In Reply to: Deadly Doctrine posted by Perry on May 10, 2005 at 18:57:58:
Looking at what you provide of this book and remembering your posts, it is safe to asusme that this book supports at least some of your ideas about Christianity. I consider myself Christian but on the fringes of religiosity (what we used to call churchianity). In fact, some people people may think that some of my beliefs lean towards animism. Beliefs are so intimate that it is impossible to diverce them from one's self in the sense that sometimes not even we understand them.
That's why I find important to me to discuss them with others who are willing to place theirs on the line. Truth be told, few people are willing. We don't bare ourselves in public most of the time.
But in general, the terms, words and concepts used in religious or spiritual conversations require such baring because of the intimate depth of meaning so that most terms, words and concepts being talked about don't mean the same to the participants.
In Communication 101 we learn that for communication to exist between two parties there must be a commonality of understanding, or common experience, or overlap. The terminology is different depending of whose theory one is reading but the fact is that for two people to understand each other, not only the words have to be the same but the meanings and the fundamental understanding of those meanings.
That is why we find more understanding in each other as ex members of a cult, than in others without the same background.
I am sure you know all of these things and I don't want to sound too much of a lecturer. Excuse me intrusion.