are most welcome to stay and participate. If it should be otherwise they are most welcome to find a place for them where their desires are met by a more resonating environment.
Although it's a pitty that the thread-opener of this particular discussion seems to have disappeared again - for whatever reasons, I don't think that we should celebrate new board members too much. Gaining a mass of sorts is - at least to my understanding - not the purpose of this whole thing. Being polite, open and supportive on the other hand are purposes I see. So in short: We should be caring and helpful - but not artificially "love bombing" newcomers... This board has a very great level of conversation and I think it is save to post here without being ridiculed by anyone. So, a welcome-zone is fine until it does not become a non-free-speech-zone... ;)
2) Bette, I sense some aggression in you when you talk/write about religion, especially Christianity. And I can only agree with the others who have so nicely tried to point out the underlying structure they see behind the teachings of Jesus. Especially this friendly reminder:
"MYTH" does not equal "a lie"
and "Metaphor" does not mean "false"
And neither of these conditions necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is fictitious in any way...
Calling something BS is a pretty strong judgement. And as far as my opinion goes you don't have enough data to confirm that claim of yours.
All I want to get at - if I may venture to comment - is that love and understanding of another are not exactly fostered by calling the reference frame of the other bullsh*t. Especially as you seem to have no practical experience with the results of that particular path.
To say "BS!" without even allowing the possibility of the other viewpoint to at least potentially be as valid as one's own is fanaticism or at the very least stubborn belief on your side
Just because some people didn't understand the whole thing and made weird claims about the person teaching it and promised heaven to those who followed and hell to those who didn't - does not mean that the underlying event is false. Would you make that claim to all other religions throughout the world, too? And what would stop me from saying: "There is no NPMR. That's BS. Show me some proof! Or else I reject it as the hope of some post-modern metaphysical derelict." Isn't that a similarly narrow minded approach that does not try to understand the underlying logic of this particular theory/teaching?
BTW: I don't have any problem of equating LCS/AUM/AUO with God. They share the same attributes - and how if not by their attributes and effects could we determine their nature. If their similar in nature they might as well be similar by name. When the bible says something like "And God spoke to XYZ and told him XYZ" is it not similar to our modern day accounts of e.g. Tom saying: "And then the LCS gave me a roter (or how Monroe called these data-packages) or put me in a test situation so that I could try to overcome my attachment to such and such a personal fear and grow toward love." How is this different in essence
? I don't see it. And if you go about and take that
for real, without having experienced an at least similar event yourself
, you are being even more similar to those religious fanatics we were talking about... No offense, Bette. But I am having a hard time ignoring your rants.
I also commented on your ideas in regards to an MBT-organization in another thread: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=7028&start=45
I think if one were to stictly ban any activities such as this, and keep money well away from things, most of the BS would be avoided. It would at least be a significant improvement, and be consistent the example that Tom and Ted, and MBTOE events provide.
Even if this would actually work - because these days almost nothing works without money being involved at some point - how would this save this imagined organization from developing power-patterns based on a person's "understanding"/charisma/being feared/loved? I have seen such groups from the inside. Groups with the same kind of delusion: that if you just keep the money out - the nasty things don't emerge. And I can say with confidence that - at least in my direct experience and also from the study of other such cases - it does not work. Where there are people - there is power. Whether it expresses itself through money, sex, devotion, fanaticism, heroism or however. Every group has its leaders. And the more tight and regulated a group becomes - the more power these leaders get. So, for me any kind of MBT-organization is out of the question. I love my freedom, your freedom and everybody else's freedom and freedom to come too much as to wanting it to be put it risk to be corrupted by - in the worst case - a self appointed MBT-priesthood... :-/
Members vote to create a pool of 3 to 5 qualified leaders, there would be separate offices for PMR affairs and NPMR affairs for example, but you would let the role of a dice determine the final outcome of any election, giving NPMR and uncertainty the final say!
Just to stress my point a bit more: Who will determine the quality of such leaders to be? The group? How? Will there be a council? How will it be formed? Will there be no council? Then will the mass decide? Or will everybody be allowed to be qualified? What then is qualification? Who will be able to define it? Who able to judge it? And who should then follow this able leader? And what kind of decisions would he/she have to make? Could he/she expell me from the community for heresy? Could such an able leader be replaced in the case that he loses the organization's trust? In what event? Who will be the judge, if the actually most able person is already the leader? Will an unable person or the mass judge the leader's ability? What if the LCS gives a sh*t about your organization and doesn't participate in your dice games?! ;)
And why all this rule-hassle anyway? :)
If you haven't already you might want to review my other comment in the other thread I linked to above. There I explain the general distrust I have toward any form of organization in regards to MBT.