T-Bone

Thanks for clarifying that. I can understand your opinion from your reference point. Allow me to share my thoughts on the ideas talked about on this thread. My position: I am a Christian and believe God, the Creator, had the Bible written. Furthermore, in my humble opinion I think God had the message in the Bible written primarily for the salvation of our souls rather than to satisfy our intellectual curiosity. In other words – I believe the Bible is a means to an end [connecting with God to experience a transforming relationship with Him] and not an end in itself [becoming a Bible-know-it-all].And although there are lots of “meaty” things in the Bible to think about – I think a person comes to Christ not because it’s intellectually satisfying but because they realize their soul is in such a miserable state [worse than New York – LOL – sorry I’m from there and couldn’t resist a good set up]. I’m not posting to argue about your initial post and main idea [“So...if God forgave adam, and adam's sins weren't passed down to me, there was no need for a redeemer, no need for jesus to die. and christianity dries up and blows away…”] – but to point out what a difference a point of view makes. I can understand how someone who believes in God but doesn’t accept the Bible as true – would interpret the God revealed in the Bible as being barbaric, unforgiving and unloving, especially so from your example of parents dealing with their children. For me on the other hand [from my Christian viewpoint] Sunesis and Bliss’ admirable explanation of the need for a savior make perfect sense! And from within the framework of my belief system [i’m not saying this to prove a point but to reveal how our minds will work to justify our viewpoint] I make some inferences [they may be right or wrong – it’s just MY reasoning or “philosophizing”]: God created a morally responsible universe [giving His creatures freewill, establishing a standard of right and wrong, and a code of justice for infractions]. God is loving and forgiving [in providing a means of redemption]. And then thinking from the standpoint of a parent and civilized person [my kids would say “you’re either one or the other” LOL :) ] – I personally would consider a country barbaric that had no justice system nor moral or ethical standards.

Okay - maybe this is just a little off topic - but it ties in - I swear!...In the movie The Squid and the Whale the son of a writer passes off an old Pink Floyd tune as his own at a school assembly...When confronted later by a school official who figures that out - the kid says something like "well I could have written it" - when it was pointed out he wasn't even around when it was written he said "a mere technicality."

I think you've got a valid point there - Kevlar...And another thing - right after I read those trigger words - I stood up and began lining up chairs - everybody in the office cafeteria was staring at me some sort of Manchurian Candidate thing I guess.

Captain, captain!!!!! We've picked up a message from the Borg vessel with TWI markings on the hull: "You will be assimilated - resistance is futile."

Excerpts of posts by Sprawled Out on this thread in bold red: “So...if God forgave adam, and adam's sins weren't passed down to me, there was no need for a redeemer, no need for jesus to die. and christianity dries up and blows away…i will say you told a good story, sunesis. well done. and it does seem to make sense, until you really think about it. first of all, from what i know of the bible (and i used to know a bit, back in the day), most of what you said is pieced together from here and there, really a cobbled-together theology that's been handed down, with the blanks filled in as needed. the bible doesn't really SAY half of that stuff. all that business about lucifer and the earth becoming without form--it's all just speculation. there's no way to really link one with the other. even the stuff about adam's fall is largely conjecture. NONE of what went on in his head and heart is written in genesis. none of that "how come God's holding back from me" stuff is really there. i get that it's nice and it seems to fit. but that doesn't make it true. or honest….me personally, i believe in a bigger God than you seem to. a God who loves bigger, more perfectly than i do. a God who understands we're only human. one who wouldn't require something as barbaric as a blood sacrifice for me to "get right" with him. i'm sorry, kids, i just can't get behind a God like that. if you can, good for you. but no thanks, no church for me….you think i'm bitter. but i'm not bitter at all. because i don't believe that God did any of those things. i believe that God is loving and forgiving, and would never set us up for failure. that doesn't mean i want to wipe my butt with scripture, just that i don't want to wash my brain with it…” Sprawled Out, I hope you don’t mind that I pulled together some of your posts – I wanted to get a better idea of your viewpoint. That is why I mentioned some things earlier about critical thinking – how it helps reveal the “underpinnings” of our thinking process. That sort of goes in line with my saying it would be logical to establish a reference point – where are you coming from – what is your viewpoint? Reviewing the above statements I gather that: A. you do believe in God but B. do not accept the Bible as true? It would be helpful if you would confirm/clarify those two points.

