Cognitive Distortion #1: Lies and Deceit

[_Yoda]

OK, Wade...if I understand your armchair therapy correctly, what you're getting at is that Mr. B has to take responsibility for his own hurt, and not blame Mr. A or anyone/anything else. Mr. B has to take responsibility for his own life, and not wallow in a victim mode.

Several of us have spoken to that very point, Wade, but you conveniently ignore it.

[_Runtu]

OK, Wade...if I understand your armchair therapy correctly, what you're getting at is that Mr. B has to take responsibility for his own hurt, and not blame Mr. A or anyone/anything else. Mr. B has to take responsibility for his own life, and not wallow in a victim mode.

Several of us have spoken to that very point, Wade, but you conveniently ignore it.

I've said that repeatedly. What I see here is that to avoid these feelings in the future, we must realize that other people don't actually do anything wrong; it's just our distorted perception that makes us think so.

[_wenglund]

Perhaps the reason you all are having difficulty coming up with a "WORKABLE" solution is because you are focusing on what Mr. A can do to prevent Mr. B from getting hurt and angry and grieving.

I would have the same difficulty were I to focus on what Mr. B can do to prevent Mr. A from getting hurt and angry and grieving (actually, I did have this difficulty for quite some time, and I still do from time to time--old and dysfunctional habits die hard).

This ins't "WORKABLE" because it UNNECESSARILY puts control of one's own emotional disposition in the hands of the other party, and it targets the symtom and ignores the dynamic that causes the hurt and anger and grief.

Did Mr. D, like Mr. B, put control of his emotional disposition in the hands of Mr. A? Did Mr. D, like Mr. A, put control of his dispositon in the hands of Mr. B? If not, how do you suppose he kept from doing that? And, why do you suppose he didn't turn over control to Mr. A.? And, do you think his not doing so may have served him and others better, emotionally speaking?

Was Mr. D, like both Mr. A and B, more interested in who was "RIGHT" or "WRONG" than finding a way that "WORKS" to his emotional benefit and to the emotional benefit of all parties? If not, why do you suppose he wasn't? And, do you think his not doing so may have served him and others better, emotionally speaking?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Wade - the problem is, is that Mr. A and his cronies don't leave Mr. B alone. They keep pestering him, and pestering him. Additionally, they brand Mr. B as evil, possessed by the devil. Additionally, Mr. A's cronies gang up on Mr. B. And if any of Mr. B's family still believes in the product, then they give him constant crap for not believing in it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If everyone leaves everyone alone, then everyone would be fine.

Is that WORKABLE Wade?

And how about my no questions asked money back guarantee?

[_Runtu]

Perhaps the reason you all are having difficulty coming up with a "WORKABLE" solution is because you are focusing on what Mr. A can do to prevent Mr. B from getting hurt and angry and grieving.

I would have the same difficulty were I to focus on what Mr. B can do to prevent Mr. A from getting hurt and angry and grieving (actually, I did have this difficulty for quite some time, and I still do from time to time--old and dysfunctional habits die hard).

This ins't "WORKABLE" because it UNNECESSARILY puts control of one's own emotional disposition in the hands of the other party, and it targets the symtom and ignores the dynamic that causes the hurt and anger and grief.

Did Mr. D, like Mr. B, put control of his emotional disposition in the hands of Mr. A? Did Mr. D, like Mr. A, put control of his dispositon in the hands of Mr. B? If not, how do you suppose he kept from doing that? And, why do you suppose he didn't turn over control to Mr. A.? And, do you think his not doing so may have served him and others better, emotionally speaking?

Was Mr. D, like both Mr. A and B, more interested in who was "RIGHT" or "WRONG" than finding a way that "WORKS" to his emotional benefit and to the emotional benefit of all parties? If not, why do you suppose he wasn't? And, do you think his not doing so may have served him and others better, emotionally speaking?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, Wade, you have misunderstood. I can't control what the other person does. All I have control over is what I do. How many times must I repeat that? I'm just saying that it's unhealthy to assume that both parties had the best of intentions, as such may not be the case. All I can know is what my state of mind was.

The focus for is how do I respond when someone does something to me. It is not helpful to try and find reasons to absolve the other person. Nope, what is important is dealing with my own feelings.

[_wenglund]

OK, Wade...if I understand your armchair therapy correctly, what you're getting at is that Mr. B has to take responsibility for his own hurt, and not blame Mr. A or anyone/anything else. Mr. B has to take responsibility for his own life, and not wallow in a victim mode.

Several of us have spoken to that very point, Wade, but you conveniently ignore it.

I've said that repeatedly. What I see here is that to avoid these feelings in the future, we must realize that other people don't actually do anything wrong; it's just our distorted perception that makes us think so.

Good People,

I haven't ignored what you have said. In fact I have carefully considered your comments, and gone on to simply point out how your proposed "solutions" fall somewhat short of being "WORKABLE" for all parties concerned. It is not just a matter of taking responsibility for one's own life, it is a matter of finding a functional way to take responsibility for your own life.

And, I am not suggesting that we "realize" that other people don't actually do things that are wrong. They do. However, what I have been hinting at is that it isn't always in everyone's best interest to rigidly focus on who is "RIGHT" and who is "WRONG", rather than what "WORKS" and what doesn't. In fact, not always is it NECESSARY to view someone or something as "WRONG"--though there are instances where it is necessary and appropriate to view them that way, nor is it always NECESSARY to view them as "WRONG" in a certain way or to a certain degree. In which cases, all parties may be better served to focus on what "WORKS", rather than on who is "RIGHT" and "WRONG"?

