We are happy to announce a new addition to the Nathaniel Branden
website: The Official Nathaniel Branden Blog! With the new blog, we
will be exploring Nathaniel's ideas and publishing new content on a
regular basis. We also hope to provide an interactive forum for those
interested in Nathaniel's work. "My mission is to inspire readers to
honor their life and happiness, and to have the courage to fight for
them." Check it out today!

http://nathanielbranden.wordpress.com/

Dr. Branden is happy to announce a new, revised edition of The
Psychology of Romantic Love (Romantic Love in an Anti-Romantic Age)
will be available in book stores and online January 31st.

"This book is about my own love for love", he writes, "my love for the
experience and adventure that love offers". For all those who long for
love and yet wonder whether their dreams are attainable, The
Psychology of Romantic Love shows the way to translate dreams into
reality.

The book explores the nature of romantic love on many levels-the
philosophical, the psychological, the historical, the sociological,
and the physiological. Dr. Branden explains why so many people say
that romantic love is just not possible in today's world and-drawing
on his experience with thousands of couples-finds that such love is
still a possibility for anyone who understands its essence and is
willing to accept its challenges.

Pre-order now on Amazon.com and save 5%!

http://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Romantic-Love-Anti-Romantic-Age/dp/1585426253/r\
ef=dp_return_2?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books/

In lieu of hosting a full-fledged "discussion group", I hope to
continue to use this Yahoo! list as a means of distributing news and
events regarding Nathaniel's work and speaking schedule.

If you are interested in the occasional update, please stay subscribed
to the list!


Best,



R. Christian Ross

...I hope that NB's admirers and readers will join the new
"unofficial" Nathaniel Branden discussion group, which has just been
created by Michael "foosi" Brown.  :-)

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/unofficial_Nathaniel_Branden_list/



Best,



RCR

Dear List--

As many of you know, the history of the Nathaniel Branden "discussion
group" has a long and very...contentious history.  Even back in the
Diana days, when the group was hosted directly on the NB site through
an interface Diana put together with some cool perl scripts, the group
just couldn't strike a balance between passionate discussion and
juvenile online hijinks and flame wars.   Diana couldn't control the
group effectively with her software, and ported the whole thing over
to Yahoo.

A little while later NB and Diana parted ways, and I took over the farm.

To my recollection, the Yahoo list had some great heady days of really
good conversation, where disagreement was by-in-large handled with
intellectual grace and integrity, and then troubles began again...

To be sure, my own "moderation" abilities were stretched to the max,
and I'm sure I made some significant mistakes along the way...

Today, for a whole host of reasons, the list has become something that
neither Nathaniel nor I want to manage or support, and so, it is with
both regret and relief that I announce "the end" of the NB Yahoo!
discussion group.

I am deeply grateful to the list participants who have made this an
interesting and engaging place to be.  I am even more grateful to
Walter, Allie and Dan for their support and wisdom over the years.
There is no way that the list would have gotten this far with out your
diligent attention and effort.  Seriously, "thanks guys".

This will be the final post to the list.  However, I will leave the
group where it is in "read-only" mode for reference purposes.

With that, it is lights out and good-night.



Best,



R. Christian Ross

Give me a break.


On 7/18/07, Mike Rael <mikesrael3@...> wrote:
>
>   Here I am, peacefully contemplating my coffee with cream, diet sugar,
> and kahlua and hearing this "absurd nonsense." Hint:I am not keeping up any
> kind of feud. I made my statements and stand by them. I have seen nothing to
> dissuade me.
>
> Apparently, you harp on one or two posts, and ignore all the chatter
> afterwards, presuming I am the cause of all the chatter. Tain't so, sir.
>
> If you want to disband the list, no problem. I'll be happy to form my own
> if this one goes. Lest you forget, this list is not on Dr. Branden's website
> because of problems among the posters. This kind of issue is my argument for
> fairly strong moderation.
>
> best wishes,
> Mike Rael, MS
>
> "R. Christian Ross" <reason.on@... <reason.on%40gmail.com>> wrote:
> Mike Rael: you are completely out of line with your initial comments to
>
> "Davey", there is nothing "wrong" or inappropriate with the question asked
> by Davey, and how you can claim someone is a "troll" after one post, is
> quite beyond me. Btw, we don't need anymore "moderators", thanks though.
>
> Please stop all this absurd nonsense now, or I'm likely to shut down this
> list entirely.
>
> RCR
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Here I am, peacefully contemplating my coffee with cream, diet sugar, and kahlua
and hearing this "absurd nonsense." Hint:I am not keeping up any kind of feud. I
made my statements and stand by them. I have seen nothing to dissuade me.

Apparently, you harp on one or two posts, and ignore all the chatter afterwards,
presuming I am the cause of all the chatter. Tain't so, sir.

If you want to disband the list, no problem. I'll be happy to form my own if
this one goes. Lest you forget, this list is not on Dr. Branden's website
because of problems among the posters. This kind of issue is my argument for
fairly strong moderation.

best wishes,
Mike Rael, MS

"R. Christian Ross" <reason.on@...> wrote:
Mike Rael: you are completely out of line with your initial comments to
  "Davey", there is nothing "wrong" or inappropriate with the question asked
  by Davey, and how you can claim someone is a "troll" after one post, is
  quite beyond me.  Btw, we don't need anymore "moderators", thanks though.

  Please stop all this absurd nonsense now, or I'm likely to shut down this
  list entirely.

  RCR

  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mike Rael: you are completely out of line with your initial comments to
"Davey", there is nothing "wrong" or inappropriate with the question asked
by Davey, and how you can claim someone is a "troll" after one post, is
quite beyond me.  Btw, we don't need anymore "moderators", thanks though.

Please stop all this absurd nonsense now, or I'm likely to shut down this
list entirely.




RCR


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Michael Lee <mikelee.home@...> wrote:                                 
You raised very interesting points. It would be even more interesting to see
  you defend them against the slings and arrows, than for you to Cartman off
   into the sunset.



                       Visit Your Group
                   SPONSORED LINKS

    Adolescent mental health
    Mental health disorder
    Mental health counseling
    Mental health job
    Teen mental health

                                                                          Healthy
Eating
   A Yahoo! resource
   for families on
   how to eat healthy

                                             Yahoo! TV
   Staying in tonight?
   Check Daily Picks &
   see what to watch.

                                             Sell Online
  Start selling with
  our award-winning
  e-commerce tools.