I didn't respond to this last night because I thought I'd wind up repeating myself with what I said in the above post. But now I feel I need to say something. It looks like What the Hey and Mike parrot the same propaganda from PFAL. What the Hey, you ought to provide some documentation for that accusation in bold red...There's lots of threads on GSC that get into VPW's twisting of the Scriptures to back up his theology...And I'm not saying everyone else has got it right - but usually legitimate scholars are very skilled in their area of expertise and provide sufficient evidence for the ideas they forward. Unlike VPW handling "with" in John 1:1 - where to suit his theology makes a serious departure from what the Greek word pros means - I got into that a little bit on the With Apologies to Jesus and the Trinity thread, along with Raf and MarkOmalley clarifying the definition of pros, see below [especially post # 32 and following], http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...opic=9372&st=20#

What the Hey's words are in bold red [whereas the rest of the black text in quotes is What the Hey quoting me and my response below the quotes is in blue text– I tried to organize things nice and neat but it does get kind of confusing – I figured what the heck as long as What the Hey doesn't say WTF]. "…In my opinion, the above method ignores textual research, scholarship, hermeneutics, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit and assumes VPW's theology is the standard of reference. Fine. That may indeed be your opinion regarding PFAL, but those are not necessarily the facts regarding PFAL. Your statement only makes one aware that you value your opinion(s) more than the textual rexearch, scholarship, and the "illumination of the Holy Spirit (whatever that might mean to you) etc." I think you're a little confused – so I'll state it differently – I believe VPW's way of figuring out what the original Word of God said was by twisting Scripture through his personal theology [an accusation he fired at translators]. And contrary to what you say – I try to form an opinion BASED ON textual research The New Testament TransLine [/b]by Michael Magill, The Expositor's Greek Testament edited by W. Robertson Nicoll and The New English Translation: Second Beta Edition with 60,237 Translators Notes, from Biblical Studies Press – and also have 34 different translations of the Bible some of which are only the New Testament – and speaking of Greek, why did VPW lie about his study of Greek? That's a whole other subject covered in WordWolf's thread The Way: Living in Wonderland – I even posted a letter on that thread from a school denying VPW ever completed any courses there that he claimed he took! ], scholarship - knowledge adhering to high intellectual standards [like books and papers by authors with legitimate credentials and that know their material because it is their material – not plagiarized], hermeneutics – a branch of theology dealing with the principles governing biblical exegesis and interpretation, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit [John 7:17; II Timothy 2:7; I John 2:27 to cite a few places]. "I also see where Mike pulls his outlandish claims from – like the one about the ancient scriptures being inaccessible & etc. I am not sure what you mean here by "inaccessible", as anyone can purchase a Strongs or a Youngs Analytical Concordance (there are sources on-line as well) an Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Bullinger's Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, Bishop K.C. Pillai's Orientalism of the Bible - i.e., "Light Through an Eastern Window" to name just a few. That hardly makes searching the scriptures to anybody: "inaccessible". But where all these biblical tools fall short is in the FACT that they DO NOT (as VPW sates in PFAL) Compare the scriptures - one word w/ another word - one verse w/ another verse so there is NO CONTRADITION. Only PFAL makes this claim. Mike's claim is that PFAL has already done that job for us, and because of that there is no need for us to: "reinvent the wheel". That doesn't mean one can never do it, it's just that it is no longer necessary for one to do so." Mike is the one who used the term "inaccessible" – here's the entire statement he made: Mike on May 2 2006, 08:54 AM "The ancient scriptures are not accessible, and the modern man-made reconstructions of them are FAR from definitive, shifting about constantly by the latest theological fads in translation and manuscript rating." I'll let Mike answer that one for you – I'm waiting myself for his answer… According to the biblical tools you cited comparing verses/words is not a function they feature – simply because of the purpose of their design: for example – an Interlinear – a text of alternating lines in different languages, a Concordance – an alphabetical index of the principal words in a book. Use the right tool for the right job. There's quite a lot of resources available through bookstores that compare verses/words, define words, focus on grammatical, cultural and historical aspects of the Scriptures: Bible Dictionaries, Dictionaries of the Bible Languages, Bible Encyclopedias, Systematic Theologies, Commentaries, specific biblical studies. The reason I left TWI is because of the contradictions I found in some of their doctrine!... It's okay that Mike feels PFAL has done the work for him – I'm not satisfied with such slipshod work. I don't think PFAL is up there with inventing the wheel. PFAL is more like New York potholes – a treacherous zone for any brand of tire. "From what I've seen so far, Mike's method of getting back to authentic prophecy is an erroneous adaptation of VPW's erroneous method. The key phrase in this statement here, of course, is: "what I've seen so far". That again is one stating their own opinion on the matter. Apparenlty they can't get beyond the "what I've seen so far" which leads them to the conclusion that VPW's method is erroneous. I might ask: How did one arrive at that conclusion when VPW may have used a better microscope than what they may have currently available to them?" Context, What the Hey – I'm talking about Mike – "From what I've seen so far, Mike's method…" Thinking about VPW's penchant for plagiarism – perhaps you're mistaking a stethoscope for a microscope. He would be able to eavesdrop on other people's ideas.

