T-Bone

I better put my 2 cents in here - so I can get on somebody's mark and avoid list - I think Mark hit the nail on the cross with his picture! For me personally - in my TWI days, VPW took the place of the absent Christ.

T-Bone is what I named one of our dogs [he's a mix: collie, lab and pit bull]...And I got the name from an old favorite Saturday Night Live character played by David Kechner. On SNL T-Bone isn't exactly the brightest spoon in the drawer - and he's a little mischievous. One of my favorite skits is a prison execution scene - T-Bone is the guy in charge of throwing the switch to the Electric Chair, Christopher Walken is the condemned man and Timothy Meadows is the Warden. T-Bone keeps screwing with Walken's head like momentarily throwing the switch to give Walken a short jolt - then yelling out "Just checking." Or calling into the Electric Chair Room pretending he's the governor pardoning Walken - then sticking his head through the door and saying, "just kidding - it's me." That is a picture of me when I was about 3 years old - on the steps of my Grandpa's house in Nova Scotia. I think an appropriate caption underneath could be "thinks he knows what he's talking about."...I loved to wear hats - and would usually have a pretzel stick in my mouth like a cigar - what funny looks I'd get from people.

Bagpipes, I think you're onto something there! Holy Cow!!! I feel like one those people - we've all seen them - after EVERY twig, EVERY teaching, EVERY meeting they'd say something like "God - I got so delivered by that teaching." And you can't help but think - "wow they must REALLY be screwed up!" ... I have read so many books and studied so many topics in the Bible but never had much social exchange with anybody after I left TWI. And I don't think a lot of things really came together for me. Until I came to Grease Spot. I read some, reply some - there's something happening. I'm processing stuff! Seriously - the journaling idea sounds like a cool way to process stuff!!!!!!!! Thanks!!!!!!!!

I think teaching and behavior are tightly woven together. Some Scriptures come to mind that align spotting those who teach wrong doctrine by looking at their lifestyle: II Peter 2: 1-22; I Timothy 3: 1-13; 4: 1-16. I also think of Matthew 5: 19 where Jesus says "Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be great in the kingdom of heaven..." It's interesting - Jesus put it two different ways but it says the same thing - what you do is the message that gets through...Ralph Waldo Emerson had a pretty good one liner too: "What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say."...Alright - so you know how I voted - his behavior invalidated his teachings!

I think our discussion has been more of the "mechanics" of changing your mind and decision-making. Gardner's analysis of the repentance of Paul noted in my initial post got into what factors Gardner thought motivated Paul to change his mind after the resurrected Jesus appeared to him...I think it's extremely valuable to learn how our minds work - even as a Christian trying to follow Scriptures like Psalm 4: 4 "...when you are on your beds, search your hearts..." and II Cor. 13: 5 "Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves..." It's my belief that a lot of situations in life demand just good old fashion common sense or call it clear thinking or critical thinking - [not involving a moral dilemma] - such as where to work, if I should buy a house, who to marry...Speaking of decision-making, there's an interesting book I read right after I left TWI: Decision Making & the Will of God: A Biblical Alternative to the Traditional View by Garry Friesen with Robin Maxson.

I've got a LOT of reading to catch up on – Bagpipes, your Change Your Brain Change Your Life and The Cry of the Soul and AmazinGrace, your book The Emotional Brain all sound interesting…And feel free to contribute any stuff you've gleaned so far from anything you've read. I think the emotional aspect is VERY IMPORTANT in this topic as well as having a personal interest in it… Don't know if this is an accurate observation on my part but I compare the difference between how my wife [Tonto] and I deal with the mental baggage of TWI involvement. I tend to get very technical and analytical – and I guess aloof [don't know if that's the right word] like a cold clinical objective approach [maybe it's a guy thing – or my personality] – whereas Tonto has a much more personal approach – how it touches her life [like Coolwater's picture of being inside the maelstrom dealing directly with each issue]…I think for resolution both ways are necessary. I think my wife is light years ahead of me in dealing with the emotional stuff – probably due to my attitude towards feelings [which as I mentioned earlier was to ignore them]. That's probably why it took awhile for some of the weird sexual crap of TWI to hit me [like I talked about in the threads: Why You Can't Sweep It Under the Carpet and Chunks of TWI Emotional Intrusion]. Perhaps the way I learn is to back up and review, review, review, like how I read books. Maybe some think I'm trying to impress people by mentioning all the books I read. I'm not an intellectual giant, have no degree, twice a college drop-out [and that's if you count the Rome City unaccredited thing as one]. But I LOVE to read! The more complicated the book is [like Gardner's stuff], the more I have to re-read and break out the dictionary…Maybe I need to do that with my feelings. I'd appreciate any ideas along those lines. It's funny – before I started this thread I kept going back and forth on where to post it. Should it go in By the Way or Doctrinal? Shows you how I think – Doctrinal is for technical stuff.