       .    <!-- #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px; font-family:
arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;*font-size:small;*font:x-small;} #ygrp-mlmsg
table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;} #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea
{font:99% arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115%
monospace;*font-size:100%;} #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;} #ygrp-text{    
font-family: Georgia;  } #ygrp-text p{     margin: 0 0 1em 0; } #ygrp-tpmsgs{
font-family: Arial;      clear: both; } #ygrp-vitnav{  padding-top: 10px; 
font-family: Verdana;  font-size: 77%;  margin: 0; } #ygrp-vitnav a{  padding: 0
1px; } #ygrp-actbar{  clear: both;  margin: 25px 0;  white-space:nowrap;  color:
#666;  text-align: right; } #ygrp-actbar .left{  float: left; 
white-space:nowrap; } .bld{font-weight:bold;} #ygrp-grft{  font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 77%;  padding: 15px 0; } #ygrp-ft{   font-family: verdana;  
font-size: 77%;   border-top: 1px solid #666;    padding: 5px 0;  }
  #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{   padding-bottom: 10px; }  #ygrp-vital{  background-color:
#e0ecee;  margin-bottom: 20px;  padding: 2px 0 8px 8px; } #ygrp-vital #vithd{ 
font-size: 77%;  font-family: Verdana;  font-weight: bold;  color: #333; 
text-transform: uppercase; } #ygrp-vital ul{  padding: 0;  margin: 2px 0; }
#ygrp-vital ul li{   list-style-type: none;   clear: both;   border: 1px solid
#e0ecee;   } #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{   font-weight: bold;   color: #ff7900;  
float: right;   width: 2em;   text-align:right;   padding-right: .5em; }
#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{   font-weight: bold; } #ygrp-vital a {  text-decoration:
none; }  #ygrp-vital a:hover{   text-decoration: underline; }  #ygrp-sponsor
#hd{  color: #999;  font-size: 77%; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov{  padding: 6px 13px; 
background-color: #e0ecee;  margin-bottom: 20px; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{ 
padding: 0 0 0 8px;  margin: 0; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{  list-style-type:
square;  padding: 6px 0;  font-size: 77%; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{
   text-decoration: none;  font-size: 130%; } #ygrp-sponsor #nc {  
background-color: #eee;   margin-bottom: 20px;   padding: 0 8px; } #ygrp-sponsor
.ad{  padding: 8px 0; } #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{  font-family: Arial; 
font-weight: bold;  color: #628c2a;  font-size: 100%;  line-height: 122%; }
#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{  text-decoration: none; } #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{ 
text-decoration: underline; } #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{  margin: 0; } o {font-size:
0; } .MsoNormal {    margin: 0 0 0 0; } #ygrp-text tt{   font-size: 120%; }
blockquote{margin: 0 0 0 4px;} .replbq {margin:4}



And that's why, in my opinion, bullying and sarcasm have no place on this list.
When people's opinions are met with abuse, they tend to see little point in
continuing the conversation.

If you want this list, which is low traffic as it is, to become an exclusive
club for those who already agree with each other, keep on imitating Dr. Cox at
his worst. However, if it's actual debate you seek, I respectfully suggest that
you treat dissenters as if they're still worthwhile human beings despite not
following the party line.

Stephanie





There&#39;s enough room in this world for everybody to be successful.
In memory of David Newton (1962-2006)

Stephanie Silberstein: Writer, Author, Thinker - the official homepage





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What can brown refuse to say to you today?

> because i object profoundly to internet snark, to replying to careful
> (and creative) thought with bilge. i don't think it's cute, amusing,
> or a sensate substitute for thought. and i don't argue with those who
> do it. it's a debasement of discourse.

Really? I mean, seriously, really?

(I don't know why, but I really like saying really lately.)

I will fully grant that you raised some provocative ideas. And just to prove
that I'm not yanking your chain, I'll even list the ones that stood out for
me:

* your evocation of the initial relationship: 20 year old nerd fan gets an
audience with accomplished adult who sees something in his fan letter that
arches her eyebrow.

* Branden was trapped not just to avoid disappointing Rand, but to avoid
disappointing her followers.

* The bad things Branden did were because she wouldn't take a hint. Hell,
she wouldn't take a 2 x 4.

* Rand as an internal King Kong/Fay Wray combo. Her nasty public persona
roared and warned to protect the traumatized little girl. Not buying it, but
it's an interesting thought. And I just watched the Jackson King Kong in HD
this weekend so I'm kind of in awe of roaring special effects. Except for
the platinum tresses, it's hard to think of NB as NW, but it's not hard to
think of AR as KK.

With my boney fideys established, may I suggest that walking away in a huff
when you perceive your pearls being trampled by the putative swine is not
the most effective strategy for displaying pearls or herding swine?

You raised very interesting points. It would be even more interesting to see
you defend them against the slings and arrows, than for you to Cartman off
into the sunset.

Mike Lee
Screw you guys, I'm going home!

At 07:28 PM 7/16/2007 -0700, Mike Lee wrote:

  > mike brown declares an official shunning:

[ snip ]

  > Why did you send that to the whole list?

because i object profoundly to internet snark, to replying to careful
(and creative) thought with bilge. i don't think it's cute, amusing,
or a sensate substitute for thought. and i don't argue with those who
do it. it's a debasement of discourse.


michael r. brown

I'm not a victim, Mike:)  I'm here on the list as one way to grow. I admire the
way that you express truths sarcastically. I've repressed my anger for way too
long. That's why I would emulate you in that regard!

About you being nice: I think you are, Mike. I see you as using sarcasm to jolt
folks to a higher state of awareness. And more power to you!

best always,
Mike Rael

Michael Lee <mikelee.home@...> wrote:                                 
Mike Lee claims another victim:

  > Actually, amigo, I had you in mind when I decided to give up being
  > calm, collected, and seemingly rational. I decided that persona wasn't
  > really me at the bottom. I enjoy being angry or snarky at times,

  I meditate, I flagellate, I masturbate and I cogitate.

  But despite all my best efforts, I love abusing those I deem abuse-worthy.
  These days, everyone at work thinks I'm nice, even though I'm not trying to
  be nice, and everyone who worked with me 10 years ago says, Mike Lee? Nice?
  Really? Maybe he's got cancer. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!

  I think the point is that most people are Soylent Green. They taste better
  if they don't see the hammer coming.

  Mike Lee
  Eichmann was a wimp






---------------------------------
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

mike brown declares an official shunning:


> mike rael:
>
> we will not speak again.
>
>
> michael r. brown

Why did you send that to the whole list?

