T-Bone

And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. Matthew 4:19 Finally! An answer to the question “the teacher” asked in PFAL: “What has the Gospel cost you?” Answer: $4,000 And if you really think about it, these alleged “fishermen” didn’t handle that cost. It was covered by the financial support from Canadian believers...fish like us in the United States who swallowed their BS hook, line and sinker… ...now if you really want to quibble over what PFAL cost me – we’ll have to add up all the money I spent on that and every other TWI class, and then there’s running PFAL classes, gas money for driving new students to and from class, faithfully giving more than 10 to 15 % of my income, sponsoring way corps, going in the Family corps, going to special events, conferences and advances, going to the Rock and Corps week to work for free…and… …because it would be very complicated to try to estimate the monetary impact of missed career opportunities and advancements for putting TWI first, of being directed where and how to live or getting talked out of the importance of a higher education because of the work of the ministry…let’s just say for a class that was supposed to increase my prosperity – over some 12 years of active involvement, I think I’ve lost way more than $4,000 from being in the PFAL cult.

Let’s talk about the hidden agenda in the room. There ARE NO hidden messages in PFAL – but to stubbornly argue that there is, might be a sign that the person claiming that has a hidden agenda. There ARE actual errors in PFAL, errors in logic, doctrine, textual criticism, philosophy and more. But to stubbornly argue that PFAL is perfect, God-breathed, might be a sign that the person claiming that has a hidden agenda. The following are some signs of a hidden agenda I got from two different websites – mixed in with some wisdom I’ve garnered from my own experiences in life. I took the liberty of revising and adapting the websites’ text for this thread – my source links are at the end. One-track-mindedness is often a telltale sign of a hidden agenda. This is more than people who are just self-centered narcissists. They keep redirecting conversations back to certain “issues”, sometimes with skilled segues, sometimes with a blatant flip of a switch. Those with hidden agendas are on a mission, and their impatience often seeps through the cracks…you may become suspicious of being manipulated when you start noticing that the same topic keeps resurfacing…when the discussion strays from a direct route of being on topic – you’ll often find yourself wondering was that a natural or a subtle redirect. When someone cycles through different tactics with the same end in mind, it tends to give me the feeling they’re trying to sell me something or sway my thinking. If something a person says doesn’t ring true – I tend to feel they’re being disingenuous and are trying to manipulate me. When sorting out manipulative people sometimes we have to depend on our powers of intuition as well as our other cognitive skills. Sometimes a manipulator can trigger a gut feeling in us. That’s when it’s wise to be alert to look for other warning signs that this person may not be as he or she seems. Nobody is above telling a little white lie to protect themselves or someone else, and we learn the deceptive art at an early age. However, consistent lying becomes a character flaw that can be detrimental to personal or professional relationships. There is no bond without trust and honesty…A toxic person will often tell lies about the most senseless subjects. Does he or she create big whoppers about their past, career, associations or abilities? If their lying is so apparent about common issues, what other deceptions are they feeding you? What can be more frustrating than to be stuck in a conversation with an egomaniac? Healthy dialogue is like a game of tennis, where the discussion volleys smoothly from one side to the other. If a person continually monopolizes discussions, take note of it…Narcissistic people secretly battle low self-esteem and fear, so they are compelled to stay in the limelight and belittle any perceived competition. You know the type, no matter what you know or have done, they can one-up you. If all they can talk about is themselves, be assured that their agenda is just as selfish. There’s an old saying that states that anything done in secret will always come out. If he or she has something that they’re hiding, there is a reason for their secretive nature. It’s often their toxic intentions that are not ready to be exposed. Oversized responses are common when someone has a hidden agenda. Some may say these reactions are caused by their anxiety, kicking up as mentally they’re going into that fight or flight response…However, others may say that the real reason the person is on edge is that they can become emotional at anything that derails their plans. It can also be that their apparent use of emotions serves as an attempt to shut down discussion in resistance to their goal. It’s often the case that many people will start seeing the holes in a story long before the truth about it comes out. If you add the components together and find inconsistencies, it could be forth-telling about the big reveal…If you find that things don’t make sense, trust your gut feeling. It’s often the case that many people already know that something is off before anything is revealed in a toxic relationship. Always trust your gut instincts as they are there to protect you…If you are genuinely caught off guard and had no clue what was happening, then you can use these red flags to keep you from getting into a situation like that again. Sources: How to spot if someone has a hidden agenda Actions revealing a hidden agenda ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Speaking of hidden agendas, I’ll leave you with a Motown track about family secrets. This song reminds me of one of Grease Spot’s big purposes – revealing the dark underbelly of TWI. In the song, the person’s father has just passed away. All the person ever heard about their father were bad things, so they start to investigate. It turns out that all the bad talk about his father were correct – from being a stealing preacher to having kids on the outside. So, the big secret is that all the bad things people said about his father were true…sequence-wise realizing I was in a cult tracks a little differently than this song – and it may be like that for some folks. I never heard anything really bad or thought anything was alarming about “our father in The Word” UNTIL I came to Grease Spot. And it’s not like it was all stuff I never heard about or wondered about. Some of it validated the red flags I had ignored or suppressed during my 12 years of involvement with TWI…anyway here’s the song…enjoy