Corrupted intellect - that's why I said that was a personal belief of mine - one arrived out by following the inferences from the study of the fall of man. Though corrupted they are the means of receiving God's message. I mentioned needing a reference point/determining a criteria for evaluating as a course of trying to set intellectual standards.[see the thread on Critical thinking http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=10050#]. I understand you saying your reference point is "what do I you think?" - the tools of critical thinking are to help you establish some sort of criteria upon which to make your decision. I think we all operate from some basis of biases, prejudices, assumptions, etc. That's why I mentioned mine [my personal beliefs, viewpoints]. The idea of critical thinking is to become aware of the underpinnings of your thinking process. As far as anything I learn being suspect - there is that distinct possibility [that I'm wrong] - however I believe God has a way of validating truth internally for the Christian - that's why I mentioned those two verses.

I respect you for your honesty - and that's why I don't want to brow beat anyone on this stuff. That's what critical thinking is all about - evaluating things. I love threads like this - it gets me thinking about things - going down avenues I normally wouldn't go. Here's a great website for critical thinking: http://www.criticalthinking.org/

Sprawled Out, I may be misunderstanding you - and just wanted to elaborate on what I said earlier about using critical thinking. The "gatekeeper" if you will on a belief system is the individual that holds that belief system. I know I'm stating the obvious - but what I'm getting at is that as we examine ideas, evidence, etc. to figure out if we're going to accept them or not - we have to establish criteria by which to judge them. The criteria we choose usually because of some valid reason or reasons [that's why I referenced Gardner's 7 factors involved in changing minds]... I am a Christian and believe the Bible is God's truth. I may be totally wrong because that is a viewpoint that came from the basic "kernel" of my belief system. I was raised in a Christian home [so don't know what came first the chicken or the egg LOL on belief in God stuff]. But what has been the impetus for my conviction that there is a God has always been [as far back as I can remember] the belief that there is an Intelligent Designer behind this created order. Again, tracking the "evolution" of my belief system - I ASSUMED [again I may be wrong] this Intelligent Designer had the Bible written... That being said - I would also like to add my faith has come a long way since I was a kid - and especially since I left TWI. I guess everyone's route to Christianity is different - that's just my story. I just wanted to point out what I thought was a "flaw" in your above premise. My personal belief is that our intellect like everything else we've inherited from Adam and Eve is corrupt and so from the get-go we're at a disadvantage in determining truth. I do believe God appeals to our intellects - both before and after we become a Christian. And I base that on not only personal study but personal experience - also - promised by Jesus Christ in John 7:17 [where he said if anyone would obey the truth they would know it's from God] and I John 2:27 speaking of the illumination of the Holy Spirit. I personally don't have a problem intellectually with anything in the Bible - I may not understand certain things or subjects but continue to look into them. The subject of original sin, inherited sin, our sin nature, God's forgiveness, etc. - all the stuff you mentioned in your initial post - are things I've wondered about, checked out, studied - but I didn't think I should debate anyone on whether or not those things are so. Perhaps I'm wrong - but I thought it would be logical if you first determined a reference point - like: Is there a God, Is the Bible true, etc.