Perhaps you should do sentence completions and then 30 pushups. To help get
you started:

One thing I was trying to express by sending that to the whole list is--

If I got Mike Rael in a dark closet for 5 minutes, I'd--

One way other than in a train tunnel that I wish Mike Rael would die is--

If I don't talk to people, the next thing that happens to them is--

Mike Lee
Therapist to the Stars

Mike Lee claims another victim:

> Actually, amigo, I had you in mind when I decided to give up being
> calm, collected, and seemingly rational. I decided that persona wasn't
> really me at the bottom. I enjoy being angry or snarky at times,

I meditate, I flagellate, I masturbate and I cogitate.

But despite all my best efforts, I love abusing those I deem abuse-worthy.
These days, everyone at work thinks I'm nice, even though I'm not trying to
be nice, and everyone who worked with me 10 years ago says, Mike Lee? Nice?
Really? Maybe he's got cancer. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!

I think the point is that most people are Soylent Green. They taste better
if they don't see the hammer coming.

Mike Lee
Eichmann was a wimp

I enjoy that post, Mike Lee, same as I do all your other posts:)

Actually, amigo, I had you in mind when I decided to give up being calm,
collected, and seemingly rational. I decided that persona wasn't really me at
the bottom. I enjoy being angry or snarky at times,  particularly when I
encounter  folks who come to this list in order to besmirch the  folks who this
list is about.  I didn't read Daveywavy's first message but to think that he
called Branden "narcissistic"  is just sickening.

I'd rather be more like Mike Lee in that particular way than the olde Mike
Rael:)

Best always,
Mike Rael

Michael Lee <mikelee.home@...> wrote:                                 
Is there reason to suspect that Daveywavy was raised under a bridge? Let's
  let him speak for himself.

  *** (very first message)
  Borderlines are often attracted to Narcissistic men. And lets face it, we
  all love Nathaniel, but he has Narcissistic traits.
  ***

  ***
  No idea why Mike Rael was so abusive in his response to a sincere question -
  though I did some searching on his previous posts, and he seems to have had
  a tough childhood, and is getting old, and is still single, so that probably
  explains his bitterness.
  ***

  ***
  I guess it would have been interesting to get NB's point of view, though
  that is a pipedream.
  ***

  Etc.

  I'm not going to bother quoting the faux self-pitying "moi?" stuff after
  that, since most people probably still have it.

  Davy, my sensitive snarky little chickadee, I hope you come back to us when
  your feathers are dry.

  Mike Lee
  I came here for an argument, but this is Abuse!






---------------------------------
Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

mike rael:

we will not speak again.


michael r. brown

Is there reason to suspect that Daveywavy was raised under a bridge? Let's
let him speak for himself.


*** (very first message)
Borderlines are often attracted to Narcissistic men. And lets face it, we
all love Nathaniel, but he has Narcissistic traits.
***

***
No idea why Mike Rael was so abusive in his response to a sincere question -
though I did some searching on his previous posts, and he seems to have had
a tough childhood, and is getting old, and is still single, so that probably
explains his bitterness.
***

***
I guess it would have been interesting to get NB's point of view, though
that is a pipedream.
***

Etc.

I'm not going to bother quoting the faux self-pitying "moi?" stuff after
that, since most people probably still have it.

Davy, my sensitive snarky little chickadee, I hope you come back to us when
your feathers are dry.

Mike Lee
I came here for an argument, but this is Abuse!

Michael B,
    All your "facts" evade the central fact: Nathaniel Branden has interacted
with Rand. You have not.
    If you want to know a specific fact, you go to the source, not to
"hypothesies."
    About Branden "having enough" about this topic: let him determine that. He's
a big guy, quite mature, quite able to say "No" just as easily as he could say
"Yes," I assure you.
    Oh yes, you might also email Barbara Branden.
    Sheesh...as the venerable Bill O'Reilly would say: your arguments are all
theoretical. You have the obvious best sources of information literally next to
you in cyberspace, and instead you choose to chase intellectual fantasms.
Fun and joy ,
Mike R

"michael r. brown" <foosi@...> wrote:                                 
mike rael:

  as to asking nb, i feel he's heard -quite- enough
  about this person and no doubt has better things
  to do than answer the same question for the 798th
  time (or even the occasional new one, at this
  point). he's given us a whole memoir (in two
  editions) about the experience, of not
  inconsiderable depth and self-revelation. let's
  look at nb not as our daddy or tribal chief but
  as a subjective person like ourselves. he writes
  a fan letter at age 20 (this is ~57 years ago),
  gets precipitously involved with his idol. it's a
  really bad thing and she's -not- how she seemed
  to be. (i don't think people appreciate this last
  point sufficiently.) nb got in way over his head,
  yet now this person is telling him her whole life
  and world depends on him - and, let’s bear in
  mind, this person is regarded in their circle as
  the mind of the ages and the possible savior of
  the world. (this ltoo is not well-enough
  appreciated.) -she- terminates their relationship
  (we're now up to 50 years ago) due to depression,
  then when she feels like resuming it’s - just
  supposed to resume. did nb do bad things? he did,
  and he admitted it, publicly, in 1989 – just as
  he did in 1968. which is more than one can say
  about rand, apologists and
  publishers-of-private-diary-entries to the
  contrary notwithstanding. so i’d rather speak to nb about anything but rand.

  one other point i want to make about nb, and here
  i have to veer into the details of "my years with
  ayn rand": nb clearly shows that he was giving
  off abundant, copious, prolific signals that he
  didn't want to get deeply re-involved *and didn't
  want to hurt her.*  rand's private-journal
  entries in the book most of us know about
  completely back him up there. just about any
  woman - and i include even a woman on a peasant
  level - would have known instantly that nb was
  trying to let her down gently, and also would
  know that he was in love with someone else.
  should nb have prevaricated? of course not. but
  should he have been involved with ar? of course
  not. did ar appreciate the unbelievable pressure
  she was exerting? no. her private-diary entries
  show that abundantly clearly. they really are
  shocking to me - not only for the utterly
  mechanical view of psychology they display but
  for the lack of empathy, the lack of
  understanding how human "entities" actually work.
  and that's something i hold deeply against ar:
  that she paraded around as one with all the
  answers (and one with whom nb would ascend to the
  stars), and yet she was so oblivious to the
  nature of the entities with which she was
  dealing. and i very purposefully use her own
  lingo there. she didn't live what she preached,
  not in her emotional life. she failed to know
  herself as a subjective being, and hence didn't
  know others as subjective beings. she was, in the
  most unfortunate sense, an objectifier.

