Saturday, December 22, 2007

Know Your Sources


I host this website in order to disseminate information about controlling and abusive ideological groups of all types with special attention to spiritual abuse within Evangelical Christianity. I'm strongly Evangelical, but by nature, I do not ever want to force or coercively manipulate others, so I leave matters of choice up to the individual and the Holy Spirit. I aspire to be honest and truthful about these matters, hopefully fostering the reader's critical thought so as to facilitate their personal decision-making ability. I want you to think and think for yourself.  For those who come out of spiritually abusive systems, you've had quite enough manipulation and governance. Appropriate and healthy self-love and trust as Jesus spoke of in the Word suffers under authoritarian systems, and those who emerge from them need an environment that facilitates their own liberty in Christ.


If you found the last post intriguing, you might like to visit Advocates for Self Government to take their "Smallest Political Quiz." Pictured here is my profile according to their results. (So it is no great surprise that I, by nature, am basically libertarian. Someone with authoritarian interests would have no interest in hosting a website like this!) It's much shorter than the Political Compass to which my previous post links. I think it has eight simple, straightforward questions and it not designed to force you into leading questions as the Political Compass quiz does (as stated in the Political Compass FAQs).

I hope that give you, the reader, some ease if you find yourself seeking help in the process of emerging from a spiritually abusive or cultic group of any type. I'm a laissez-faire type of personality, though I am deeply grounded in and very serious about truth. I have no interest in governing others but rather seek to help others govern themselves, so I think that's why I'm interested in this type of inquiry. In reference to the previous post, it's not my aspiration to tell people where they should be. I would like to tell others how to get where they would like to go, and in so doing declare my own testimony. I'd like to see you venture my way, but that is up to you and your Maker.

Hopefully, you now know this source a bit better. I believe that all people should make their own decisions, taking responsibility for those decisions (which absolutely provides for the choice to submit to one's own legitimate authorities). Part of bearing that responsibility includes studying to show oneself approved unto God, rightly dividing the word of truth. That is certainly one thing that Christians in particular should not abdicate to another.

Personally, I believe in the authority of Scripture, and I will declare what it says without apology -- so if you ask, be forewarned. My heart desires to see all people know Christ Jesus through salvation by faith in Him! But I leave the decision-making up to the individual and put my trust in my Heavenly Father's providence to guide them. I hope to be of good Christianly encouragement in the process.

COMMENTS:


TulipGirl said...
Fwiw. . . this "smallest political quiz" is definitely skewed libertarian. I've know SO many people who really aren't libertarian score that way on this quiz--and as a result, start thinking of themselves as such (even though they have major philosophical and cultural differences with libertarianism.)Just a FYI. . . Take those results with a huge, common-sensical grain of salt.
December 24, 2007 7:46 AM

Territippins said...
I was not surprised that I was rated as a centrist with conservative leanings. I always told my husband that if I had been a Supreme Court Justice that I think I would have closely emulated Justice O'Conner (they always called her the swing vote) on many issues. I always considered her to be fair but most importantly she maintained an open mind, which allowed her to critique and analyze.......basically, she was not swayed by personal opinion or interests but, by careful consideration and a balanced sense of justice.
December 25, 2007 3:53 AM

Cindy said...
Tulip girl,I immediately think of statistical validity when I see these types of things -- based on my training in research. One has to do a statistical analysis before it is proper to make assumptions about the truth of the data they yield. If I devise my own, one question questionaire, I would still need to subject it to statistical analysis to determine if what I was asking yielded consistent and true information about the question.Then one must ask and demonstrate whether one is confusing consistency and precision with accuracy. I might think that the answer means one thing and could actually be saying something else. That's why when someone presents any kind of "proven" information, you have to go back and look at study design and their statistics. Then you have to be wise about how people use statistics to twist things.My stats instructor used just as much info out of the book "How to Lie with Statisitics" as he did from our declared textbook.In a greed and power driven world, even this is easily corrupted.So all that to say, you very well could be right...
December 26, 2007 2:10 AM

Cindy said...
territippins,Ah, I think you make a couple of interesting distinctions here. How a person views politics may or may not have anything to do with their faith, depending on the question. Things like "is abortion murder" differs significantly from your specific convictions about free trade.Then we have the issue of the difference between establishment of laws (which should be based on the Bible absolutely, IMO) and how exactly you interpret those laws when you live in a pluralistic culture -- or a "mulit-cultural" one which is far more democratic and the tyranny by the majority.We have the issue of personal preference and personality at work, too. Another major consideration is how personally disposed one is to impose their views on others. The example of the court is a huge one that opens, for me anyway, a whole different set of considerations.All the court is supposed to do is determine the Rule of Law and whether there has been a violation of Constitutional rights concerning specific examples. In this case, one should not confuse judicial activists, centrism, personal conviction and whether or not a person is an "individualist."Compare and contrast Breyer and Thomas on the Supreme Court. Breyer is a centrist, but Thomas is a morally solid individualist.So you almost make my point for me concerning the previous post.Consider also how the term "separation of church and state" has become a thought-stopping cliche...I'm so pleased to see how people commenting here are THINKING rather than just reacting like they've been conditioned and aren't afraid to speak their minds. Shout from the rooftops!!!
December 26, 2007 2:23 AM