Author Topic: Protecting Our Children  (Read 6322 times)

Matt Hummel

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2489
    • View Profile
Re: Protecting Our Children
« Reply #60 on: July 09, 2020, 09:47:14 PM »
Quote
That theology is not even wrong. Your N of 1 has no validity.

In secular psychological literature, there are a variety of references to guilt being felt in counter-transference. Subjective counter-transference would not count as a transmission of guilt because it was already inside the confessor figure, but objective counter-transference in the confessor figure originates from the penitent. There was also a lot of literature on "countertransference acting out"--with https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4615-3762-5_15 stating "Overall I suggest that the analyst's personal integrity and secondarily the threat of malpractice are the major deterrents to countertransference acting-out."

I didn't find any arguments against counter-transference, although https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16544199/ says that some think it is better not to look at objective counter-transference apart from other factors. It seems plausible this could be studied. You'd need to have a confessional with two brain scanning devices and look for mirror neurons.

Quote
Talk to actual priests, and you find one of their greatest joys is in hearing confessions.

So you and your peers are doing better at it.

People on the internet say:

"Actually, I have heard some priests say that hearing confessions is hard on them."
https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-be-at-the-receiving-end-at-the-confession-booth-and-listen-to-all-the-salacious-and-juicy-details-of-all-your-penitents%E2%80%99-sins#

"Indeed, most priests will tell you that hearing confessions is hard work."
https://catholicexchange.com/shock-and-awe

The section of https://www.hprweb.com/2017/12/my-side-of-the-confessional/ entitled "People who Interact with the Scrupulous" says it is hard to hear confessions from scrupulous people. The woman writing it mentions "Such advisors also risk a kind of “hypnosis” by the arguments of raging anxiety" which is probably something she personally observed.

But it is a big internet and just because I found three examples doesn't mean your experience is not the predominate one. Yet it only takes a small percentage of priests to ruin it for everyone.

Quote
This is on par with the stupidity that asserts that celibacy is at the root of the issue

Celibacy actually should have an advantage against pedophiles because the criminologist literature reports a decent percentage of pedophiles as being married with kids. The encouragement of celibacy as a discipline against acting out sexual impulses should also apply to pedophiles.

On the other hand, celibacy makes priests more sensitive to others and should help facilitate spiritual connections. I have felt it myself on multiple occasions after having talked with Catholic priests. To study this you would need to see if celibate people exhibit more objective counter-transference than non-celibates.

It seems that some religious leaders have the ability to induce scrupulosity in otherwise healthy people: https://books.google.com/books?id=CxJ4ebpYcwkC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=%22Milieu-influenced+scruples+(Type+II)%22&source=bl&ots=ZiaUI9xC49&sig=ACfU3U2vFE7VhpEKj0g1UeEuVgq2DShZDQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiAzMSYvMDqAhXQK80KHSgGBLoQ6AEwAHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Milieu-influenced%20scruples%20(Type%20II)%22&f=false

If it works one way, then it could in theory go the other way, too. Lutherans' belief that contrition properly speaking is what is also called perfect contrition and that concerns about imperfect contrition provoke unnecessary doubts sounds like a reasonable reaction to priests being fatigued from imperfectly contrite penitents, especially of the scrupulous sort. My theory is that they got rid of imperfect contrition partly because the objective counter-transference was too much of a bear.

There is another way to deal with it. On page 187 of that large paper you linked to, http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
it notes that in one study of 25 clergy sexual offenders one of their characteristics was that they "had insufficient training in the issue of transference/counter transference". Thank you for that paper; it got me thinking about this.

So short of getting rid of imperfect contrition that sounds like one thing that could be done to help solve it.

Ezekiel 33, putting the hands on the head of sacrifices, scapegoats, Pilate and the Jews, and Jesus are examples of transferring guilt. We can be empathetic with animals, so the person receiving the benefit of the animal sacrifice would have had an emotional connection with the animal as it dies. The person would felt the animal's innocence and the animal would felt the person's guilt. Turtledoves seem less effective for this, but they were only a substitute.