I agree with Mark, Rascal and Invisible Dan - it can't be just a going through the motions/window dressing kind of thing and would also like to throw in II Corintians 7:11:For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demostrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter.

Thanks for your input, Belle. And I don't think there's a problem with "analysis paralysis." I've noticed a few of your posts where you've stated "I don't know" on the topic. I'm that way on a lot of things. I've said before after MarkOmalley's poll on beliefs I could have answered "I don't know" on a lot of them. I'm comfortable with that. It's not like I've written any books so I've got to defend my position or that I'm a representative for some organization and have to promote their doctrine...I enjoy the freedom to think for myself and have some intellectual humility in that I realize I'm not perfect, make mistakes and I can learn from others.

Happy Berfday Jonny Lingo - and I wish you luck hanging sheetrock - something I HATE to do - that stuff always finds its way into my eyeballs!

Another thread on the Rapture/Return of Christ would be refreshing – as long as it doesn't wind up being more of Mike alluding to PFAL or dodging questions. Although in the post directly below he does directly quote PFAL - he also re-interprets the author's own words by inserting "[PFAL writings]." Mike posted May 7 2006 2:51 PM "…What I'm trying to point out is that FOR US GRADS, we get can a GREATER VIEW of the Return than what the rest of the world can get. We can see it NOW spiritually in this early spiritual phase. Here is a passage I have posted many times and should be totally familiar with everyone. Searching this GSC board for the other places where I've posted it should bring in many details worth keeping in mind. GMWD p. 227-228 CHAPTER TWELVE The Final Victory The great hope of the Christian Church is the return of Christ and our gathering together unto him. There are aspects of Christ's return which we find most clearly explained by God's rightly-divided Word [PFAL writings]…" Mike posted May 7 2006 3:44 PM "Tom, THANK YOU for posting on PFAL and not me. You wrote: Mike, don't you think that if veepee had meant "PFAL writings" he would have said it? He didn't and he didn't... but I know you won't let that stop you." There are lots of ways to refer to what I usually call the PFAL writings. There is no rightly divided Word sold in regular bookstores, not in pure form anyway. PFAL writings are the only things Dr COULD be referring to here. *** Dr wrote: "Having this background, we can now turn to the Word of God and see its clarity." You wrote: "Again Mike, notice here... veepee didn't say "turn to PFAL"..." Again, Tom, where are YOU going to turn to get the Word of God into your hands, or on your desk, or on my Table of Challenge? What Word of God that has weight and visibility to all, that is tangible and is concrete, that we dare not alter and must accept as is CAN WE TURN TO and see clear? There's only one answer: PFAL!" Mike is the message – so the last line in the Expanded Amplified and Mortified Translation of the above post is "There is only one answer: Mike's interpretation of PFAL's interpretation of the Word of God." I've posted below an excerpt from PFAL that reveals VPW's idea of translating the Word of God was self-referencing. The following is from Power For Abundant Living: The Accuracy of the Bible by VPW, co 1971, American Christian Press, Chapter 11, The Translations of the Word of God, page 128, 142: "…Since we have no originals and the oldest manuscripts that we have date back to the fifth century A.D., how can we get back to the authentic prophecy which was given when holy men of God spoke? To get the Word of God out of any translation or out of any version, we have to compare one word with another word and one verse with another verse. If it the Word of God, then it cannot have a contradiction for God cannot contradict Himself. Error has to be either in the translation or in one's own understanding. When we get back to the original, God-breathed Word – which I am confident we can – then once again we will be able to say with all the authority of the prophets of old, 'Thus saith the Lord.'…In this study on Power for Abundant Living in which we are interested in the accuracy and integrity of God's Word, we must get back to that original Word which was given when holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. We must strip off the translators' theologies which have come about with man-made devices and once more discover the perfect God-breathed Word." In my opinion, the above method ignores textual research, scholarship, hermeneutics, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit and assumes VPW's theology is the standard of reference. I also see where Mike pulls his outlandish claims from – like the one about the ancient scriptures being inaccessible & etc. From what I've seen so far, Mike's method of getting back to authentic prophecy is an erroneous adaptation of VPW's erroneous method. It's like making photocopies from photocopies. They keep getting lighter and lighter – except in this case it's farther and farther from the truth.