I was rereading OldSkool’s Word of Faith paper (you can download the PDF in the first post on this thread) – and this time around I became engrossed by some ideas in the following excerpts of OldSkool’s paper: “For anyone unfamiliar with this doctrine, I am talking about The Law of Believing. This belief system is very formulaic and can be stated as “confession of belief yields receipt of confession” or in plain English – What you believe for or expect in this life you receive. The Law of Believing is supposed to be a universal law that works for saint and sinner alike; where positive thoughts bring positive results, and negative thoughts bring negative results.” ~ ~ ~ ~ It was E.W. Kenyon who first presented to the church the idea of 'now faith'; that faith 'is a confession'; that 'what I confess, I possess'; and that we create reality with the words of our mouths - 'Faith's confessions create realities'. Kenyon also taught the basic principles that make Positive Confession possible: that man is a little god 'in God's class and therefore can utilize the same universal forces that God does and which are available to Christian and non-Christian alike.” End of excerpts from OldSkool’s paper ~ ~ ~ ~ It is tempting to think there might have been intent by some to capitalize on an age old “principle” by concocting a souped-up version of the fundamental basis for accomplishing something…but it’s not too farfetched that one could innocently confuse the biblical concept of faith with some secular or commonplace attitude. The fact that “the law of believing” caught on so easily in TWI makes me think the idea wasn’t totally foreign to our minds. There are some similarities between secular or commonplace believing and religious faith. Please excuse my clunky terms to differentiate between the two. It’s not just a matter of semantics. Semantics is the study of meaning in context. How words, phrases and sentences evoke images and ideas. As we learn a language, we attach meanings to words by grasping what objects and ideas each word refers to. Within many organizations that strive for harmony and conformity coupled with a top-down approach for cohesiveness, there you might find the psychological phenomenon of groupthink. When I was involved with The Way International there was a special language to learn - jargon, buzzwords and even redefining familiar words. Since language and thought are interconnected, words can shape concepts and may even lead to drastically different understandings of the same thing. Secular or commonplace “believing” is something familiar to many – probably since the beginning of the human race. To accomplish something, one must believe in themselves that they can do it. In a similar vein is that “can-do attitude” - a belief that one can tackle whatever comes their way – and a willingness to do it. Think of all the times in your life that you had a conviction that something could be done once you’ve set your mind to it. I think it’s more than just mere optimism. It’s a belief combined with a motivation to work on accomplishing the goal or completing the task. It doesn’t mean we will accomplish it immediately. We usually assume that if we stay committed to a REALISTIC goal – by giving it the appropriate time, energy, and effort – we should attain it. Think about what it takes to learn to ride a bike, learning to play a musical instrument, learning another language, or learning a skill set for a totally new job. Bertrand Russell said, “believing is the most mental thing we do”. Believing is a normal everyday function of our minds – if it wasn’t, we would accomplish very little. In the PFAL class the law of believing is stated as an equation - believing equals receiving. It is presented as a mathematical or logical sounding statement – that seems to hold promise…some may see it as an effective equivalency formula for success. But the more I thought about it - it seems like an incomplete formula. It speaks of a relationship between believing and receiving – but it does not specify HOW the two are connected or WHY they have the same value. It seems like there’s something missing – something was left out. I find myself asking “believing WHAT equals receiving WHAT?” Think about another equation which many people are familiar with. Physicist Albert Einstein's formula E=mc2 describes the relationship between mass and energy. It expresses the fact that mass and energy have enough commonality that it gives them a transposable feature. Energy and matter are two sides of the same coin. E=mc2 means that, from the standpoint of physics, energy and mass are interchangeable. It follows that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing. In the equation E is equal to mc2, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. One cannot leave out or alter any of the parameters and still have a viable formula. For simple examples of matter and energy being interchangeable, think about what happens when the little old lady from Pasadena starts her 1964 Dodge. Granny turns the ignition key which completes a small circuit to the car battery, the material in the car battery uses a chemical reaction - the six pairs of lead plates submerged in a solution of 35% sulfuric acid to 65% of distilled water (per cell), releases electrical energy to the starter solenoid. The solenoid ramps up the power to activate the small starter motor to engage the flywheel and rotates the crankshaft which moves the pistons at enough speed in the cylinders so that it sucks fuel and air into the cylinders and compresses it. That’s electrical energy into kinetic energy – energy in motion. Inside the cylinders the expansion of the high-temperature and high-pressure gases are timed to combust by sparkplugs – the energy released applies direct force to the pistons, which move the crankshaft to propel the vehicle. Again, take note of the conversion of matter into energy - gasoline and oxygen are transformed into thermal energy in the cylinders which in turn becomes mechanical energy – moving the pistons and ultimately moving the car. Mechanical energy is the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy. All these operations require specific parameters - measurable factors that sets the condition for proper operation. Now all you motorheads out there cut me some slack for giving such a simple description of what happens inside an internal combustion engine. My point is not automotive accuracy but to show the versatile nature of matter and energy. One doesn’t need to be a physicist and understand E=mc2 or even an ace mechanic to drive a car. But to ensure continued use of her 1964 Dodge, Granny from Pasadena must regard the specific requirements listed by the manufacturer. What if Granny thought “fuel is fuel” and she decides to put diesel fuel in her gasoline powered car? Though they are both derived from crude oil - gasoline and diesel have different physical properties. Gasoline is much thinner. Diesel fuel has a thicker state of fluidity, almost like a lightweight oil. These physical differences come into play when diesel fuel attempts to make its way through a gasoline vehicle's fuel system and engine components. Since diesel fuel is thicker and denser than gasoline, the fuel pump will struggle to move the diesel mixture through the system. Also, the diesel fuel will not be able to easily pass through the fuel filter. Instead, it will clog up the fuel filter. And whatever amount of diesel that makes its way to the engine will clog the fuel injectors, making them inoperable. This will result in the engine gumming up and seizing. The point is if you deviate from the specifications of an internal combustion engine, you may risk losing functionality. Believing diesel fuel is just as good as gasoline for powering a 1964 Dodge does NOT make it so. Believing does NOT equal receiving. Another thing that bugs me about believing equals receiving is that “receiving” sounds so passive. I get the idea all I need to do is be prepared to catch whatever it is that should come my way. I guess to make it sound more accurate we could change it to “believing equals achieving” – but you know in TWI you shouldn’t mess with perfection. You gotta admit though – now it doesn’t sound like I’m so lazy or have a sense of entitlement – but rather conveys the idea that if one is armed with the right attitude one can successfully accomplish something…and… …the catchy phrase is starting to sound like an abbreviated version of the success formula attributed to Napoleon Hill: what the mind of man can conceive and believe he can achieve…I wouldn’t be surprised if wierwille got it from Hill. But regardless of that – I think there is something to Hill’s formula – even though it still seems to lack a certain specificity for a reality check…Reality check – what’s that? That’s something which clarifies or serves as a reminder by correcting misconceptions and checking tangible reference points…it never