i don't know if this is a question of 'determinism', but simply put, is there a common thread with all of those who have left such and institution? was there a spiritual deathwish lying dormant in us? (snakechick isn't here, but i should still excuse myself for using 'us', 'we' and prescriptive language like 'should'). this (yes, still ambiguous) question is important for those who consider themselves to be 'freers' - people who want to free someone from the grip of humiliating mind-control (from one biased perspective). if we see these people as robo-zombies whose brains have been washed and implanted with a new operating system, maybe there is a glitch in their script. a weakspot. i know this makes us sound like the predators and even if we claim to be saviours, we end up being just like them. but we can look at this without any intention of converting/de-converting/re-converting/re-programming/re-educating or (my personal favourite): educating the person in question. we can simply examine what it was that made us leave. was it that we never surrendered completely? this one is hard for me to say, but i can say that there are some who seemed to have and claim to have surrendered completely and it was the being put out by the oversight that jolted them into the new train of thought. then again, if these people 'sinned' again the church guidelines, they might not have surrendered as completely as they thought, or became 'comfortable' in their walk. at the moment i see it as you either get put out or choose to leave yourself. choosing to leave by yourself could indicate that a lot of thought has been put into the decision over a long period of time. OR that you weren't in the assembly for very long. you might have felt like you belonged somewhere else more than you belonged in the assembly, which may imply that you had become close to work/school mates and/or family, or just never completely severed your outside contacts. the worldview i have now, well, at least many of the points of views and arguments that it comprises, were directed towards me at a time when i had one foot in and out of the church door. yet my mind was still rigid in defending MY GROUP (identity, and therefore ME, or a part of me). those arguments had no effect. but somewhere along the line i decided that i WANTED to agree with them and see the truth in them. it may have something to do with the fact that i felt close to (including blood-relations) the people giving me their secular(?)/intellectual(?) [WORLDLY] point of view, or the fact that i had experienced my first (unnatural) altered state of consciousness (and all it's revelations and 'eye-opening' emotions and realisations/understanding of possible other realities/perspectives and of mental health and effects/vulnerability of various mental states) around about the same time. or was it just that period of transition after being put out? maybe it was enough time (but it was only one month) to feel like i had better support/identity outside of the church? for me, it was a combination of a whole heap of things including the above, for sure. but i don't know if i can put my finger on the turning point. i think it is probably a result of never quite assimilating. it was always 'almost', but i could not let go of the (illusiory[?]) ideal of maintaining my own uniqueness, even if it meant being a little 'on the edge' (in the words of a famous pastor). i think something like this (pride, egocentricism, and other such evils [dignity, even]) could also cause the 'sins' against guidelines and if not, then people really have strong natural emotions (in cases sexual, for instance). if someone is put out for obeying their nature over their second nature, then maybe they realised that certain breeds of christianity are unreasonably unnatural. archaic 'barbaric' 'civilisation'. an evil legacy. (oh no, that's just me). then there's the brutal fact that one is not allowed back. the doors are closed. that rejection after making you dependant. if in this situation, on must go to another church to satisfy the charismatic addiction and eventually embrace the new 'more forgiving' doctrine which helps them realise the wrong in the revivalistic bitches. OR just quit church althogether. i guess many people take it personally. many would become self-hateful and unworthy. it's either that church or none (just like they were led to believe before they were cut-off the methodone project and then told there are many churches out there). some come crawling back and get accepted. then end up thanking the dungeon master for the well-deserved and highly rewarding punishment. so many situations that could be converted into a flow diagram, i'm sure. i'll do it one day when i have the non-laziness. somewhere in between, there may be a loophole. the opportunity for a counterscript. i'm saying, if we look at our collective experiences, we can use that knowledge to our advantage, providing that we have a roughly similar goal/interest... do we? if we are are not too influenced by our bitterness or hatred, i feel that many here at this forum are more honest now that when in the other places. if there is a goal and a higher degree of truth (i know, big statement), shall not justice come to pass? the truth is good, right? what is it/was it that allows us to allow ourselves to believe something else? is it a temptation that is the bait? is it something you were looking for and wanted to hear? is it completely random/spontaneous? is it a seed that plants itself/gets planted and is watered? those who will *never* be persuaded (is this possible) - are they better off in that place or are they the worst victims who should be cared for more?