The excommunication of lawless heretics and the impenitent were practical steps to keep the guilt from spreading to the the whole church. Could the seal of the confessional help keep people safe from the guilt leaving the priest? We also seal tombs, landfills, and septic systems.

The counter-transference literature says to look for it in yourself and to expect it to crop up. You are supposed to talk it out with others when you need to. But if I do that is spreads to others. I guess I need to find someone strong enough to quash it for good. Right now I'm wondering if objective justification could somehow be leveraged do deal with feeling other people's guilt. I am starting to experiment with it and hopefully it will work.

Wow. It's in Quora, so, yeah, it must be real. I am beginning to see the point that Pr. Austin makes. I lay my cards out on the table as does pretty much everyone else here. You want me to take your arguments seriously, don't lurk in the shadows.

Matt Hummel


“The chief purpose of life, for any of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien

Commencement2020

  • ALPB Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: Protecting Our Children
« Reply #61 on: November 20, 2020, 07:16:14 PM »
https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0419.htm#10

And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even; and it shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among them, for a statute for ever.

(& v. 21-22)
And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them; and he that sprinkleth the water of sprinkling shall wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of sprinkling shall be unclean until even. And whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean; and the soul that toucheth him shall be unclean until even.

I've felt a similar effect after interacting with pastors. They forgive sins during the church service, but then become unclean afterwards. Interacting with them can make you unclean. Maybe unclean is not the right word, but it is an icky feeling I get. I don't get it from all pastors; I suppose that some of them are able to pass the guilt directly to Jesus instead.

How does the priest become unclean here? Is it like when the Legion demons went into the swine? The man became clean but the pigs received unclean spirits.

The general practice of keeping the stuff in the chancel separate & untouched by most people could reflect the spiritual risk of touching things touched by the pastor during the service. And when the altar guild argue about things or become overly controlling, that could be a transference of the unclean or icky feeling. I've felt it myself, too when touching things touched by an unclean pastor. And no, it is not scrupulosity; I was never taught that pastors touching things makes them unclean. It is more that I've handled various objects unthinkingly, and wondered why I feel icky. Now I think Numbers 19 could explain why.

I've been told many times that the ceremonial law was done away by the New Covenant and Jesus. Why then do I get a horrible feeling whenever the more theologically liberal/moderate types trot out the argument that "We should still be obeying the OT laws, and we aren't?" There must be something that still is operating mostly how the OT works, and whatever it is it gets way stronger when I hear or read this argument. Often I just shut down when I come to it because I'm like, "Oh no, I'm really in trouble if these things are going to be enforced, and they probably are."

In my opinion, the desire to separate the 613 commands into moral, civil, and ceremonial, is our human attempt to decide which laws (especially if they are the will of God) no longer apply to us. In other words, we look at the commands and decide, "This command makes sense to us now, so we'll call it 'a moral law'."

&

Does your wife cover her head when she goes out in public, or, especially in a worship service? When did that apostolic revelation cease to be a Christian lifestyle?

What if spiritually, some or even most are not completely updated to Covenant 2.0. Then you end up with unexpected transference of guilt; the very thing the OT cleanliness rules where designed to manage so it wouldn't get out of hand.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2020, 08:07:09 PM by Commencement2020 »

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42246
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Protecting Our Children
« Reply #62 on: November 20, 2020, 10:46:06 PM »
https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0419.htm#10

And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even; and it shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among them, for a statute for ever.

(& v. 21-22)
And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them; and he that sprinkleth the water of sprinkling shall wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of sprinkling shall be unclean until even. And whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean; and the soul that toucheth him shall be unclean until even.

I've felt a similar effect after interacting with pastors. They forgive sins during the church service, but then become unclean afterwards. Interacting with them can make you unclean. Maybe unclean is not the right word, but it is an icky feeling I get. I don't get it from all pastors; I suppose that some of them are able to pass the guilt directly to Jesus instead.

How does the priest become unclean here? Is it like when the Legion demons went into the swine? The man became clean but the pigs received unclean spirits.

