Tom

I'm not saying you should throw everything out & start over. You say "Use the truth leave the rest pretty simple concept." That's exactly what I'm asking - why don't you do that? Everytime someone shows that PFAL class, the whole class is there - including the "rest" that is not the truth. Why not leave THAT rest out, utilize what truth you've found, & YOU teach the truth? Of course, everyone's "truth" is laced with error, but to deliberately leave in what you acknowledge to be error doesn't strengthen what remains; it let's the error remain. You can separate truth from error, right? I'm not saying throw out the truth; I'm saying throw out the error. It's supposed to be the foundation of the Word, & it has error - not only the error that is inescapable in anyone's product - but error that you recognize as such. I say that if you can't separate out the truth from the error, then you ought not to be sharing the product with others ignorantly - you're the blind leading the blind into the same ditch that all greasespotters inevitably visited one midnight, but didn't really become greasespots by the grace & mercy of God. But I'm saying you can separate truth from error, & that's how you should teach the foundation to the Word - in as pure a manner as you know how to. That having been said, I must also say that besides the errors that have been pointed out here & there in this thread, there are what must be called critical errors in PFAL with regard to its mission to lay the foundation of the Word for people. The Word says "... let every man take heed how he builds thereupon, for other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." That business where Wierwille sets himself up to be called the teacher has got to go. Matthew 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. This is in the middle of one of Jesus' most scathing rebukes to the hypocritical Pharisees because they took the place of Christ. Jesus Christ IS the foundation that has been laid. He is the teacher. Any solid foundation would have to keep our "father" or our "teacher" from taking his place & let Jesus Christ only take that place.

QUOTE Some of what Wierwille taught was plagiarized. Of that plagiarized material, some is biblically accurate, some is not. The original authors are no more infallible than Wierwille. Some of what Wierwille taught was original. Of that original material, some is biblically accurate, some is not. Wierwille was not immune from being right, despite his moral failings. Some of what Wierwille taught, while not plagiarized, is not strictly original either, but reworked from other sources. Some plagiarized material was combined with other plagiarized material or with his own work to make a point that the original author was not making, sometimes this was deliberate, sometimes it betrays a lack of understanding by Wierwille of what the original author was trying to say. Some of what Wierwille taught was based on definitions of words in biblical languages that cannot be backed up by any other sources, in other words he made them up. There are also claims of fact that are also apparently made up. This undermines much of what he taught, it being based on unsupportable foundations. White Dove, "This much we agree on Oak" Wow! that's a lot! So, again, White Dove, why weigh truth abainst error? Why lace truth with error? Why not teach the truth & leave the error out? Isnt' that part of waking up and strengthening the things that remain as Dylan exhorted?

What happened to speaking the truth in love? So what, truth is truth. Why sign your posts "LOVE FROM THE DOVE....?" Why not "HATE FROM THE BLOODSUCKING WORM...?" I think it is the ellipsis, the three dots at the end of your signature indicating what's been omitted (or surpressed as the case may be) that makes all the difference.

Okay, okay, it's not "horseleach." It's "horseleech." Any of several large freshwater leeches A bloodsucker - Carnivorous or bloodsucking aquatic or terrestrial worms typically having a sucker at each end

The Word talks about giving. The difference is if a godly man counsels you on giving, his goal is your edification; if a thief tells you to give, he is after your life's blood. Proverbs 30:15 ¶The horseleach hath two daughters, crying, Give, give...

Oldiesman, "You know what they say when you foot-u-me? I would never assume that just because an internet opinion is not refuted, it is agreed upon." Oldie, I'm just trying to get some of the PFAL proponents to step up to the plate. The longer these questions about error in PFAL go unanswered... Well, PFAL proponents are losing the field by forfeit. It's downright embarrassing. What happened to the boldness that PFAL was supposed to give students? The longer the silence goes on, the more I think my questions were too close to the truth for them to handle.

Wow, what a concept, "...one monolithic group who don't have differing opinions." Then we could put a class together. We could call it DFAL, Detractors for Absentee Living. We wouldn't have to think at all anymore. Or answer any questions put to us on internet forums. We could say, "Just take DFAL; all questions will be answered at the end of the class." Trust me.

They're never wrong, Belle. They're not always right, but they're never wrong. Somehow, I'm finding it hard to join in the applause. Call me jaded, but it seems to me that TWI has decided not to close up shop, and, because of their infamous reputation in the sex area, the overwhelming percentage of newcomers with inquiring minds demanding to know TWI's doctrine in this area has forced TWI to publish this product of "in depth" research concerning the present truth to those on its outermost circle. The real in depth research is reserved for those who can handle it - as always.

"2.2," dang, no problem with your memory. 2.2046 pounds, but whose counting THAT closely?