hurts to remind ourselves of how things actually work in the real world. It’s not like Hill invented commonplace believing anymore than Einstein invented the flexibility of matter and energy. They’ve just articulated how certain things work. If I imagine I could fly (unaided by anything) – just like the comic book character Superman – and act on that belief, by jumping from the top of a 102-story building – do you think I will achieve flight just like Superman? Of course not! But there have been some who imagined flying was possible with some technical assistance – like the Wright Brothers. They did some exploring to find out the state of aeronautical knowledge of their time. They read about the works of Cayley, and Langley, and the hang-gliding flights of Otto Lilienthal. They corresponded with Octave Chanute concerning some of their ideas. The Wright Brothers had become so enamored with the thought of flight that they were determined to discover its secrets. They believed in the idea that humans could achieve flight so strongly that nothing would get in their way. They had a purpose. They recognized that control of the flying aircraft would be the most crucial and hardest problem to solve. The Wright Brothers spent a great deal of time observing birds in flight. They noticed that birds soared into the wind and that the air flowing over the curved surface of their wings created lift. Birds change the shape of their wings to turn and maneuver. The Wrights believed that they could use this technique to obtain roll control by warping, or changing the shape, of a portion of the wing. The Wrights realized that if the wing on one side of the aircraft met the oncoming flow of air at a greater angle than the opposite wing, it would generate more lift on that side. At the outset of their experiments, they regarded control as the unsolved third part of "the flying problem". They knew of some promising ideas that already existed to solve basic wing and engine design issues. What the Wright Brothers had to understand better was the lift force and so experimented with variables in the lift equation. They conducted parametric studies (e.g. compare long, narrow wings with short, narrow ones) with nearly 200 different miniature metal wing foils in their wind tunnel, including stacked wings. Based on this data they determined the most efficient shape or configuration to create the most lift with the least drag. The Wright Brothers correctly reasoned that a free flying object had to be controlled about all three primary axes; roll, pitch, and yaw . Their aircraft were built with movable surfaces on the wing, elevator, and rudder. Control of the surface shape was in the hands of the pilot. They extensively tested these ideas by glider flights of the aircraft. Compiling their efforts – let’s revisit Napoleon Hill’s “success formula” by plugging in and expanding upon what the Wright Brothers did: 1. The Wright Brothers conceived…imagined…planned…they developed and kept revising an action plan designed to guide their way to accomplishing their goals. 2. and believed…they acted on their plan …through research, observation, and experimentation (the scientific method). 3. they achieved - in 1903 the Wright brothers achieved the first powered, sustained, and controlled airplane flight; they surpassed their own milestone two years later when they built and flew the first fully practical airplane. Realistic or practical goals will have specific objectives, benchmarks, milestones, and reality checks along the way to assess the effectiveness of our plans. Specifics are criteria - some measurable factors to quantify and qualify benchmarks and milestones and ultimately set the conditions for successfully achieving the goal. What is critical to understand is the value of specific criteria which helps determine if our circumstances or expectations conform to reality - the state of things as they really are or appear to be, rather than as we might wish them to be. (* so as not to be a distraction, I listed my sources at the end of my post) And now for the $64,000 question… What is the difference between commonplace believing and religious faith? While there are similarities, I think the biggest distinction is that faith is about transcending the self – in other words, moving beyond a fixation of the self and becoming preoccupied with another person – God! In the previous example - the “believing” of the Wright Brothers was a state of mind through which their aims, desires, plans and purposes were translated into their physical equivalence – dreams, desires, plans, ingenuity gave birth to something others could see and use – a flying machine. All those “self” things were their greatest asset – self-control, self-reliance, self-determination, self-confidence, etc. - for it embraces everything that they control: mind and body. It is self-oriented. In religious faith we become God-oriented – concerns revolve around the character of God, what He does, His strength, His love, and what pleases Him. An exhaustive biblical definition of faith is beyond the scope of this post – but I will touch briefly on the variety of usages in the Bible: there are simple acts of faith, the abiding disposition or habit of faith that distinguishes one as a believer, the subjective stance – the faith by which one believes, the content or object of faith which is the faith that is believed, and in I Corinthians 12:9 there’s a special faith which my NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible says is “trusting God with an inexplicable confidence in a specific situation for a specific outcome for which there is no divine promise.” Commonplace believing is diminutive, in the sense that you’re self-oriented. It all revolves around you – which is a small orbit. Religious faith is enormous…it’s God-oriented…When you exercise your faith you leave the little orbit around self and put yourself in God’s sphere of influence. When in faith we commit ourselves to trust in God, we are basically putting everything in God’s hands. God-oriented faith is a real commitment, a following through… Mental assent is different – it might be form of self-deception, perhaps along similar lines of procrastination and maybe not as obvious as hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is knowing what we ought to do but choosing not to do it. In mental assent, we may approve something as the right thing to do but we don’t realize we’re falling short of actually doing it. Earlier I got into the commonplace believing of the Wright Brothers. While doing some reading for this post I came across an article that explains how we exercise our faith. I liked it because it has a different perspective from the Wright Brothers doing all the work to achieve controlled flight. When we exercise our faith – someone else has already done all the work for us – as a passenger we can kick back and just enjoy the flight… anyway, I’ll leave you with this excerpt: …three people board a commercial airliner to travel to a distant city. The first is an engineer who designs and builds airplanes. He is also a pilot. He knows how everything works. Furthermore, he is a personal friend of the pilot who will be flying that afternoon, and he knows him to be very competent. He boards the plane with full confidence. The second person is just the average business traveler. He knows a little bit about airplanes but just doesn’t think about it too much. He takes his seat and starts reading a magazine. The third is deathly afraid of flying. He breaks out in a cold sweat. It takes all he can do not to turn and flee down the gangway. With much fear and trembling, he gets on the plane, sits down, and hopes he can fall asleep and not wake up until they land. So, the question is, “who has more faith in the plane?” The answer is that they all have the same amount of faith. All of them have boarded the plane and committed their safety to the plane and the crew. They will only arrive at their destination if the plane arrives. If the plane goes down, they will go down, too. All the people who got on the plane were committing themselves to the plane—they believed (or had faith) in the plane. Those who stayed at the airport, even if they had complete confidence that the plane would arrive as scheduled, did not exercise faith in the plane. They did not commit themselves to it. from: Got Questions.org – faith vs belief ~ ~ ~ ~ references: Wiki how – E=MC2 PBS – legacy of E = MC2 E=mc2 explained University Today – how energy and matter are the same Wikipedia – internal combustion engine How a car’s ignition system works what happens if you put diesel fuel in a gasoline car? NASA – the Wright Brothers’ Invention Process Wikipedia – the Wright Brothers Lift equation used by the Wright Brothers NASA – Modern Lift Equation History of The Wright Brothers THE WRIGHT BROTHERS’ TEST FLIGHTS IN 1902 WERE CRITICAL Smithsonian Museum – Inventing a Flying Machine