The general practice of keeping the stuff in the chancel separate & untouched by most people could reflect the spiritual risk of touching things touched by the pastor during the service. And when the altar guild argue about things or become overly controlling, that could be a transference of the unclean or icky feeling. I've felt it myself, too when touching things touched by an unclean pastor. And no, it is not scrupulosity; I was never taught that pastors touching things makes them unclean. It is more that I've handled various objects unthinkingly, and wondered why I feel icky. Now I think Numbers 19 could explain why.

I've been told many times that the ceremonial law was done away by the New Covenant and Jesus. Why then do I get a horrible feeling whenever the more theologically liberal/moderate types trot out the argument that "We should still be obeying the OT laws, and we aren't?" There must be something that still is operating mostly how the OT works, and whatever it is it gets way stronger when I hear or read this argument. Often I just shut down when I come to it because I'm like, "Oh no, I'm really in trouble if these things are going to be enforced, and they probably are."

In my opinion, the desire to separate the 613 commands into moral, civil, and ceremonial, is our human attempt to decide which laws (especially if they are the will of God) no longer apply to us. In other words, we look at the commands and decide, "This command makes sense to us now, so we'll call it 'a moral law'."

&

Does your wife cover her head when she goes out in public, or, especially in a worship service? When did that apostolic revelation cease to be a Christian lifestyle?

What if spiritually, some or even most are not completely updated to Covenant 2.0. Then you end up with unexpected transference of guilt; the very thing the OT cleanliness rules where designed to manage so it wouldn't get out of hand.


Being "unclean" was not the same thing as "guilt." A woman shouldn't feel guilt because she gives birth, but she is unclean. (Same with her period.) A man who has a skin disease shouldn't feel guilt, but he is unclean.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Commencement2020

  • ALPB Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: Protecting Our Children
« Reply #63 on: November 20, 2020, 11:52:30 PM »
Since you separate the two I suppose you don't think Matthew 15:18 applies here. I'll grant that for now for the sake of discussing another factor which intertwines them:

Israelites followed the rules about being unclean, so they didn't feel guilt about it. We don't follow the rules; something within that is tricky to put your finger on exactly may interpret the ignoring of the rules as a sin, and the resultant needless spread of the uncleanness as evidence of guilt. Then those sensitive enough to perceive it feel the "something" as an icky feeling.

And wouldn't guilt flow more easily between two unclean persons, or from a clean to an unclean person (probably as the clean person shames the unclean person for some minutia)? The unnatural direction would be from an unclean person to a clean person, (who stays clean). Being clean & staying that way as much as possible helps to guard against others foisting their guilt on you.

Have you ever noticed that non-observant Jews of good character are way less spiritual or mystical-oriented than Christians? They are closer to atheists in their practice even if they still believe in God. The reason for this is that what they perceive as the Divine is unmanaged & treacherous. The quickest solution to this is to shut down the relationship rather completely because the ratio of curses to blessings is not going to be in their favor. So they don't even pray and are so rational they offend God or whatever it was that posed as God to them. In contrast, non-observant Christians of comparable good character are more likely to continue pursuing spiritual things, even if they don't attend church or confession, and even if they don't tithe. Their navigation of the spiritual surroundings is still riskier without a church community, but not as high-stakes as for non-practicing Jews. So they can maintain a relationship with God while not anticipating a deluge of bad things. (What I am getting at: Skepticism, for those who develop it, is equivalent to ghosting your relationships and otherwise trying to shut them down. It is a useful tactic if the relationship needs to end.)

The above paragraph explains how non-observant Jews handle the risk of guilt related to ignoring the rules. They are very cautious about abandoning their rational outlook; it keeps them safe. Yet moderate-to-liberal Christians are willing to open this massive can of worms just score a point in an argument over sexuality or some other topic. It doesn't seem right at all.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2020, 12:33:04 AM by Commencement2020 »

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42246
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Protecting Our Children
« Reply #64 on: November 21, 2020, 02:03:19 PM »
Since you separate the two I suppose you don't think Matthew 15:18 applies here. I'll grant that for now for the sake of discussing another factor which intertwines them:


It certainly applies. The Greek verb in Matthew 15:11, 18, & 20 is κοινόω. The basic meaning of the whole word group κοιν- is "to be common." It is about sharing in community. Koinonia is an English word based on this Greek root meaning: "fellowship," "communion." What "defiles" (the way it is often translated in those verses) is acting just like "common" or "ordinary" people. God's people are to be "holy," which essentially means, "something 'set apart'," or "something different." That's what the Torah commands were meant to do: to distinguish God's people from the other peoples living around them.