Speaking of "Keys" thought I would list some of the definitions of "key" from Webster's that I think are relevant to our discussion of PFAL: 1. usually a metal instrument by which the bolt of a lock is turned; 2. a means of gaining or preventing entrance, possession, or control; 3. an instrumental or deciding factor; 4. something that gives an explanation of symbols or abbreviations; 5. an aid to interpretation or identification; 6. the set of instructions governing the encipherment and decipherment of messages… Quoting from the intro of PFAL, "This is a book containing Biblical keys. The contents herein do not teach the Scriptures from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21; rather, it is designed to set before the reader the basic keys in the Word of God so that Genesis to Revelation will unfold…" I think perhaps with the exception of definition number 1, all the definitions of "key" listed above may apply to different aspects of the PFAL book. That's because number 1 is literally a key – a metal key! All the other definitions have an intellectual nature [or non-physical aspect] about them – even definition 2 [a means of gaining or preventing entrance, possession, or control – definition 2 could be used either way, as a physical means of access control or figuratively as a means of intellectual control]. In my opinion, I think some people view the keys of PFAL as definition 1 – in that they are an infallible-opener-thing-a-ma-bob [i'm really embarrassed by that word but that's how it reads in my original draft]. A real, physical key will only work in the lock it was cut to open. My neighbor's front door key shouldn't work in my front door lock. But it should always – without fail – unlock their front door every time! My point is this – in my opinion VPW presents intellectual keys [and for the sake of brevity I would liken them to interpretive tools] in PFAL. There is a difference. An intellectual key is subject to the limitations of both the originator and the user of the key. A metal key will always work in a lock - regardless of the mental capacity of the key-holder. You can read the entire Bible and you will not find keys to understanding the Bible listed all together on one page anywhere. It's not written like a textbook, user manual or God's Word for Dummies [although if there was one I'd buy a copy]. I personally believe God is the author of the Bible and wasn't trying to hide His message in a mysterious, unfathomable, impenetrable, esoteric, heavily encrypted piece of literature. I also believe [in other words, my opinion] God expects us to read the Bible as we would any other book. Think about this – it doesn't matter if you read a book on Windows XP, a romance novel, autobiography, or poetry. Don't you have to pay attention to what the author is saying in the immediate verse or sentence, context or previous usage or reference of a character, term, explanation, etc.? Those are keys – basic intellectual keys to understanding a book. Like I indicated before intellectual keys are not perfect because they depend on OUR intellect – I can ignore the context or assume something previously mentioned in a remote context relates to what I'm reading now – in other words I can make mistakes. During my involvement with TWI - PFAL was never touted as just a Bible study course that followers were encouraged to take. It was considered indispensable in terms of evangelism and even the mainstay of TWI doctrine. I would only give just enough time and energy to non-grads [those who haven't taken the PFAL Class yet] to smoke out the ones interested in taking PFAL. PFAL was a rite of passage – that which initiated people into the household of God. It was a commonly held belief amongst graduates of PFAL that we had more of the rightly-divided Word of God than anyone else on the planet! I don't think there's anything wrong with having classes or books on how to study the Bible. I do think there's something wrong when a group thinks their way of understanding it is the only way! It reminds me of a problem mentioned in I John 2: 26, 27: "I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit – just as it has taught you, remain in him." [NIV] The Zondervan NIV Study Bible has an interesting note on verse 27: "…Since the Bible constantly advocates teaching [Mt 28:20; I Co 12:28; Eph 4:11; Col 3:16; 1 Ti 4:11; 2 Ti 2:2,24], John is not ruling out human teachers. At the time when he wrote, however, Gnostic teachers were insisting that the teaching of the apostles was to be supplemented with the "higher knowledge" that they [the Gnostics] claimed to possess. John's response was that what the readers were taught under the Spirit's ministry through the apostles not only was adequate but was the only reliable truth…The teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit [what is commonly called illumination] does not involve revelation of new truth or the explanation of all difficult passages of Scripture to our satisfaction. Rather, it is the development of the capacity to appreciate and appropriate God's truth already revealed – making the Bible meaningful in thought and daily living…All things necessary to know for salvation and Christian living." I have noted some similarities between TWI and Gnosticism on another thread TWI's God. http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...ndpost&p=218781