I think one of the big attractions of PFAL is the promise of divine knowledge…special revelations…secret knowledge…Gnosticism incognito. And I believe one of the big retention tactics of TWI is to engender an us-versus-them mentality…which can often lead to a persecution complex… Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on Earth in History of the Church by Joseph Smith . The doctrines of Mormonism began with the farm boy, Joseph Smith in the 1820s in Western New York during a period of religious excitement which is known as the Second Great Awakening. After praying about which denomination he should join, Smith said he received a vision in the spring of 1820. Called the "First Vision", Smith said that God the Father and his son Jesus Christ appeared to him and instructed him to join none of the existing churches because they were all wrong. During the 1820s Smith chronicled several angelic visitations, and was eventually told that God would use him to re-establish the true Christian church. Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was translated from writing on golden plates in a reformed Egyptian language, translated with the assistance of the Urim and Thummim and seer stones. He said an angel first showed him the location of the plates in 1823, buried in a nearby hill. With the assistance of Martin Harris, an early follower, Smith began dictating the text of the Book of Mormon on April 12, 1828. Although translation was interrupted by persecution, Smith's continued employment in order to support his family, and Harris's loss of 116 pages, the Book of Mormon manuscript was finished in June 1829. Smith said the plates were returned to the angel after he finished the translation. During the time Smith said he possessed the plates, 15 people were allowed to witness their existence. From: Wiki - Mormonism Mormons have Joseph Smith’s vision and golden plates…TWI has wierwille’s snow job and plagiarized material with a side order of spiritualism, Gnosticism, and Fundamentalism. An “us vs. them” mentality is an essential ingredient in the recipe that makes up cults. A persecution complex is optional but common. Both create stronger group cohesion and a group sense of identity. Both support the cult leadership in controlling the narrative and beliefs of members. Both aid the cult leadership in separating their members from the world at large, which in turn, is important in perpetrating cult mind control. Additionally, promoting the specific behaviors that stimulate opposition in outsiders (which results in a opposition and a persecution complex) also aids the cult leadership in creating separation, and thus empowering the leadership to control minds. An alienated group is an isolated group. Isolation supports information control, and reduces outside social influence. Yes, cults bring upon themselves the opposition of outsiders by having stimulated that opposition. They do it to serve a dark agenda (aware or not, control is a dark agenda), and the reap the consequences. Cult organizations that violate the standards of the surrounding culture are causing the conflict by having violated cultural standards. All cults operate the same way. They differ from one another only in nuance and style. Cult mind control is one thing. Quora – cults have us-versus-them mentality and a persecution complex