Note: Non-Jews were not bound to the clean/unclean commands of the Torah. While everyone would have natural bodily discharges, and would need to deal with corpses, God's people had to follow a ritual afterwards to purify their uncleanness (commonness). Gentiles neither felt guilty nor ritually unclean by doing such things.


Jesus words, as I have interpreted them:


Throughout the Old Testament, God’s people were not to act like the people around them. They were to be different. So they didn’t work on the seventh day. They didn’t eat some foods. They didn’t worship the local gods and goddesses. They did some other things that might seem strange to the folks around them; but those differences are what made them special – the holy people of God – set apart from other people. They weren’t to be like the common or ordinary peoples in the area.
 
When Christians think and speak and act like everybody else, they become common and ordinary, which becomes defiled, contaminated, unclean – but certainly not beyond redemption by God.
 
Jesus indicates that such commonness begins from within, not from without. We will see that this woman’s "great faith" [the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:21-28] comes from within. She had none of the outside trappings of piety or holiness – nothing that would set her apart from common pagans.
Quote
Israelites followed the rules about being unclean, so they didn't feel guilt about it. We don't follow the rules; something within that is tricky to put your finger on exactly may interpret the ignoring of the rules as a sin, and the resultant needless spread of the uncleanness as evidence of guilt. Then those sensitive enough to perceive it feel the "something" as an icky feeling.


Gentiles did not follow the rules about being unclean and they didn't feel guilty about it. It could be that these unclean rules came about because people felt "icky" about blood from a woman, semen from a man, touching dead bodies, etc. These are necessary things about which one should not feel guilty - even if they feel a bit "icky."

Quote
And wouldn't guilt flow more easily between two unclean persons, or from a clean to an unclean person (probably as the clean person shames the unclean person for some minutia)? The unnatural direction would be from an unclean person to a clean person, (who stays clean). Being clean & staying that way as much as possible helps to guard against others foisting their guilt on you.


Certainly. We have sayings, "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch" and "birds of a feather flock together."


When I worked at an alcoholic rehab hospital, clients were advised (even ordered) to get a new group of friends. If they continue socializing with their drinking buddies, they will bring them down. It even went so far that a friend's daughter in rehab for drug abuse was told that she had to leave her church youth group. She had to develop a new group of friends (mostly from the local NA group).


However, we are also told in the Old Testament, and what we see coming from Jesus, is that by touching or being touched by the holy thing, one becomes holy. Bread and wine touched by the holy Word of God becomes holy communion which touches our lives to make us holy.

Quote
Have you ever noticed that non-observant Jews of good character are way less spiritual or mystical-oriented than Christians? They are closer to atheists in their practice even if they still believe in God. The reason for this is that what they perceive as the Divine is unmanaged & treacherous. The quickest solution to this is to shut down the relationship rather completely because the ratio of curses to blessings is not going to be in their favor. So they don't even pray and are so rational they offend God or whatever it was that posed as God to them. In contrast, non-observant Christians of comparable good character are more likely to continue pursuing spiritual things, even if they don't attend church or confession, and even if they don't tithe. Their navigation of the spiritual surroundings is still riskier without a church community, but not as high-stakes as for non-practicing Jews. So they can maintain a relationship with God while not anticipating a deluge of bad things. (What I am getting at: Skepticism, for those who develop it, is equivalent to ghosting your relationships and otherwise trying to shut them down. It is a useful tactic if the relationship needs to end.)