  ( it's an old chestnut in dominance/submission
  circles that many submissives are narcissistic
  and controlling and see their dominants as
  pet-objects. indeed, it's somewhat of an axiom
  that the submissive holds the real power in the
  relationship, and can become vicious and vengeful
  when denied / rejected. all that certainly fits.
  notice how hank rearden instantly accepts dagny's
  leaving his life? she's basically done with him
  and he is dismissed, and on the most inconsiderate terms. what a fantasy! )

  as to rand's anger – take a look at the two taped
  donahue interviews, particularly the first: watch
  the instant persona-shift at the infamous
  encounter with the “hippie” (who looks more like
  a nerdy proto-yuppie) ... take a look at her
  taped last public appearance in new orleans in
  late 1981 and how she reacts to the philosophical
  question from the floor about what she calls
  “this junk” ... most of all, take a look at her
  books and the obsessive, grinding negativity
  toward people other than the heroes and the few
  virtuous more-ordinary folks. look at the
  constant negative biases of her non-fiction
  writing, of her marginalia even (unconvincingly
  excused by the ARI apologist in the foreword).
  rand was seething with negativity and anger, and
  she never dealt with it properly.

  to whirl off into the realm of psychological
  speculation/intuition, i see ayn rand -as a
  person- is as follows: she was a deeply
  traumatized person (walking 2000 miles on foot
  then starvation then terror-state horror will do
  that to you) ... and she never dealt with it. i
  see "ayn rand" as a protector personality who
  guarded the vulnerable child inside - shall we
  call her alissa? - and the two of them only
  rarely had much of any contact with one another.
  they were not utterly dichotomized, but they were
  pretty damn close. a lot of her work, fictional
  and philosophical, can be seen as a mediating
  attempt between these two poles or personae.

  not one word of this is meant to take away from
  my regard for rand both as a thinker and artist
  and as a person (though unfortunately i never met
  her). she quite literally saved my life when i
  found "atlas" when i was 12 and entombed in
  military school. i read her just about every day
  and still find new things in her. she's always
  alive to me. that's one reason she irks me so. it
  is always thus with those i love - i have to be
  able to feel everything for, and with, them.

  michael r. brown






---------------------------------
Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

mike rael:

as to asking nb, i feel he's heard -quite- enough
about this person and no doubt has better things
to do than answer the same question for the 798th
time (or even the occasional new one, at this
point). he's given us a whole memoir (in two
editions) about the experience, of not
inconsiderable depth and self-revelation. let's
look at nb not as our daddy or tribal chief but
as a subjective person like ourselves. he writes
a fan letter at age 20 (this is ~57 years ago),
gets precipitously involved with his idol. it's a
really bad thing and she's -not- how she seemed
to be. (i don't think people appreciate this last
point sufficiently.) nb got in way over his head,
yet now this person is telling him her whole life
and world depends on him - and, let’s bear in
mind, this person is regarded in their circle as
the mind of the ages and the possible savior of
the world. (this ltoo is not well-enough
appreciated.) -she- terminates their relationship
(we're now up to 50 years ago) due to depression,
then when she feels like resuming it’s - just
supposed to resume. did nb do bad things? he did,
and he admitted it, publicly, in 1989 – just as
he did in 1968. which is more than one can say
about rand, apologists and
publishers-of-private-diary-entries to the
contrary notwithstanding. so i’d rather speak to nb about anything but rand.

one other point i want to make about nb, and here
i have to veer into the details of "my years with
ayn rand": nb clearly shows that he was giving
off abundant, copious, prolific signals that he
didn't want to get deeply re-involved *and didn't
want to hurt her.*  rand's private-journal
entries in the book most of us know about
completely back him up there. just about any
woman - and i include even a woman on a peasant
level - would have known instantly that nb was
trying to let her down gently, and also would
know that he was in love with someone else.
should nb have prevaricated? of course not. but
should he have been involved with ar? of course
not. did ar appreciate the unbelievable pressure
she was exerting? no. her private-diary entries
show that abundantly clearly. they really are
shocking to me - not only for the utterly
mechanical view of psychology they display but
for the lack of empathy, the lack of
understanding how human "entities" actually work.
and that's something i hold deeply against ar:
that she paraded around as one with all the
answers (and one with whom nb would ascend to the
stars), and yet she was so oblivious to the
nature of the entities with which she was
dealing. and i very purposefully use her own
lingo there. she didn't live what she preached,
not in her emotional life. she failed to know
herself as a subjective being, and hence didn't
know others as subjective beings. she was, in the
most unfortunate sense, an objectifier.

( it's an old chestnut in dominance/submission
circles that many submissives are narcissistic
and controlling and see their dominants as
pet-objects. indeed, it's somewhat of an axiom
that the submissive holds the real power in the
relationship, and can become vicious and vengeful
when denied / rejected. all that certainly fits.
notice how hank rearden instantly accepts dagny's
leaving his life? she's basically done with him
and he is dismissed, and on the most inconsiderate terms. what a fantasy! )

as to rand's anger – take a look at the two taped
donahue interviews, particularly the first: watch
the instant persona-shift at the infamous
encounter with the “hippie” (who looks more like
a nerdy proto-yuppie) ... take a look at her
taped last public appearance in new orleans in
late 1981 and how she reacts to the philosophical
question from the floor about what she calls
“this junk” ... most of all, take a look at her
books and the obsessive, grinding negativity
toward people other than the heroes and the few
virtuous more-ordinary folks. look at the
constant negative biases of her non-fiction
writing, of her marginalia even (unconvincingly
excused by the ARI apologist in the foreword).
rand was seething with negativity and anger, and
she never dealt with it properly.

to whirl off into the realm of psychological
speculation/intuition, i see ayn rand -as a
person- is as follows: she was a deeply
traumatized person (walking 2000 miles on foot
then starvation then terror-state horror will do
that to you) ... and she never dealt with it. i
see "ayn rand" as a protector personality who
guarded the vulnerable child inside - shall we
call her alissa? - and the two of them only
rarely had much of any contact with one another.
they were not utterly dichotomized, but they were
pretty damn close. a lot of her work, fictional
and philosophical, can be seen as a mediating
attempt between these two poles or personae.

not one word of this is meant to take away from
my regard for rand both as a thinker and artist
and as a person (though unfortunately i never met
her). she quite literally saved my life when i
found "atlas" when i was 12 and entombed in
military school. i read her just about every day
and still find new things in her. she's always
alive to me. that's one reason she irks me so. it
is always thus with those i love - i have to be
able to feel everything for, and with, them.


michael r. brown

Michael B,
    This conversation is verging onto stupidity. If you want to cite specific
writings or videotaped appearance, you can do it. But personally, I don't think
it's worth my time. For God's sake guys, we have on this list the only person
here who really knows Rand well, Nathaniel Branden. Why not just address a post
to him about this subject, if you wish a serious response?
Mike Rael.