“Scripture interprets itself” is nonsensical – it implies no other agency is needed. Consider some definitions from the internet for interpret, translate and interpreter: Interpret: explain the meaning of information, words, or actions; translate orally or into sign language the words of a person speaking a different language. Translate: express the sense of (words or text) in another language; to express in more comprehensible terms: EXPLAIN, INTERPRET. An interpreter is responsible for facilitating communication between different language speakers by translating information from one language to another for easy comprehension. ~ ~ ~ ~ Note in all of the above there is an intermediary or go-between involved - a person who acts as a link between people of different languages. In a sense translators of the ancient biblical manuscripts are bridging the gap between the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek and the modern languages of various cultures like English, Spanish, French, etc. I believe the phrase “scripture interprets itself” is something wierwille erroneously bastardized from Bullinger’s works. In Bullinger’s “How to Enjoy the Bible” the idea is expressed along the lines of “these are the keys to interpreting the Bible, paying attention to the verse, context, previous usage, etc.” It’s a given that a human’s cognitive skills are involved rather than expecting inanimate words on a page to do the job. In other words what Bullinger was saying is "To do it properly and logically this is how YOU should interpret the Bible". That's a big difference from the befuddling nonsense that wierwille was teaching

Ding Ding...Grease Spot Daily Double !! There’s a hat for that! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ How about a PFAL Class-Off !!!! Hey folks, it’s time to play America’s number one game of bilking the moment - I’ve Got A Bone to Pick With You It's a game in which grads of the 1967 PFAL class compete against grads of the PFAL Today class. Each team will mention something they don’t like about the other team’s class and demand an explanation – judges will decide which team is the biggest bunch of boneheads. It’s whiner-take-all without exception (except in certain states where all without distinction is applicable)…and now here's your host with the most of vp’s. ghostwriters - Digger Ohwell. Digger Ohwell: Clear the mausoleum floor and give these graverobbers some elbow room…are you ready boys and girls? …On your mark…get set…and exhume the position! can you dig it...I know that you could

Purpose would indicate intent or a goal. Plan would be how to achieve the purpose . A wise planner would have contingency plans in case something went wrong…many folks get life insurance - just in case they die, there’s some financial relief to assist their beneficiaries. What makes you think God made an IMPERFECT world when he introduced Adam? What is your idea of a perfect world? In your idea of a perfect world - do the people have free will? What if someone deliberately decides to disregard the plan for maintaining a perfect world? Is it possible the designer of this perfect world might have a contingency plan for such an event? What makes you think God FORCED his son to suffer in order to remedy a situation that happened way before he was born? My earlier post cited verses that show Jesus FREELY GAVE his life for the cause. Well if you want to talk about what is ludicrous and unbelievable - there’s dumb schmoes like me that fall for this story! I mean to say I have no proof there is a higher power, no proof Jesus Christ ever existed. The one thing for me that seems to validate the redemption story is how screwed up things have become. In my opinion what’s ludicrous and unbelievable is that there’s anything beyond this screwed up world. But as far as redemptive stories go I think the Bible’s story is fairly coherent. Again that’s just my opinion - I was raised a Roman Catholic… so I get into the whole spiritual-battle-and-overcoming-evil thing…deep down - I don’t know if any of this stuff is true - but it helps me make sense of my little world. Maybe that’s the big attraction of any religion. So, don’t get me wrong, Stayed Too Long - I always enjoy our discussions cuz you force me to think a lot deeper…sorry if I missed the point you were trying to make. I know this thread is in the questioning faith section - but I thought you were going for a philosophical discussion of the redemption story. Depending on one’s point of view it could be ludicrous and unbelievable.