That's true if one believes that the relationship depends on what we do. Jews, regardless of their religious observances, are still the chosen people of God. God said so. It's like a misbehaving children: the parents may not like what they are doing, but they continue to be their children.

Quote
The above paragraph explains how non-observant Jews handle the risk of guilt related to ignoring the rules. They are very cautious about abandoning their rational outlook; it keeps them safe. Yet moderate-to-liberal Christians are willing to open this massive can of worms just score a point in an argument over sexuality or some other topic. It doesn't seem right at all.


Many of my relatives and some good friends are non-observant Jews. I don't see them feeling guilt over ignoring the rules. We used to joke that one cousin could smell mom baking a ham from 200 miles away, and he'd show up for dinner. Another man said, "I like lobster." There is no guilt in disregarding Torah commands.


In terms of sexual sins and punishment, even orthodox Jews almost never follow Torah commands on this.


First of all, the Torah (Deuteronomy 17:6-7) requires at least two witnesses. They would have to see the adultery or a man lying with man as with a woman in order to bring charges against the person. Hearsay is not sufficient. Conjecture is not sufficient. There have been a couple of times I've spent the night at a female friend's house. We slept in separate rooms. When traveling in a Gospel team, I often slept in the same bed as another male team member. We did not break any commandments.


Secondly, those same verses require the witnesses to be the first ones to put the guilty to death. They would have to be the ones to cast the first stones.


If you want to follow the rules about sins, you must also be willing to follow the rules about punishments.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Commencement2020

  • ALPB Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: Protecting Our Children
« Reply #65 on: November 21, 2020, 04:34:49 PM »
Your comments on Matthew 15:18 and later about bad apples indicates you agree that ritual uncleanliness is at least sometimes intertwined with guilt.

"Gentiles neither felt guilty nor ritually unclean by doing such things."

Hindus have a great deal of ritual cleanliness rules and traditions. Buddhists less so, but for temple purposes ritual cleanliness is still important. Africans achieve ritual cleanliness with utakaso, adangme, or other rituals. For Chinese, they especially do ritual cleansing at the New Year. Eastern Orthodox Old Believers in Russia today still believe that evil spirits dance in food and water left out overnight. It becomes ritually unclean and is not consumed.

Your Jewish friends are protected by rationalism and skepticism. If you lay into them about how the ceremonial commands are still in effect, they would eventually either reject you or feel guilty. But you don't do that; please don't do it to Christians either.

Once I was cleaning up a park and one of the things I removed was a small Native American worship item, which included an offering of tobacco. As I removed it, I had an unnatural mild stinging sensation. Presumably whatever it was that it had been offered to was displeased with me removing its sacred offering. Yet that which was within me was stronger than it and the stinging went away shortly. (The alternative is that it could have continued for hours and become exceedingly, debilitatingly strong.) I had broken a taboo against disturbing a sacred item. But after that whatever it was that stung me conceded defeat--I was able to dispose of other sacred objects without any unnatural stinging at all. (There were no Indians in the park at the time, the ceremony was over and done with; it was not on a reservation and they were not coming back any time soon.)

So if Indian ceremonial laws have a risk of impacting non-Indians, it follows that the same is true for Jewish ceremonial laws. Think also of how the Ark of the Covenant did not go well for the Philistines.

When high transferred guilt builds up in pastors, they then distract themselves from the guilt by sinning boldly and doing certain things-- like sexual transgressions. Eventually they find a way to make sure that they get caught so that they will be punished. Then they feel much better now that punishment has been given. What if instead pastors are taught how to manage this? How to fight (or at least manage) spiritual forces who will play games they can't possibly win?
« Last Edit: November 21, 2020, 04:36:37 PM by Commencement2020 »

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42246
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: Protecting Our Children
« Reply #66 on: November 22, 2020, 02:07:01 AM »
Your comments on Matthew 15:18 and later about bad apples indicates you agree that ritual uncleanliness is at least sometimes intertwined with guilt.