"michael r. brown" <foosi@...> wrote:                                 
At 08:09 PM 7/13/2007 -0700, Mike Rael wrote:

  > borderline personalities have a cauldron of anger at bottom, which
  has nothing to do with Rand.

  how can you maintain this in light of her writing, her videotaped
  public appearances, and the memoirs by NB and BB?

  ( please note, i am not a rand-attacker. i have many doubts about her
  but i've been strongly influenced by her and am more interested in
  understanding her and appreciating how she can add to ours lives. )






---------------------------------
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

At 08:09 PM 7/13/2007 -0700, Mike Rael wrote:

  > borderline personalities have a cauldron of anger at bottom, which
has nothing to do with Rand.

how can you maintain this in light of her writing, her videotaped
public appearances, and the memoirs by NB and BB?

( please note, i am not a rand-attacker. i have many doubts about her
but i've been strongly influenced by her and am more interested in
understanding her and appreciating how she can add to ours lives. )

Mike R -

I still haven't seen any evidence that Davey is a troll. How Rand has
been misaligned in the past is irrelevant to whether his post was
sincere or not. I don't think asking whether Rand had a personality
disorder is equivalent to calling her a name, and you have provided no
evidence that it is, nor Davey was posting just to cause problems on
the list.

Thus, I don't see any point in discussing this further with you. In
response to my questions about it, you've simply repeated several
times that Davey is a troll. It's clear that you're not interested in
looking at alternate interpretations to your own. Thus, I will say
once again that I disagree with both your assessment and your response
to that assessment and leave it at that.

Stephanie



--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, Mike Rael <mikesrael3@...>
wrote:
>
> Stephanie,
>    You can't understand if a problem is a "disorder" without
reference to a person's total personality. In Rand's case this is
doubly important. She has been labeled a Fascist by folks who disagree
with or do not understand her ideas. In any case, borderline
personalities have a cauldron of anger at bottom, which has nothing to
do with Rand.
>    I'm experimenting with not being polite with folks who I think
are trolls. If that doesn't meet with your approval, tough luck.
> best,
> Mike Rael
>
> stephanie_m_silberstein <stephanie_m_silberstein@...> wrote:
                           Mike R. -
>
>  I didn't see any "ignoring Rand's achievements in favor of name
>  calling". I only saw someone asking if Rand's problem behaviors could
>  be indicative of Borderline Personality Disorder. Please explain what
>  I am missing.
>
>  Even if your interpretation is correct, that does not justify the tone
>  of your response. Abusive behavior only fans flames--it very rarely,
>  if ever, causes anyone to change his/her behavior.
>
>  Stephanie
>
>  --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, Mike Rael <mikesrael3@>
>  wrote:
>  >    Davey is looking right at Rand's achievements and ignoring them
>  in favor of name-calling. Rand had her problems alright, but that is
>  not innocent intellectual inquiry.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
>  Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Stephanie,
    You can't understand if a problem is a "disorder" without reference to a
person's total personality. In Rand's case this is doubly important. She has
been labeled a Fascist by folks who disagree with or do not understand her
ideas. In any case, borderline personalities have a cauldron of anger at bottom,
which has nothing to do with Rand.
    I'm experimenting with not being polite with folks who I think are trolls. If
that doesn't meet with your approval, tough luck.
best,
Mike Rael

stephanie_m_silberstein <stephanie_m_silberstein@...> wrote:
Mike R. -

  I didn't see any "ignoring Rand's achievements in favor of name
  calling". I only saw someone asking if Rand's problem behaviors could
  be indicative of Borderline Personality Disorder. Please explain what
  I am missing.

  Even if your interpretation is correct, that does not justify the tone
  of your response. Abusive behavior only fans flames--it very rarely,
  if ever, causes anyone to change his/her behavior.

  Stephanie

  --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, Mike Rael <mikesrael3@...>
  wrote:
  >    Davey is looking right at Rand's achievements and ignoring them
  in favor of name-calling. Rand had her problems alright, but that is
  not innocent intellectual inquiry.






---------------------------------
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
  Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mike R. -

I didn't see any "ignoring Rand's achievements in favor of name
calling". I only saw someone asking if Rand's problem behaviors could
be indicative of Borderline Personality Disorder. Please explain what
I am missing.

Even if your interpretation is correct, that does not justify the tone
of your response. Abusive behavior only fans flames--it very rarely,
if ever, causes anyone to change his/her behavior.

Stephanie

--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, Mike Rael <mikesrael3@...>
wrote:
>    Davey is looking right at Rand's achievements and ignoring them
in favor of name-calling. Rand had her problems alright, but that is
not innocent intellectual inquiry.

Davey,
Of course people with low self-esteem hang out on a site dedicated to that goal.
Do you think people hang around the court once the game is won?
We are all shooting for the hoop right now, hoping to score.
But that is up to each individual to figure out when to move on to the next
project.
It will serve you best to consider or ignore those that challenge you
emotionally in a negative way, and reward those that do it in the positive way.
What you pay attention to grows, ultimately.
Dan




   ----- Original Message -----
   From: daveywavey1000
   To: nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 3:13 AM
   Subject: [nathaniel_branden] Re: Did Ayn Rand have a Borderline Personality
Disorder?


   "People" weren't abusive - Mike R was. And now you are being.

   Like a typical abuser, you try to blame the person you are abusing
   for it. You also admit you are a "bitch", then deny you are abusing
   me, and then go on to do it ("less clever than we think you are").

   And while your comments are water off a duck's back to me, I am sure
   there are people in your life that you genuinely hurt. Does it make
   you feel better? Does misery indeed like company?

   Who would have thought that those that hang out on a self-esteem
   related forum would have such low self-esteems - on second thoughts,
   don't answer that.