Yowzah, Waysider ! Thanks for that… William Clarke was a smokin’ hot blues harmonica virtuoso! I can see how that kinda relates to this thread on PFALT…develops more harmonica in the home… unfortunately I’m here all week folks.

Oh no – I fear another thread is going to hell in an Easter Basket

Only I can tell you the future before it even happens. Everything I plan will come to pass, for I do whatever I wish. Isaiah 46:10 NLT I guess that’s one way to look at it. I do like the NLT translation – but it kinda makes the father in question sound fickle or that he operates arbitrarily… maybe he does, but what do I know…other translations have the word “purpose” instead of “plan” – like I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, ‘My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. Isaiah 46:10 NIV If you click on hyperlink – you’ll find other translations listed…purpose and plan what’s the diff? and does it matter? According to wiki diff purpose is the why, the goal, an intention and plan is a set of intended actions usually mutually related. Maybe Adam failing was one possibility under consideration in the father’s contingency planning - designed to take a possible future event or circumstance into account. Either way purpose or plan – I don’t see the connection you’re seeing. Could you walk me through your logic? I’m not trying to go all over the map or derail your thread – but just want to point out there’s different theories / viewpoints concerning God’s sovereignty and man’s freedom of will / responsibility which invariably drives the discussion into divine knowledge…in my opinion, open theism seems to make the most sense – where created beings have freedom to make real choices and therefore since total knowledge of the future would imply a fixity of events – future decisions cannot be exhaustively foreknown. This was the reasoning behind my previous post.

Easter eggs in movies are hidden messages and images. There are no Easter eggs in PFAL or any of wierwille’s works…if anything his works might qualify as scrambled eggs – that old fox / wolf (hybrid?) whipped them up after raiding a bunch of hen houses.

Picking back up on the very first post concerning what did God know, and when? – I wanted to add some more food for thought with more excerpts out of Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, 7th Edition pages 34 & 35: Obviously, God must know all things that can be known and know them truly. To be able to know all that can be known is a dimension of God’s power. Ignorance, or not to know something God needs to know in order to govern the universe and pursue his will, would be a serious limitation. However, omniscience need not mean exhaustive foreknowledge of all future events. If that were its meaning, the future would be fixed and determined, much as is the past. Total knowledge of the future would imply a fixity of events. Nothing in the future would need to be decided. It also would imply that human freedom is an illusion, that we make no difference and are not responsible… …God tested Abraham to see what he would do and after the test says through the angel: “Now I know that you fear God” (Gen. 22:12)…In another place Moses said that God was testing the people in order to know whether they actually love him or not (Deut. 13:3). Total foreknowledge would jeopardize the genuineness of the divine-human relationship… …Philosophically speaking if choices are real and freedom significant, future decisions cannot be exhaustively foreknown. End of excerpts The above excerpts reflect open theism: “…open theism says that since God and humans are free, God's knowledge is dynamic and God's providence flexible. While several versions of traditional theism picture God's knowledge of the future as a singular, fixed trajectory, open theism sees it as a plurality of branching possibilities, with some possibilities becoming settled as time moves forward. Thus, the future as well as God's knowledge of it is open (hence "open" theism). Other versions of classical theism hold that God fully determines the future, entailing that there is no free choice (the future is closed). Yet other versions of classical theism hold that even though there is freedom of choice, God's omniscience necessitates God foreknowing what free choices are made (God's foreknowledge is closed). Open theists hold that these versions of classical theism do not agree with: the biblical concept of God the biblical understanding of divine and creaturely freedom and/or result in incoherence. Open Theists tend to emphasize that God's most fundamental character trait is love, and that this trait is unchangeable. They also (in contrast to traditional theism) tend to hold that the biblical portrait is of a God deeply moved by creation, experiencing a variety of feelings in response to it. from: Wiki – open theism