Bagpipes, thanks for the references on emotions - I'm going to have to check out that book Molecules of Emotion - looked at some info on it at Barnes and Nobles' website. That's ANOTHER thing to think about on this topic. I think I did a great job of suppressing emotions when I was in TWI [courtesy of the prevailing attitude of TWI on feelings]...Speaking of emotions I came across something interesting in a book The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness by Antonio Damasio [a professor and head of the Dept. of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine]: He found in a study with some of his patients that when people had neurological damage in specific sites of their brains, they lost a certain class of emotions and in a parallel development , lost the ability to make rational decisions. He concludes that reason doesn't improve by operating without the leverage of emotion, but that emotion probably assists reasoning [page 41].

In my opinion I see VPW's notion of experience is no guarantee for truth somewhat similar to another of "his" ideas - that the Bible interprets itself. Both ideas ignore the simple fact that the way people LEARN is by ENGAGING OUR BRAINS. Webster's first definition of experience is "a direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge." That makes me think of the scientific method, which Webster defines as "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses." In my opinion, the gradual and cumulative effect of PFAL on the student is the rendering of the brain to Dullsville – whereby the student interprets the Bible and experiences life vicariously through VPW's interpretation and experiences. A few Bible passages come to mind: I John 1: 1- 3 "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched – this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard…" And I Thessalonians 5: 21 "Test everything. Hold on to the good." [NIV] I think you can concisely define the scientific method as observation and experiment. I think THAT'S what the above Bible verses are promoting as a way to learn the truth – as in - use YOUR brain and YOU try it out…For me, the subliminal message of VPW in PFAL is "trust me, turn off your brain."

Thanks for the Gardner link, Sirguessalot – neat stuff! Gardner briefly mentions the multiple intelligences in his Changing Minds book and prefaced his list by saying [on page 30] "How are multiple intelligences relevant to mind changing? On the most basic level, a change of mind involves a change of mental representation. If I change your idea of intelligence, I am altering the images, concepts, and theories by which you were accustomed to thinking of intelligence. Accordingly, the more of an individual's intelligences you can appeal to when making an argument, the more likely you are to change a person's mind…" Interesting that you used the words "triggers" and "leverages" – Gardner's own words on page 14 are, "I have identified seven factors – sometimes I'll call them levers – that could be at work in these and all cases of a change of mind." I also like your mentioning a few of the numerous ways our minds change, "sometimes changing our mind might happen when a simple aha moment comes to us while reading a good book, other times it might be what happens when we lose someone we love in a tragic accident, other times it might be when a long drawn-out argument in our mind finally whoops our butt."………. Mike, perhaps you misunderstood my initial post or the second one where I list Gardner's definitions of the 7 factors. You started out referring to Sirguessalot's post, "sirguessalot, You wrote a lot, but included within is this phrase: "...what triggers us to change minds..." The opposite of the notion that this phrase embodies is "free will." Free will means free of determining causes or triggers, lacking triggers, operating in spite of triggers. I am believe that MUCH of human behavior does not stem from free will, but is robotic albeit exceedingly complex, and stems from or is a response to the combination of stimuli and previously learned robotic behavior and stored predilections and even genetic makeup. What seems to defy description is the notion that SOMETIMES free will is exhibited instead of the trigger-induced behavior and thought dexcribed above." What do you mean by "learned robotic behavior?" Do you mean automatic or conditioned behavior? I thought I was clear in starting this thread that it was about how WE change our minds on beliefs, a viewpoint – analyzing the decision-making process involved when WE choose or reject something. I think what we're discussing here [previous to your post] IS the freedom to choose – the power and responsibility of free will, our decision-making ability. In my silly analogy that draws on Gardner's ideas – I pictured someone named "Will" [as in our free will, even referring to the name choice from the old saying "a man convinced against his WILL is one of the same opinion still."] as a gatekeeper over an investment company. Our free will is the gatekeeper – that controls access into our various thought processes [Gardner's listing of 7 factors]. Only the gatekeeper [free will] can decide to let a thought, idea, viewpoint, information, etc. inside and run it through the 7 research departments [reason, research, resonance, re-description, etc.] to "check it out" – to see whether or not it's worth buying… And concerning the other statement you wrote, "I believe the lack of verses in the ancient scriptures on this modern idea of "free will versus robotic behavior" has been a springboard for some Calvinistic false doctrines." How can you confuse our topic of how people change their minds with anything Calvinistic? In my opinion I think Gardner's ideas are legit – he merely articulates how our brain makes decisions. In Isaiah 1: 18 God said by way of the prophet " 'Come now, and let us REASON together,' says the Lord…" I see two things in that verse: God appeals to our minds and honors our freedom of will. That's what we've been talking about in this thread – using our minds by our free will choice.