You will note that I haven't said that any of the proposed solutions are "WRONG". I have said the proposed solutions are not "WORKABLE" for all parties concerned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Perhaps the reason you all are having difficulty coming up with a "WORKABLE" solution is because you are focusing on what Mr. A can do to prevent Mr. B from getting hurt and angry and grieving.

I would have the same difficulty were I to focus on what Mr. B can do to prevent Mr. A from getting hurt and angry and grieving (actually, I did have this difficulty for quite some time, and I still do from time to time--old and dysfunctional habits die hard).

This ins't "WORKABLE" because it UNNECESSARILY puts control of one's own emotional disposition in the hands of the other party, and it targets the symtom and ignores the dynamic that causes the hurt and anger and grief.

Did Mr. D, like Mr. B, put control of his emotional disposition in the hands of Mr. A? Did Mr. D, like Mr. A, put control of his dispositon in the hands of Mr. B? If not, how do you suppose he kept from doing that? And, why do you suppose he didn't turn over control to Mr. A.? And, do you think his not doing so may have served him and others better, emotionally speaking?

Was Mr. D, like both Mr. A and B, more interested in who was "RIGHT" or "WRONG" than finding a way that "WORKS" to his emotional benefit and to the emotional benefit of all parties? If not, why do you suppose he wasn't? And, do you think his not doing so may have served him and others better, emotionally speaking?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, Wade, you have misunderstood. I can't control what the other person does. All I have control over is what I do. How many times must I repeat that? I'm just saying that it's unhealthy to assume that both parties had the best of intentions, as such may not be the case. All I can know is what my state of mind was.

The focus for me is how do I respond when someone does something to me. It is not helpful to try and find reasons to absolve the other person. Nope, what is important is dealing with my own feelings.

Again, while you may control what you do (I think this is open to some debate in terms of degrees, though I am fine with not debating it for want to be "RIGHT" or "WRONG"), it may be prudent to examne whether your CHOSEN form of self-control was, and is, functional or dysfunctional. How did your form of self-control work for all parties concerned as compared to Mr. D's?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Good People,

I haven't ignored what you have said. In fact I have carefully considered your comments, and gone on to simply point out how your proposed "solutions" fall somewhat short of being "WORKABLE" for all parties concerned. It is not just a matter of taking responsibility for one's own life, it is a matter of finding a functional way to take responsibility for your own life.

And, I am not suggesting that we "realize" that other people don't actually do things that are wrong. They do. However, what I have been hinting at is that it isn't always in everyone's best interest to rigidly focus on who is "RIGHT" and who is "WRONG", rather than what "WORKS" and what doesn't. In fact, not always is it NECESSARY to view someone or something as "WRONG"--though there are instances where it is necessary and appropriate to view them that way, nor is it always NECESSARY to view them as "WRONG" in a certain way or to a certain degree. In which cases, all parties may be better served to focus on what "WORKS", rather than on who is "RIGHT" and "WRONG"?

You will note that I haven't said that any of the proposed solutions are "WRONG". I have said the proposed solutions are not "WORKABLE" for all parties concerned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I frankly don't care if the solution is workable for the church. I suspect that they don't really concern themselves with how I deal with things, either. All I have control over is what is workable for me. For me, that is forgiving and moving on, simply put. I'm not focused on being right. I'm just trying to get on with my life.

[_harmony]

Here is the flaw in your analogy and "solution": In your analogy there is a relatively definitive way of determining which type of TV it is (i.e. by scientifically testing it to determine if it meets the standards of an HD TV or not), whereas with the product in my scenerio, and in terms of the Church allegedly "lying" about what it claims to be, there isn't a way of definitively determining (to the satisfaction of both parties) who is "RIGHT". In fact, in my scenerio, both Mr. A and Mr. B firmly believe they are "RIGHT". Their focusing on who is "RIGHT" is one of the key elements that causes the dynamic/cycle of hurt and anger and grief. In other words, your "solution" feeds into the dynamic/cylce, rather than solving it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're conflating two separate concepts, Wade. Lying and Rightness are two separate things.

And there is indeed a way to definitively determine if the church is what it claims to be (that's another thread, though, so I won't derail this one by telling you how that's done). You just prefer to ignore that, because it does not support the church's claim.

As far as the lying is concerned, it's relatively easy to determine if the Church is lying or not, even when the lies are lies of omission. Check the historical record. If the church's version of church history doesn't match the historical record (and it doesn't), then the church is lying about it's history. Keep in mind that just because the church lies about one thing doesn't mean it's lying about everything.

[_Sam Harris]

I like you....and starving the beast does work the best

It is kinda of like holding a carrot in front of a horse....and the horse never getting the carrot...and after a while the horse just gives up

I like my Meredith Brooks type new friend as well.

I'm a bitch, I'm a lover, I'm a child, I'm a mother, I'm a sinner, I'm a saint, I do not feel ashamed...

:-)

But sadly, our little "bear" is deep in his psychosis, and will never give up. He'll be dangling after that carrot from the grave, my dear.