This is a response to the opening post (when quoted here it will be in bold blue font)- the premise is based on one’s interpretation of the Bible. An inference from a specific point of view. Two people might have the same facts, but with different points of view, they may each come to a different solution to the problem…That being said and considering myself all in to explore this idea – I should first mention if there is any legitimate concern that this father should be reported to Child Protective Services, one should do so ASAP. In the U.S. "every state has its own CPS department. While there may be procedural and legislative differences, each one has the same goal: investigating reports of abuse, neglect and exploitation. If they find evidence of these crimes, they have a statutory duty to intervene and take all necessary measures to help the victims and prosecute those who are responsible. " From: When should you call child protective services For the sake of brevity, I’m not going to get into comparing similar CPS systems in other countries – see Wiki – child protective services If CPS has information that a child may be in danger, they have the authority to go to court to ask for a court order—like a search warrant—requiring that the person allows them access. CPS must give the person notice if they intend to do this, and that person has a right to go to that court hearing. In an emergency, CPS can also return with the police without a court order. If the accused person is confident that there’s nothing to be seen in their home that raises red flags, they may want to allow entry, since denying entry may make the CPS official see them as uncooperative. Defense attorneys may argue these are trumped-up charges based on false information or misinterpretation of the facts, or if it went further like going to court, it could also be deemed a frivolous lawsuit – which is a lawsuit that has no legal merit. Some things mentioned in the opening statement reflect bias and speculation. For instance, concerning the first son - as stated in the opening post: “this same father, set up another son to fail. With the full knowledge his son would not successfully complete the task, he put his son through it anyway” Objection! There has been no evidence given to indicate the father had evil intentions or that he made absolutely certain something bad would happen – i.e., a project that was doomed to fail. Furthermore, the accusation states the son did not successfully complete “the task” but fails to specify what the task was. The record DOES SHOW the son and his companion were given mandates of dominion and procreation – tasks which successfully continue to this day. There is nothing to indicate the son and his mate were coerced or acted under compulsion. There is no indication of abuse, neglect, or exploitation by the father. But rather it appears the son and companion acted on their own volition as they carried out their various tasks. "This failure would not only affect this son, but all future sons throughout eternity. Because of this son’s failure, the second son had to die to overcome it." This statement alludes to the incident in Genesis 3, and is in error over the duration of the negative consequences – for the actions of the second son provide an option to nullify the consequences of the first son’s mistake. Furthermore, if the second son HAD TO DIE to overcome all that – it implies there was a necessity, an obligation or reciprocal justice measure-for-measure that already existed. Implicit in that obligation is the idea of a moral universe. We find such compensatory ideas in many cultures - for example, in Exodus 21 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth – or in this case, a life for a life. Justice, in its broadest sense, is the principle that people receive that which they deserve, with the interpretation of what constitutes "deserving" coming from numerous fields, with many differing viewpoints and perspectives, including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness. “This is not a good track record of a loving father; one son setup to fail, and the second setup to be murdered.” I object again! As stated before, there has been no evidence offered to indicate the father had evil intentions. Considering the father’s past achievements and performance recorded in the Bible – I’d say he has an excellent track record of giving his offspring complete freedom to choose and shape their own destiny – something you’d expect from a loving parent desiring to see their children flourish. Also, to say the father setup the second son to be murdered suggests the father had malice aforethought and organized an unlawful premeditated killing of a human being. In US Criminal law, means, motive, and opportunity is a popular cultural summation of the three aspects of a crime that must be established before guilt can be determined in a criminal proceeding. Respectively, they refer to: the ability of the defendant to commit the crime, the reason the defendant felt the need to commit the crime, and whether or not the defendant had the chance to commit the crime. According to the Gospel accounts it was CERTAIN RELIGIOUS LEADERS who had A NUMBER OF REASONS to hate Jesus. THEY had Him arrested, THEY tried Him, and THEY brought Him before Pilate for a sentence of death. "What would you say about a father who allowed his son to suffer unimaginably and be finally murdered? And at any time, this father could have intervened and put a halt to all this pain. This father stood by and allowed his son to go through a mock trial, allowed false witnesses to testify against him, watched as he was whipped, and thorns put upon his head, and finally murdered." I have no words to express the incredible love offered by the heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ. John 3:16 reveals the Father’s true intentions: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. A couple of passages show Jesus Christ volunteered for this “impossible mission” - and that His sacrificial death was not the end – for the resurrection would follow - No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. John 10:17 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. Mark 10:45 Closing argument: Jesus Christ gave His life as a ransom – a price to be paid to redeem a slave or prisoner. This redemption did not involve payment to Satan – but to satisfy God’s justice – as I mentioned previously, speaking of a moral universe. Jesus Christ subjected Himself to the divine punishment against sin on our behalf. Helping the aforementioned two sons is a moot point. What could we do to help the first son? And surely, it is we who are in need of help from the second son. But do current and future sons need to be protected from the heavenly Father? Is He an irresponsible parent? Has He shown a lack of concern for the consequences of His actions or for that matter, the actions of others? He gave mankind freedom and responsibility and created safety measures to protect and preserve justice for all – i.e., a moral universe. Based solely on the evidence of Scripture where are the passages that indicate the heavenly Father is guilty of abuse, neglect, and exploitation? It is the opinion of this Grease Spotter that the premise of the opening statement was based on a misinterpretation of the Bible mixed with bias and speculation. If this premise should go to a hypothetical court, I would warn the jury to consider all of the evidence and not base their decision on a foregone conclusion.

Excerpts from the first draft for a totally revised burnt orange book “Power For Materialistic Living Today”, page 3, Introduction: The Materialistic Life …This post literally changed my life. My extraordinary life first began on Myspace, plodding ahead with keeping up with the Joneses; but somehow, I lacked a very materialistic life. Then one time I was especially alerted when I read on social media that there was a man with a Th.M. (a degree in Materialistic Theology) who said he had come to give us an even more materialistic life. I was stupefied into submission. I looked about on social media and compared my current Facebook account where I post mostly pictures of myself. I could see that many online communities were manifesting a more materialistic life than I was. Thus, I earnestly began to pursue the question, “If this materialistic specialist came so that men and women might have a more materialistic life, why is it that my selfies on Facebook do not manifest even a materialistic life?”