These are great, Raf - the only one I heard before was the three legged dog/shot my paw...

Thanks Belle for your kind words...and also think I too do a fine job of contributing some ridiculous ideas...Like everyone else - I read stuff on Grease Spot and think about what someone said -let it simmer...And to be honest - most of the time I think my reason for posting something is to solicit feedback - not to win an argument...This thread has been VERY INTERESTING for me...I have my doubts at times - usually about my relationship with God, or don't see any signs of help from God on something big in my life [guess I'm sort of in the self-centered brand of Christianity]...I don't recall having bouts of doubting His existence - but I do wrestle with the problem of evil...From my simplified viewpoint I tend to think the Bible doesn't explain a whole lot of WHY about things - but has a whole lot to say about WHAT we should do. If you read Luke 13: 1-5, some people came to Jesus about some Galileans that Pilate had killed. I take it they came to him to ask why that happened [judging by his response - saying "do you suppose they were greater sinners?"] and then Jesus also brings up about a tower falling on some people - but he doesn't answer them with why those bad things happened - he just says "unless you repent, you will all likewise perish." ......

Yes, JumpinJive - I would have to agree with your take on the agnostic question...I did qualify my statement by saying "why some people give up on Christianity"...I have more respect for George Aar and others that put a lot more thought into analyzing the Christian worldview... I kept trying to clarify myself in the previous post while I was drafting it - couldn't find the right words - so I went with it as is. Sorry, if I offended anyone...It seems like the posts I've read so far are from people who've looked at the big picture [or real picture of the world]...Unlike the "some people" I referred to that looked at the "sales brochure of Christianity."

Some interesting thoughts there - CM: " to be able to see yourself from outside yourself to be able to see another's pov" and Pond : "It is about honesty . Change takes honesty and facing the truth as you know it. Many people can not or will not face these parts of life. We do not have to you see no one makes us admit to our own self anything. so we do not change . " I think most of the time we "see" ourselves as we'd like to think we appear to other folks.

I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in the mix here - it's just my opinion - or theory on why some people give up on Christianity. It may be just my impression of a lot of Christianity in America [but that's the only place I've been] - but it seems like there's a lot that is self-centered in it. And what I mean by that is - instead of the emphasis being on serving God - it's turned around to "what can God do for ME?" I think about the "health and wealth" ministries, I recall an old PFAL handout "you can have whatever you want." These ministers wind up being salesman promoting a Genie-in-a-Bottle...I don't blame people getting frustrated when God doesn't come through for them - they've rubbed the Lamp but God didn't grant them their wish...I'm not an expert on other religions - [or even on Christianity for that matter] - but am I wrong or does it seem like other major religions are more focused on their God, or concern for spiritual things or how they are to transform/become something - - compared to this self-centered type of Christianity...