What’s your thoughts on critical thinking? What works for you when you’re trying to think clearly about something? One of my favorite things about Grease Spot is being able to think out loud. On any given topic - I like it that ideas and feedback come from people with different viewpoints. In my opinion that is one of the most vital aspects of GSC and why I come here. It’s a group of critical thinkers getting together! Critical thinking is something we all do in varying degrees in just about everything we do – from car shopping to developing a viewpoint or belief system. My first car was a used 1967 Chevy Malibu – GIVEN to me by my older brother. I didn’t scour the classifieds, test drive a few models – my brother being the motor-head that he was did all that, even fixed it up for me. Being a teenager – I wasn’t in a position to look a gift horse in the mouth. Years later – as an adult I did a lot of research before putting hard earned money down on my car of choice. I liken my acceptance of PFAL to getting a car from my brother. I had no prior theological training, was impressed with how grads of PFAL seem to have answers for everything, and it looked to me like everything I ever wanted to know about the Bible was put together in one class – all the work was done for me! It took a major crisis [like the aftermath of Geer’s Patriarch] to show me the need for critical thinking in my belief system. Below I’ve copied some notes from two books that I thought might be helpful in the discussion. The following is from Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life by Richard Paul and Linda Elder, co. 2002, Financial Times Prentice Hall, pages 7,11,13,15: “…Critical thinking is the disciplined art of ensuring that you use the best thinking you are capable of in any set of circumstances. The general goal of thinking is to “figure out the lay of the land.” We all have multiple choices to make. We need the best information to make the best choices…Our subconscious interest is often in getting what we want, not in describing ourselves [or the world] in a true and honest fashion. That being said, most of our concepts are ‘invisible’ to us, though implicit in our talk and behavior. So is much of our thinking! We would be amazed, and sometimes shocked, if we saw all of our thinking displayed for us on a large screen…You develop as a thinker when you explicitly notice the thinking you are doing and when you become committed to recognizing both strengths and weaknesses in that thinking. You develop as a thinker as you build your own ‘large screen’ on which to view your thinking… …One of the most important things you can do for yourself is to begin the process of becoming a ‘critic’ of your thinking. You do this not to negate or ‘dump on’ yourself, but to improve yourself, to begin to practice the art of skilled thinking and lifelong learning. To do this you must ‘discover’ your thinking, see its structure, observe its implications, and recognize its basis and vantage point… …The Problem - Everyone thinks. It is our nature to do so. But much of our thinking, left to itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed, or downright prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life and that of what we produce, make or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought. Shoddy thinking is costly, both in money and in quality of life. Excellence in thought, however, must be systematically cultivated. The Definition – Critical thinking is that mode of thinking – about any subject, content, or problem – in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them. The Result – A well-cultivated critical thinker: · Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely; · Gathers and assesses relevant information, and effectively interprets it; · Comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards; · Thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as need be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences; and · Communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems. Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities…” As we work through problems in our critically thinking process – it is often to some end – to come to a decision or change our minds about something. Below, author Howard Gardner identifies seven factors that he suggests play a crucial role when we change our minds. The following is from pages 14 to 18 of Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our Own and Other People’s Minds, by Howard Gardner, co. 2004, Harvard Business School Press: 1. Reason. Especially among those who deem themselves to be educated, the use of reason figures heavily in matters of belief. A rational approach involves identifying of relevant factors, weighing each in turn, and making an overall assessment. Reason can involve sheer logic, the use of analogies, or the creation of taxonomies…an individual guided by rationality would attempt to identify all of the relevant considerations and weigh them proportionately. 2. Research. Complementing the use of argument is the collection of relevant data. Those with scientific training can proceed in a systematic manner, perhaps even using statistical tests to verify – or cast doubt on – promising trends. But research need not be formal; it need only entail the identification of relevant cases and a judgment about whether they warrant a change of mind… 3. Resonance. Reason and research appeal to the cognitive aspects of the human mind; resonance denotes the affective component. A view, idea, or perspective resonates to the extent that it feels right to the individual, seems to fit the current situation, and convinces the person that further considerations are superfluous. It is possible, of course, that resonance follows on the use of reason and/or research; but it is equally possible that the fit occurs at an unconscious level…Resonance often comes about because one feels a “relation” to a mind-changer, finds that person “reliable,” or “respects” that person…I note that rhetoric is a principal vehicle for changing minds. Rhetoric may rely on many components: In most cases, rhetoric works best when it encompasses tight logic, draws on relevant research, and resonates with an audience… 4. Representational Redescriptions. A change of mind becomes convincing to the extent that it lends itself to representation in a number of different forms, with these forms reinforcing one another…when it comes to matters of instruction – be it in an elementary school classroom or a managerial workshop – the potential for expressing the desired lesson in many compatible formats is crucial. 5. Resources and Rewards. …Sometimes, however, mind change is more likely to occur when considerable resources can be drawn on…[or if] Individuals are being rewarded for one course of behavior and thought rather than the other. Ultimately, however, unless the new course of thought is concordant with other criteria – reason, resonance, research, for example – it is unlikely to last beyond the provision of resources. 6. Real World Events. Sometimes, an event occurs in the broader society that affects many individuals, not just those contemplating a mind change. Examples are wars, hurricanes, terrorist attacks, economic depressions – or, on a more positive side, eras of peace and prosperity, the availability of medical treatments that prevent illness or lengthen life, the ascendancy of a benign leader or group or political party… 7. Resistance. The six factors identified so far can aid in an effort to change minds. However, the existence of only facilitating factors is unrealistic…While it is easy and natural to change one’s mind during the first years of life, it becomes difficult to alter one’s mind as the years pass. The reason, in brief, is that we develop strong views and perspectives that are resistant to change… What’s your thoughts on critical thinking? What works for you when you’re trying to think clearly about something?