I just read through all the posts on this thread. IMO, & this is somewhat remarkable to me - I don't think I've seen so many posts on a thread where it seems to me that there are so many diverse opinions, and yet, basically, everyone seems right in what they're saying. I just have one question. Other than freelady, everyone else who is posting in favor of showing PFAL has been around for a loong time, and, as has been pointed out, none of you engage in refuting the posts that point out doctrinal errors in PFAL. I can only assume that you agree that those errors are in there. Oh yeah, the queston: Why don't you just teach the Word that you find in PFAL & leave out the error? Wasn't PFAL supposed to teach you how to separate truth from error? Heck, talk about sitting through the class many times! Many of you are in your 50's with 30 or 40 years of PFAL behind you - now THAT'S a lot of PFAL. Personally, I don't think PFAL was the simplistic dippy thing that some have spoken of here, the it's only a bible class for heaven's sake thing like it was some camp middle class parents sent their pain in the butt kids to during the summer so they could get rid of them. Where was it - PFAL 77? We were issued a test that we were told was issued to graduating seminary students to test their bible comprehension. It was supposed to show us how comprehensive PFAL was. Now, maybe we were being lied to about the test, but I did score in the top 5% of graduating seminary students, and, basically, every answer I put down there was from the foundational PFAL class. Surely, if the product is worth a darn, after decades of sitting through it, one ought to be able to teach the Word that is foundational in a comprehensive manner. Sooo, why not? Dr. Wierwille/mangod worship? PFAL worship? Too lazy? The class is really great, but I'm a lousy student, so much so that not only can't I teach it, but I can't work the Word enough to put together a decent defense of it concerning the "errors" that have been pointed out? Whatever Mike says? Detractor's questions are foolish and ignorant, and the Word directs me not to answer them, but PFAL is great - take my word for it? I'm not teaching the Word from PFAL without the errors for a reason a lot nicer and more logical than any that you have brought up - but I'm not going to tell you?

Anyone think my eyes look kind of bloodshot in that picture? I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea.

Off course that's all second hand - I, of course, like the other Tom, never having had first hand experience with anything like that.

Maybe you(s) were closer to the source - or maybe it was a "key" for $90 & not a lb, but I don't think so. Let's see, if memory serves (& THAT'S iffy) it was the late 60's in Long Island - or maybe it was the early 70's. But an ounce was $20, & a nickle bag was 1/4 of an ounce. ,

Ah, thanks Groucho.

200 pounds of marijuana /a quarter of a million dollars. Dang, that's $1250 a pound. Is that what pot is going for these days? I should bought stock on it in the 60's when it was $90/lb.

Actually, I don't know how to get to the chat that you're talking about, Sir.

I figure that the "keys," in the verse, context, & previous usage are how the Word interprets itself. How old school, I know. But hold on - that's how all words interpret themselves. Otherwise no one would have any idea what anyone else is saying. As a matter of fact, that's how all life interprets itself to us if you broaden the terminology - everything we experience interprets itself as we place the experience in its context in the light of other experiences we've had. That's how we come to know what a chair is - a rather complex learning process. Otherwise, everything would be a confusing 3-diminsional color collage - except maybe your mother's eyes and the milk that comes out of her tit. So why should it seem odd that God's Word interprets itself that way? But God's Word, being God's words, does it better (go figure). His words are purified in a furnace of fire (now THAT might be worth thinking about - what is the furnace of fire that purifies God's Word? But that's a tangent. Point is the keys of intgerpretation are logically extrapolated from the idea that life has some kind of coherency to it, that things about us exist in some kind of relationship with themselves - that all is not chaos, that there is some kind of integrity to our experiences. What follows that assumption IS critical thinking. Everyone uses it - the keys - to make sense of life. It works better with the bible because the Word of God has integrity (and the bible is generally closer to the Word of God than what Joe on the street says). But even if the proposition that the Word of God is purified far beyond man's words to the point where we can say even that it is perfect is accepted, and even if we also accept that the keys are perfect, that doesn't mean that we can understand the Word merely by utilizing the keys. Why not? Because words are symbols; they are not the real thing. The word "chair" is not the chair. It can only be understood in conjunction with some life experience with chairs or things like chairs. In the end, the chair is the chair whether or not we call it that or write about it. We understand it to be so when we have experience with the chair, and we know it is a chair when someone calls it that. We have seen it to so and compared it to the myriad of other things we have come to know in the physical realm. Someone calls it a chair and we compare our experience with it with the other things we have come to know. Comparing physical things with physical, we have figured out what it is. Likewise with the spiritual. The words of God talk of spiritual things. If we experience things on the spiritual plane, we can understand the words spoken about spiritual things as we compare the words about spiritual things with the spiritual things we have known. We're comparing spiritual thins with spiritual things. So spiritual things are spiritually discerned, like physical things are physically discerned. That doesn't mean we can expect to ignore the context in which things of the Word are said (remember in the context is a key) and understand anything spoken spiritually as God gives us revelation in a vacuum. It means the opposite. It means that we can only understand things spiritually as we view them in their context - both in the speaking (in the Word) and in our experience of spiritual things, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. That's how the Word inteprets itself - at least that 's how I see it. I don't check my brain at the door to spiritual world. But without the spirit, the brain is useless when it comes to understanding spiritual things. They work together - that's the integrity of the Word interpreting itself in our lives. Growing up into the Word, Tom

Hi all you Ohio folk. Listen, I just received an email from a friend who told me that her daughter & kids are moving to Akron, & she wants to know if there are any fellowships there - non-way fellowships. Anyone know who I might contact? Thanks, Tom

Aww, I'm sorry Irish. Please be reminded of one place that I know that the Lord specifically gives us words to comfort one another with in times like this: 1 Thessalonians 4:13  ¶But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14  For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15  For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. 16  For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17  Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18  Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

LOL, when Irisheyes are smiling :)-->

I don't get what you're saying, Irish. How can Jesus knowing that Lazarus' sickness was NOT unto death indicate that Jesus knew that Lazarus would die?

Irisheyes, "He knew that was going to happen." Did he? Human beings don't know everyting that's going to happen.

Probably because they've already come back as frogs & such.

For what it is worth, I "died" several times & had to be brought back by doctors, & I don't remember seeing any light at the end of any tunnel. Actually, I don't remember anything about these death experiences - silly me, I figured it was because I was dead. I realize that is purely anecdotal, but then again, so are the light at the end of the tunnel experiences. Not too many of those anecdotes saying, "Oh yeah, I saw dead people all over the place; real population problem on the other side."

Mike, that last post of yours was beautiful and powerful.