(((((((((((((((Grease Spot Patrons)))))))))))))))))))))))) Above is an enormous group hug! Welcome Amazingrace! I like what you said - writing about things you feel. I've been out a long time but am a newcomer to Grease Spot, I think it's so helpful to write stuff out - maybe it makes us process stuff - or give it a shape - define things - where we can "see" them a little better...I like what DotMatrix said about closure and moving on. There's a whole lot in that process - I don't know - garnering lessons, identifying problems, whatever. And then getting on with my life. That's an amazing mind-picture from CoolWaters - standing in the middle of a maelstrom and dealing with each issue...And TomStrange hit a nerve with me - about relationships...I think it's great that Grease Spot has such a variety of people [viewpoints, beliefs, experiences, etc.] - it may feel a little unnerving at first - but I think it's a lot closer to reality than feeling "safe and comfortable" inside a group-think-alike-cacoon [like TWI]...I came from a very dysfunctional family - got into TWI - which only boosted my dysfunctionality to a higher octane level. Lately I feel like I've opened up a can of worms as I think about my relationships - that's why I love to read a lot on Grease Spot - considering how other people deal with stuff...My thanks to everyone for opening up this portion of your heart!

I thought for the benefit of CoolWaters and anyone else interested I'd list a shortened definition that Gardner gives of the seven factors he says are crucial in changing our minds. I've quoted from the book but for the sake of brevity didn't include his whole paragraph – but there's enough of his text that I think you'll get what he means. 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…

I've heard "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." What's going on in our brains at the magic moment when we lower our "defense mechanisms" [or loosen up the mainstay of our position – or however you want to describe it] and really listen to an opposing viewpoint? What makes us drop our "guard"? What is the catalyst at the pivotal moment when we seriously consider another's perspective? How do we get sold on an idea? I've been intrigued by some recent threads [Did God talk to VP, Success of the Offshoots, What are your beliefs currently, Becoming Agnostic, Latter Day Saints Catechesis, and I guess The Official, the Ultimate, yada yada PFAL thread - - and PLEASE all PFAL proponents I adjure you by all the multifaceted, complex and extrapolatious (you may think the last word was misspelled but I think it came out like prophecy) arguments paraded both within and without the PFAL thread – let's try to stay on topic, which is at the end of this gosh-awful long sentence] and was wondering what does it take to change your mind? What does it take to change your mind? I'm looking for your thoughts on "big things" [like changing a political viewpoint, choice/rejection of religion/denomination, changing your position on something of a legal/financial nature, etc.] and not little stuff [switching to diet soda]. How did you get to the point of changing your opinion/belief on some "heavy issue"? I do not have a degree in anything but am adept at giving people the third degree on my pop-psychology theories. I think developing critical thinking skills is a big deal and enjoy trying to figure out how our brains work. I found something interesting in a book Changing Minds: The Art and Science of Changing Our Own and Other People's Minds by Howard Gardner, copyright 2004, Harvard Business School Press. On pages 14 to 18 Gardner identifies seven factors that he suggests play a crucial role in mind changing: reason, research, resonance, representational re-descriptions, resource & rewards, real world events and resistances. Gardner doesn't list faith as one of the factors - I merely mention this as one reading the book from a Christian viewpoint. But it is interesting what Gardner says about faith on pages 186 and 187 which I will list here: "Perhaps the most famous change of mind of all times was that undergone by Rabbi Saul of Tarsus during the first century A.D. Having been a persecutor of Christianity and, indeed having embarked on a journey to Damascus to suppress this new and troublesome sect, Saul was temporarily blinded. He heard a voice that thundered, "Why persecutist thou me?" On his arrival in Damascus, Saul [now Paul] regained his sight and became a convert to Christianity. He studied the life of Christ and became a leader – an apostle – of Christianity…Paul had seen the errors of his ways, undergone a dramatic conversion, and was able to use his personal experiences as a basis on which to communicate to others who might be persuaded to change their religious allegiance. In our terms, we could say that a real event in Paul's world triggered this dramatic change in his own mind – a change that resonated with him and would eventually resonate with millions of others. Changes in faith are intensely personal." The following is just my own ideas of how we change our minds after thinking about Gardner's seven factors. I think there's two kinds of "mind changing": superficial and substantial. For the sake of keeping this Grease Spot related I think about my own experience with PFAL and TWI to explain how I changed my mind TWICE concerning key issues. The first time [back in 1974 taking the PFAL class and getting involved with TWI] was a superficial thought process; the second time [changing my opinion of PFAL and TWI in 1986] was a more substantial process. I liken our decision-making process on accepting/rejecting ideas to an investment company. There's a guy named "Will" in charge of the company [as in "a man convinced against his WILL…"]. Will is like the gatekeeper in terms of what ideas the company researches and also makes the final call on their findings – whether to buy it or not. A gatekeeper [for whatever reason] may send the idea through the different departments for analysis and ignore one or more department's findings or even to rush it through some departments that are considered less important and decide to invest anyway – what I call a superficial process. On the other hand, a wise gatekeeper [having been burned a few times by risky investments] may really adhere to the more thorough process of allowing each department appropriate time and resources. The gatekeeper may even occasionally have training seminars on critical thinking for all the departments trying to improve their ability to check things out. I imagine sometimes reasoning, research or some other process may be flawed or just incomplete, my analogy here is just trying to explain what it takes to change our minds.