Thanks for sharing your letter and responses, Mr.Pipes - my favorite part is the above quote - courageous and insightful!!!!

Welcome to Grease Spot Café, PaulTony - I'm glad you got out!...Hey, yah gotta try the French Vanilla Cappuccino here - it's better than the stuff at Exxon On the Run - and cheaper too.

Glad to hear everyone's okay, TheEvan. I remember this happened to a neighbor across the street when I was a kid. Worked on a repair job a few years ago of a similar house/car wreck. Man it's freaky everytime I hear of something like this!

Thanks Sprawled Out for an honest sharing/great thread idea! I've come to this thread several times and resisted the desire to post - because I wasn't sure what to say...And I kept wondering if I was having a knee-jerk reaction from my former TWI days like "somebody help that unbeliever over there - quick!!!!"...Honestly, there's not much I should say to try to convince you to think otherwise than the way you think now. I think questions like this each person has got to work out for themselves...I don't think you're asking for my thoughts on what I believe about that stuff. I think everyone that leaves TWI goes through a big reflective thinking process...Something that has helped me figure out what I want to believe is critical thinking. That's a subject I became interested in while in TWI - after taking the Renewed Mind Class by Walter Cummins. I began reading books that dealt with the art of clear thinking. I'm reading a good book right now: Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life by Richard Paul & Linda Elder....I think the 7 factors involved in how we change our minds is pretty helpful too - you might want to look at the stuff I copied from Gardner's book: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=9660# which is my initial post and then this one that actually defines the 7 factors: http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...ndpost&p=228730

Yes - under MY terms though: They return my Red Cape of Believing. I'm allowed to wear a Renewed Mind in Manifestation Helmet [sporting my own patented modifications]. I will be allowed to have a book cover on my Bible with the words "VPW is not Jesus Christ"

((((((((((((Hopefull)))))))))))) You're in my prayers...Anybody that comes to GSC was and still is part of something bigger than themselves. The common thread here is we've all had or still have the TWI experience [not to be confused with the Jimi Hendrix Experience - that's a whole other trip!]...And I think Tom & Templelady gave some good advice - we all need people - sometimes to just hang out with - friends - it's healing.

Just curious - is the person a grad of YOUR class [as opposed to TWI's class]? And if they listen intently to your message - what do they think about it? Has the grad ever seen Grease Spot - especially the threads that showcase your message where your message is hidden?....Oh - and if they are a grad of YOUR class - perhaps they could tell me what your message is.

That won't be necessary, Mike - since your questions were a tactic to dodge mine.

Well okay - Mike, I'm glad you're going to get back to my question - I'll just bring 'er forward here - hope GSC don't mind me taking up that much more space on their server.

It's more like - "his words are for the birds."