   --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Lee"
   <mikelee.home@...> wrote:
   >
   > DaveyWavey doesn't get it yet:
   >
   > > I guess it would have been interesting to get NB's point of view,
   > > though that is a pipedream.
   > >
   > > No idea why Mike Rael was so abusive in his response to a sincere
   > > question - though I did some searching on his previous posts, and
   he
   > > seems to have had a tough childhood, and is getting old, and is
   still
   > > single, so that probably explains his bitterness.
   >
   > I'm something of a bitch. I love to stir the pot. So I'm still
   personally
   > granting you non-troll status for sentimental reasons.
   >
   > The reason people were abusive to you is that you aren't as clever
   as you
   > think you are.
   >
   > If you think your original question was pure & sincere, then you're
   even
   > less clever than we think you are.
   >
   > Perhaps you're borderline yourself and that explains your childish
   display
   > of undisciplined and minor talent.
   >
   > Seriously, dude, you wouldn't be the last comic standing.
   >
   > Mike Lee
   > Josh! Blue!
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Lee"
   > > <mikelee.home@> wrote:
   > > >
   > > > Daveywavey who has a really gayvey nom de guerre asks oh-so-
   > > innocently if AR
   > > > was borderline:
   > > >
   > > > > Did Ayn Rand have a Borderiner Personality Disorder - on the
   > > > > alternative, strong borderline traits?
   > > >
   > > > I consider myself an expert, or at least a veteran, on this
   > > subject, having
   > > > banged a borderline for several years.
   > > >
   > > > No, St. Ayn was not borderline. That you might think so
   indicates
   > > that you
   > > > are happily free of personal experience with the borderline
   Species.
   > > >
   > > > And there's no such thing as being borderline borderline. Any
   more
   > > than
   > > > there is being borderline leopard.
   > > >
   > > > This is not to say that being in St. Ayn's presence wasn't a
   DSM4
   > > > kaleidoscopic experience. The colors!
   > > >
   > > > I think it's kind of funny how other people here have been
   offended
   > > by your
   > > > question. I think they're missing the fact that peeing on the
   > > carpet is
   > > > almost always mixed with a charming naivete.
   > > >
   > > > Welcome, grasshopper.
   > > >
   > > > Mike Lee
   > > > 4 what? 4 years old? How cute!
   > > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > Visit Nathaniel Branden's web site at:
   > > http://www.nathanielbranden.com/
   > >
   > > Yahoo! Groups Links
   > >
   > >
   > >
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Stephanie,
    Davey is looking right at Rand's achievements and ignoring them in favor of
name-calling. Rand had her problems alright, but that is not innocent
intellectual inquiry.
Mike Rael

stephanie_m_silberstein <stephanie_m_silberstein@...> wrote:
Hi Davey,

  I think your response illustrates a problem with diagnostic labels.
  The DSM-IV is useful in terms of describing a range of behaviors, but
  there is too much of a tendency to categorise people based upon their
  behaviors. Over-categorisation leads to over-diagnosation (if that's
  even a word) and to people being expected to conform to a diagnosis
  rather than being viewed as individuals.

  Personally, I don't care about whether Ayn Rand was borderline,
  paranoid schizophrenic, manic-depressive, or anything else. I'd rather
  view her as a whole person, take what I can out of her work, and feel
  sad about some poor choices she made that interfered with her
  happiness and the happiness of people around her.

  That being said, I don't think asking a question about Rand's
  psychiatric makeup deserves the kind of anger, sarcasm, and belittling
   that Mike R. expressed. I think he thought that by rewriting your
  question to attack you instead of what he perceived to be an attack on
  Rand, you would draw the parallel he drew and apologise for your
  "offensive" question. I believe that questions are important,
  even--and especially--the ones that make people uncomfortable, and I
  hope you will not withdraw from this list as a result of his behavior.
   I also hope that this incident will not grow into an all-out flame
  war... speculations about either of your characters is unnecessary and
  adds nothing.

  best,
  Stephanie
  --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "daveywavey1000"
  <daveywavey1000@...> wrote:
  >
  >
  > Two other comments:
  >
  > a) Of course you can have a borderline borderlne. To be a BPD under
  > DSMIV required at least 5 out of 9 characteristics. Someone that has
  > 4 isn't BPD, but could be said to have strong borderline traits - as
  > opposed to someone that has only 1 or 2.
  >
  > Everyone has borderline traits. This is a matter of degree. When
  > these traits dominate the personality in an inflexible and all
  > pervasive manner then that person is likely to be BPD.
  >
  > b) You mention that AR was a DSMIV kaleidoscope. You clearly know
  > quite a bit about about psychology - do you think AR had any of the
  > Cluster B Personality Disorders? The reason I choose them is that she
  > seemed quite an unempathetic person, and Cluster B Personality
  > Disorders tend to be "bad people".
  >
  >
  > --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Lee"
  > <mikelee.home@> wrote:
  > >
  > > Daveywavey who has a really gayvey nom de guerre asks oh-so-
  > innocently if AR
  > > was borderline:
  > >
  > > > Did Ayn Rand have a Borderiner Personality Disorder - on the
  > > > alternative, strong borderline traits?
  > >
  > > I consider myself an expert, or at least a veteran, on this
  > subject, having
  > > banged a borderline for several years.
  > >
  > > No, St. Ayn was not borderline. That you might think so indicates
  > that you
  > > are happily free of personal experience with the borderline Species.
  > >
  > > And there's no such thing as being borderline borderline. Any more
  > than
  > > there is being borderline leopard.
  > >
  > > This is not to say that being in St. Ayn's presence wasn't a DSM4
  > > kaleidoscopic experience. The colors!
  > >
  > > I think it's kind of funny how other people here have been offended
  > by your
  > > question. I think they're missing the fact that peeing on the
  > carpet is
  > > almost always mixed with a charming naivete.
  > >
  > > Welcome, grasshopper.
  > >
  > > Mike Lee
  > > 4 what? 4 years old? How cute!
  > >
  >






---------------------------------
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"People" weren't abusive - Mike R was. And now you are being.

Like a typical abuser, you try to blame the person you are abusing
for it. You also admit you are a "bitch", then deny you are abusing
me, and then go on to do it ("less clever than we think you are").

And while your comments are water off a duck's back to me, I am sure
there are people in your life that you genuinely hurt. Does it make
you feel better? Does misery indeed like company?

Who would have thought that those that hang out on a self-esteem
related forum would have such low self-esteems - on second thoughts,
don't answer that.


--- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Lee"
<mikelee.home@...> wrote:
>
> DaveyWavey doesn't get it yet:
>
> > I guess it would have been interesting to get NB's point of view,
> > though that is a pipedream.
> >
> > No idea why Mike Rael was so abusive in his response to a sincere
> > question - though I did some searching on his previous posts, and
he
> > seems to have had a tough childhood, and is getting old, and is
still
> > single, so that probably explains his bitterness.
>
> I'm something of a bitch. I love to stir the pot. So I'm still
personally
> granting you non-troll status for sentimental reasons.
>
> The reason people were abusive to you is that you aren't as clever
as you
> think you are.
>
> If you think your original question was pure & sincere, then you're
even
> less clever than we think you are.
>
> Perhaps you're borderline yourself and that explains your childish
display
> of undisciplined and minor talent.
>
> Seriously, dude, you wouldn't be the last comic standing.
>
> Mike Lee
> Josh! Blue!
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Lee"
> > <mikelee.home@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Daveywavey who has a really gayvey nom de guerre asks oh-so-
> > innocently if AR
> > > was borderline:
> > >
> > > > Did Ayn Rand have a Borderiner Personality Disorder - on the
> > > > alternative, strong borderline traits?
> > >
> > > I consider myself an expert, or at least a veteran, on this
> > subject, having
> > > banged a borderline for several years.
> > >
> > > No, St. Ayn was not borderline. That you might think so
indicates
> > that you
> > > are happily free of personal experience with the borderline
Species.
> > >
> > > And there's no such thing as being borderline borderline. Any
more
> > than
> > > there is being borderline leopard.
> > >
> > > This is not to say that being in St. Ayn's presence wasn't a
DSM4
> > > kaleidoscopic experience. The colors!
> > >
> > > I think it's kind of funny how other people here have been
offended
> > by your
> > > question. I think they're missing the fact that peeing on the
> > carpet is
> > > almost always mixed with a charming naivete.
> > >
> > > Welcome, grasshopper.
> > >
> > > Mike Lee
> > > 4 what? 4 years old? How cute!
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Visit Nathaniel Branden's web site at:
> > http://www.nathanielbranden.com/
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

DaveyWavey doesn't get it yet:

> I guess it would have been interesting to get NB's point of view,
> though that is a pipedream.
>
> No idea why Mike Rael was so abusive in his response to a sincere
> question - though I did some searching on his previous posts, and he
> seems to have had a tough childhood, and is getting old, and is still
> single, so that probably explains his bitterness.

I'm something of a bitch. I love to stir the pot. So I'm still personally
granting you non-troll status for sentimental reasons.

The reason people were abusive to you is that you aren't as clever as you
think you are.

If you think your original question was pure & sincere, then you're even
less clever than we think you are.

Perhaps you're borderline yourself and that explains your childish display
of undisciplined and minor talent.

Seriously, dude, you wouldn't be the last comic standing.

Mike Lee
Josh! Blue!




>
>
>
>
> --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Lee"
> <mikelee.home@...> wrote:
> >
> > Daveywavey who has a really gayvey nom de guerre asks oh-so-
> innocently if AR
> > was borderline:
> >
> > > Did Ayn Rand have a Borderiner Personality Disorder - on the
> > > alternative, strong borderline traits?
> >
> > I consider myself an expert, or at least a veteran, on this
> subject, having
> > banged a borderline for several years.
> >
> > No, St. Ayn was not borderline. That you might think so indicates
> that you
> > are happily free of personal experience with the borderline Species.
> >
> > And there's no such thing as being borderline borderline. Any more
> than
> > there is being borderline leopard.
> >
> > This is not to say that being in St. Ayn's presence wasn't a DSM4
> > kaleidoscopic experience. The colors!
> >
> > I think it's kind of funny how other people here have been offended
> by your
> > question. I think they're missing the fact that peeing on the
> carpet is
> > almost always mixed with a charming naivete.
> >
> > Welcome, grasshopper.
> >
> > Mike Lee
> > 4 what? 4 years old? How cute!
> >
>
>
>
>
> Visit Nathaniel Branden's web site at:
> http://www.nathanielbranden.com/
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Daveywavey is slicing and dicing:

> a) Of course you can have a borderline borderlne. To be a BPD under
> DSMIV required at least 5 out of 9 characteristics. Someone that has
> 4 isn't BPD, but could be said to have strong borderline traits - as
> opposed to someone that has only 1 or 2.
>
> Everyone has borderline traits. This is a matter of degree. When
> these traits dominate the personality in an inflexible and all
> pervasive manner then that person is likely to be BPD.

Whaaa?

You're as likely to find borderline borderlines as to find North and South
Koreans having a picnic and holding hands in the DMZ. Real borderlines are
as to political systems as North Koreans are to the rest of us. The notion
of borderline borderlines is just one of the many sillinesses that DMS4
inflicts on insurance companies and therefore on the rest of us.

> b) You mention that AR was a DSMIV kaleidoscope. You clearly know
> quite a bit about about psychology - do you think AR had any of the
> Cluster B Personality Disorders? The reason I choose them is that she
> seemed quite an unempathetic person, and Cluster B Personality
> Disorders tend to be "bad people".

Ayn Rand was a really good person. Not one person she ever harmed was locked
in a basement with a ball gag and named "The Gimp." She was no criminal.

I don't remember what Cluster B is. Is that having herpes despite being a
virgin?

Rand was renowned for personal generosity. She was an extremely powerful
personality, and managed to get lots of people to dance to her tune. Her
empathy was legendary, if not her sympathy.

Anyhow, if you were half the man she was, you'd be less worried about what
was wrong with her and more appreciative of what was right.

Mike Lee
Jefferson had slaves. Big effing deal.

Hi Ellen,

Thank you for your kind  words. While I disagree with some of your
ideas, I don't think that matters. One of the ways I differ from many
Christians is that I don't believe in the necessity of convincing
other's of Christ's identity. I believe that G-d is a bit different
for each person, and that He judges not so much whether a person
believes in Him in a certain way (or at all!) but in whether a person
has expressed love for self and others, and has made good use of
his/her time on Earth.

In response to your questions:

> It gives you comfort to know that there are those who try to destroy
> truth?  How is this possible?  If you had said that God protects you
> from them or that Jesus' example gave you inspiration to face your
> own struggles, that would have made sense and may have been
> what you meant.  But it came out otherwise and to take comfort
> in the fact that enemies exist needs some explanation.

What I meant is that it gives me comfort to know I am not alone in my
struggles... that the battle between truth and lies is an ancient and
important one. Kind of how Prometheus feels at the end of Anthem when
he identifies with those who fought for the truth in the past.


> And were you from a Christian background before and just
> decided to join the Church or was it all new to you?  This is mere
curiosity
> based on my thinking about how people come to believe stories like
that of
> Jesus.

It was entirely new to me. I was raised as an agnostic Jew. That is,
my father is agnostic but felt it was important for his children to
know something about Judaism, while my mother hated the religion, felt
it was dangerous to stand up for Judaism because of anti-Semitism and
  terrorism, but feared that G-d would punish her if she didn't worship
Him. So the compromise struck by my parents was for the children to be
sent to the least religious school possible, where we would be taught
to give lip service to religious tradition, to memorise prayers
because we were supposed to say them, and not be taught anything that
had any meaning. My knowledge of Jesus' existence or teachings was
limited to hearing Christmas carols in school (I was the only Jewish
child, and feared G-d's wrath if I participated in holiday concerts),
and hearing my grandfather rant that the Messianic Jewish movement,
which is my religion today, was an evil force equivalent to the Nazi
party because it embraces belief in Yeshua (the Hebrew name for Jesus).