Mike, don't worry about anything you said - I was just trying to inject a little humor into the thread...

Mike, thank you for interpreting that which I had just spoken in a post...Maybe we better handle that in the All Nine all the time thread.

Modaustin posted Feb 9 2006 7:11 PM "Who this thread is for: Anyone and everyone who wants to argue about PFAL. Boxing gloves are NOT optional. But keep your fight HERE, on THIS thread." My position on PFAL is that it is NOT very good in helping people understand the Bible [and in my opinion does very little to encourage a relationship with God] – both from the content and philosophical viewpoint it fosters. I think there's a lot of truth and error in PFAL – and don't see it as a good Bible study aid – but more as Final Exam on Critical Thinking 101…Come to think of it – I do like those brain-teasers where you have two seemingly identical pictures side by side and you're challenged to find the differences between the two… I think Raf, WordWolf, JBarrax and others have done a great job of analyzing PFAL content – my opinion here focuses on what I think are some of the ideas PFAL conveys to students – which slowly evolve into their rule for faith and practice. My post is more of a rant – so sorry if I bore you with the "internal affairs" of my head. Is that legit on this thread? I guess so – I'm mentioning the effect PFAL personally had on me. I'm not blaming PFAL for that – I'm saying this is how my brain processed it. And really this post doesn't have a whole lot of substance – it's just some things I wonder about – so they may be off the wall and tripped-out…..Okay – just flat out devilish. Why did I take the class? A guy named Sam in NY shoved a Green Card in my face and asked "what benefit on this card would you most like to have?" I responded immediately "That's easy - Makes life meaningful." How did it happen that over time what made my life meaningful was defined by TWI? Maybe those 10 benefits on the Green Card are all legit – in terms of how TWI defines them. I think some are rather ironic like, Enables you to separate truth from error. I am truly amazed when I run into people that believe PFAL is on equal footing with the Bible [or even assume TWI is synonymous with the Kingdom of God]. I also got the idea that truth – the Original God-Breathed Word - was a very elusive, long lost thing that only TWI was able to discover. I will admit – after PFAL I LOVED reading the Bible. How did that mutate into worshipping the Bible? This gets weird to try to describe – sort of convoluted – my relationship wasn't with God but with a book – and really it wasn't a direct relationship between me and the book but as one interpreted through TWI. That made them the priesthood with the Bible inside the Holy of Holies – where I'm not allowed. I asked an IT guy at work one day why computer manufacturers don't just build an operating system into a chip. His short answer – nobody can build something perfect. It's a lot easier to distribute patches and updates for software then people having to yank out defective chips and plug in the replacements. I wonder where TWI would be today if they hadn't put PFAL on a pedestal – but allowed wonderfully human, imperfect people and God's Spirit have free course in Bible study and practice.

Wow - is that true?!?! Sign me up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now don't be too quick to blame Ron's Cat - the actual source could be someone well acquainted in the deceptive art of Fartriloquism [the one breaking wind is able to throw their sound across the room to give the appearance that someone else has passed gas]. Not to be confused with A$$hole Projection - which is an Out-of-the-Bungh*le experience.

I don't know - I've got a pretty odd sense of humor and guess some people don't know what to make of my silly stuff...In some wacky weird way this is part of how I deal with things and it's therapeutic for me.