Nope. I do not feel guilty when I touch a corpse, even if by Jewish law, I've become "unclean." Most people want to be like other people. They don't feel guilty because they can "keep up with the Joneses," but that's what κοινόω implies in Matthew 15. It's thinking, speaking, and acting like everyone else. People don't feel guilty when they can buy the latest fashions, or go to the popular restaurants, or watch the latest movies.


Quote
Your Jewish friends are protected by rationalism and skepticism. If you lay into them about how the ceremonial commands are still in effect, they would eventually either reject you or feel guilty. But you don't do that; please don't do it to Christians either.


Many ceremonial laws are no longer in effect. Sacrifices could only be made in the temple by the Levitical priesthood. There is no temple. Who knows who the Levites are anymore. There have been no sacrifices since AD 70. The whole sacrificial rules of the Torah have been on hold for over 2000 years.


The ones I've talked to about it consider the food laws stupid. One remembers going to camp and they couldn't eat a milk chocolate bar for at least an hour after eating meat. That's how the law was interpreted. What changed during that hour? They feel no guilt in breaking them. They feel no guilty in failing to go through the purity rituals when they have become unclean.

Quote
When high transferred guilt builds up in pastors, they then distract themselves from the guilt by sinning boldly and doing certain things-- like sexual transgressions. Eventually they find a way to make sure that they get caught so that they will be punished. Then they feel much better now that punishment has been given. What if instead pastors are taught how to manage this? How to fight (or at least manage) spiritual forces who will play games they can't possibly win?


I'm not sure that misconducting pastors feel better after being caught and punished. I know of three pastors who were caught viewing internet porn. With two of them, it was child pornography and they had thousands of pictures. Last I knew, they were going to prison. I don't think that they are happy about that. All three were serving congregations and their arrests shocked the congregations.


Pastors are taught about self-care. One of the best ways is to regularly meet with other clergy, a little like AA, for strength, support, counseling, worship, and when needed, confession and absolution. To be responsible to a group of peers for one's behaviors. To be a recipient of worship and the Word rather than just a giver.
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Commencement2020

  • ALPB Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: Protecting Our Children
« Reply #67 on: November 23, 2020, 12:20:06 AM »
Your rationalism protects you from guilt. Not all people have this attribute; please respect this and don't write things that guilt them into following ceremonial law. You wouldn't treat your Jewish friends like this; don't do it to Christians on APLB.

At one level they are not happy about it, at another level it is exactly what they (or whatever it is that is influencing and cooperating with them) intended. That is why they made sure to offend in such a way that they would get caught. There is a decent amount of psychological type literature which discusses why people want to get caught. One driver of this is unresolved, unpunished guilt. Even worse if the guilt wasn't your own to begin with, so you can't just repent of it to restore the relationship. Finding a way to get punished is an obvious way to mend the relationship.

You write about these regulations as if they are things people can choose about like Coke or Pepsi. It isn't that simple, because "whatever it is" within them must also be so convinced and that isn't going to happen on a dime. I can think of one Lutheran who despite converting from Mormonism, still couldn't drink coffee without feeling sinful well after converting.

A human sacrifice of sorts is exactly what guilt oriented people want. Jan Hus, Girolamo Savonarola, Martyn Neale, Charles Moore, and who's up next? Prison and disgrace is less fiery but it follows in a similar vein. (Hindus would think the incarcerated pastors were following the Left-Hand Path to salvation.)\

His congregation was shocked, but I wasn't. I had accepted guilt (but not punishment) from a pastor despite not having done wrong myself. I wrote about what I did with the discombobulated feeling from this last July:

Recently when feeling awkward and discombobulated I had a very strong desire to post something to ALPB that was ridiculous...

Some pastors enter into a inflated state of consciousness during the service and then fall into another, deflated one afterwards. It would be better for them not to do this, or if they must to go whole hog like the Kauffman Amish sleeping preachers so they don't fool themselves into thinking that is who they really are. Yet if neither options are possible it would still be preferable they keep track of small physical and behavioral changes so at least they know it is happening. From there they can develop the will and means to fight it tooth-nail-claw all the way. If you don't know what your self is, that is going to hamper your self-care.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2020, 12:43:37 AM by Commencement2020 »