I came to my religious beliefs with some skepticism. My boyfriend
believed deeply in G-d. I did not, at the time. But since G-d was
important to him, I decided to experiment with praying, with reading
the Bible, with following the spiritual principles I found within its
pages. I found that what I was doing worked better for my life than my
atheism had. The more I sought G-d, the more I realised the G-d of my
childhood had nothing to do with the real G-d.

When I moved out here and Dave passed away, at first I turned away
from G-d because it didn't seem fair that Dave had died. Finding a
pastor I related well to really helped me get past my initial shock
and grief and begin to move forward with my life. However, that
pastor's church closed due to lack of funds, and I found that other
churches in this area were very dogmatic. They were far too based on
avoiding eternal condemnation and forcing the gospel down people's
throats for my taste. My grandmother--another one of those traditional
Jews who believes that anyone who believes in Jesus is evil--actually
suggested I look at a Messianic temple, which surprised everyone.
There's one in all of North Carolina, about an hour away from me. I'm
much more comfortable with the services there... it combines for me
the best of Jewish traditions and Christian beliefs, IMO.

Anyway, sorry this got long, but that's my journey...
> Good luck with your problems.  Problems usually have solutions.
>
> Ellen
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: stephanie_m_silberstein <stephanie_m_silberstein@...>
> > To: <nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: 7/1/2007 4:51:27 PM
> > Subject: [nathaniel_branden] Re: Leaving the church
> >
> > Mike R., you've asked what sounds like a simple question but which is
> > actually quite a bit more complicated than it seems. A full answer may
> > be beyond the scope of this list--however, I'll do the best I can to
> > answer.
> >
> > Before getting to that, however, I'd like to clarify why I'm answering
> > at all. I don't want to take the list in the direction of debating
> > religion vs. non-religion, particularly if participants are bent upon
> > convincing those who disagree that their beliefs are wrong. I do,
> > however, want to express the truth as I see it, and hope that others
> > are   interested.
> >
> > Now, I have many reasons for my belief in G-d. They mainly boil down
> > to the simple fact that my life before faith was a nightmare I would
> > never want to return to. I was a frightened, angry confused mess of a
> > person, a girl in a woman's body who held herself to impossibly high
> > standards and hated herself for failing to achieve them. I lived by
> > the emotion of the moment while wishing I could be more rational. I
> > had very little respect for myself or for the world in general for not
> > being as it should be, and I made poor choices most of the time based
> > upon a desire to force the world to act as it ought to.
> >
> > My embracing of G-d, and specifically of Christ, changed all that.
> >
> > You see, my basic values haven't changed. I still believe passionately
> > in the importance of ideals such as integrity, truth, and fairness. I
> > still believe that my life is a precious gift not to be squandered,
> > and in making every moment count.
> >
> > However, with G-d in my life, I'm able to express those values rather
> > than get mired down in hatred for the world when it doesn't work the
> > way it ought to. Instead of trying to be this perfectly moral person
> > in an immoral world on my own, I work in partnership with G-d. I allow
> > Him to help me to continue doing that which I know is right to do even
> > when the world is trying to wear me down.
> >
> > On a more theoretical level, I believe that Christ's life prior to His
> > resurrection is a testimony to the strength of truth and the way that
> > fear and lies try to, but ultimately fail, to destroy it. While I know
> > that I am not suffering for my truth in the ways that Christ suffered
> > for His, it gives me comfort and strength to realize that whenever one
> > tries to live by the truth, there are those who will try to destroy
> > them in the name of protecting whatever passes for reality in their
> > minds. I also find Christ's call to be the "light of the world"
> > inspiring, and I am living that call every day.
> >
> > As if all that weren't enough, I have experienced a personal
> > relationship with G-d which has allowed me to trust Him and to allow
> > Him to lead me forward through my life. This is something that is
> > difficult to explain to people who have never experienced it. I don't
> > mean that in any snarky way. It's just been my experience that there's
> > a disconnect occurring between people who have directly experienced
> > G-d and those who have not, and the latter tend to write me off as
crazy.
> >
> > Anyway, I've prayed and I've felt G-d's presence. When I've been
> > depressed, spending time in prayer and meditation has lifted my
> > depression and filled me instead with joy. I've also had felt sense
> > messages from G-d--things like, "You're going to get a job by the end
> > of the week"--and each time these predictions have come true. Not 90%
> > of the time, not 95% of the time, not 99% of the time--100% of the
time.
> >
> > Now, none of this means that my life is somehow perfect because I have
> > aligned myself with G-d. I've had some difficult times in my life. I
> > lived in poverty for two years. My boyfriend, who I loved so very
> > much, died suddenly last August. And I've had the same heartbreaks as
> > everyone else.
> >
> > Why, then, do I believe in G-d? Because as bad as things have
> > sometimes gotten, I truly believe they would be worse if they weren't
> > for Him. I don't think my brain could cope with the idea of some of
> > the things I've experienced being random chance. I think that if it
> > weren't for my faith that G-d has a larger plan and will make good
> > come out of everything I've suffered through, I'd be a confused and
> > frightened mess, always waiting for the next thing to go wrong, always
> > worrying so much about what might happen that I wouldn't be able to
> > function.
> >
> > Of all the reasons I believe in G-d, I think the replacement of fear
> > with peace is the most important. My faith in G-d has translated for
> > me into faith that I will have a good life. I'm no longer afraid to
> > dream big and to stand by my dreams, no matter who tries to discourage
> > me. I know that if I take good care of the things G-d has blessed me
> > with, like my home and my car and my job, He will bless me with even
> > more. I can wake up in the morning and be grateful for this beautiful
> > world He has created and for my part in it instead of angry at the
> > world for being broken and frightened of my own shortcomings.
> >
> > In conclusion, I believe in G-d because my faith is helping me to live
> > my best vision of all life has to offer.
> >
> > One last thing: I'm talking about my life here on Earth. One mistake
> > that I think many Christians make is focusing only on the glory of the
> > world to come, and missing the central question of how to live this
> > life. I'm iffy when it comes to afterlife stuff--my faith in this area
> > is far from perfect. While I do believe that my soul and my
> > boyfriend's will someday be intertwined for eternity, I'm a bit
> > agnostic about what happens after death. I just don't worry about it.
> > I'm here on Earth and I'm going to be the light of the world on Earth,
> > not waste my time here waiting for the world to come.
> >
> > best,
> > Stephanie
> >
> >
> > --- In nathaniel_branden@yahoogroups.com, Mike Rael <mikesrael3@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Stephanie,
> > >    Why do you believe in God?
> >
>