I think I’m good - thanks

Hi Mike, I sincerely wish you the best and a speedy recovery from eye surgeries. It’s unnecessary for you to trudge through the points of my long-and-drawn-out-posts – I do apologize for the length of my posts – I’m still learning how to make my point…and it’s also tough when I want to cover a lot of ground – but I appreciate all you’ve said here. Maybe one of my problems is I tend to talk AT you instead of dialoging WITH you. I may be having a miraculous and hilarious moment of clarity as to the recurring issues I have with trying to get my point across to you - . So, instead of rehashing what’s gone before maybe we can try a simpler approach going forward…In my opinion – I think these points might help make for more productive discussions – and I’m just as guilty as anyone else in violating or disregarding these points: 1. Grease Spot is a bunch of discussion forums. just bear that in mind when you promote something or run an idea up the flagpole. other folks may not feel the same way you do about a particular point or your “promotional”. I have no problem with you or anyone else promoting PFAL. But remember a particular point may have sold you on PFAL, but it might mean little or nothing to others. Speaking just for myself, at its best discussions / debates are a chance to unpack our beliefs/opinions and those of others through questions and challenges. If others acknowledge you’ve made a valid point, bask in the glow of success. If on the other hand others shoot a bunch of holes in your argument – accept that and move on to explore other items. 2. Let’s shoot for a real dialog instead of talking past each other. It’s not a discussion when two or more people talk about different subjects, while believing that they are talking about the same thing. Someone may bring up a valid point about an error in logic or doctrine in PFAL. It makes no sense to try and counter that by saying “you folks don’t see the greatness of PFAL because you focus on the shortcomings of the messenger.” 3. Let’s find common ground - opinions or interests shared by all involved in the discussion. That may be a tall order – but instead of going all over the map – let’s try to limit it to only one or two things. If there’s a thread that asked what good things you got out of PFAL, I would mention several things: PFAL demystified the Bible for me, turned me on to Bullinger’s works (especially where he focused on the more technical stuff of the biblical languages, textual criticism, and literary correspondence – I’m not really a fan of his dispensationalism, and dubious theories like the supposed 4 crucified with Jesus Christ) , and PFAL also got me interested in the philosophy of religion. Now it’s been some 48 years since I first took PFAL and there’s been an evolution in my belief system – but those things still hold my interest even though they’ve developed into more complex studies. I will usually give credit where credit is due – but nothing is perfect – so when a poster’s argument is based on PFAL being the gold standard, I feel compelled to challenge that too besides whatever point they’re trying to make. 4. Avoid hidden agendas. Even if one doesn’t have a hidden agenda – it can seem like there is one if a person keeps bringing the discussion back to the same thing. (like my example in # 2 , someone points out an actual error in PFAL and someone else counters with “you folks don’t see the greatness of PFAL because you focus on the shortcomings of the messenger”). One-track-mindedness is often a telltale sign of a hidden agenda. When someone cycles through different tactics with the same end in mind, it tends to give me the feeling they’re trying to sell me something or sway my thinking. If something a person says doesn’t ring true – I tend to feel they’re being disingenuous and are trying to manipulate me. Shields go up and I’m preparing to launch countermeasures.

There is something in what you said…although I might argue for a better choice of certain words: you said “Computer programs are purely an extension of the human will” – I would lean toward saying computer programs are an emulation of the human will. “In computing, an emulator is hardware or software that enables one computer system to behave like another computer system.” From Wiki - emulator ….as an example an engineer could program a system to mimic certain human skills. It could be considered an extension of the person – just as a screwdriver would be an extension of a technician wiring up a control panel. “Will, generally, is the faculty of the mind that selects, at the moment of decision, a desire among the various desires present; it itself does not refer to any particular desire, but rather to the mechanism responsible for choosing from among one's desires. Within philosophy, will is important as one of the parts of the mind, along with reason and understanding.” From: Wiki - the will (philosophy) … systems could mimic making choices – but wouldn’t the choices be based on the parameters the engineer programmed into it? you said Artificial Intelligence, but (in my opinion) it is unbridled human intelligence in action – “unbridled” – suggests it is uncontrolled or unrestrained…maybe a better fit would be the word autonomous = having the freedom to act independently; denoting or performed by a device capable of operating without direct human control…again, the system is not totally free to do whatever it wants but will abide by its program guidelines. perhaps what differs computers and artificial intelligence from human beings is the lack of self-awareness. “Human beings are truly self aware without using or creating any information. Computers, on the other hand, are not possible to do, sense or know anything without the use of information. It is apparent that computers will never be able to develop self awareness because they obviously need information for them to operate” From: why computers will never achieve self-awareness there's various definitions of AI: Artificial intelligence (AI) is intelligence demonstrated by machines, as opposed to the natural intelligence displayed by animals including humans. AI research has been defined as the field of study of intelligent agents, which refers to any system that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of achieving its goals. The term "artificial intelligence" had previously been used to describe machines that mimic and display "human" cognitive skills that are associated with the human mind, such as "learning" and "problem-solving". This definition has since been rejected by major AI researchers who now describe AI in terms of rationality and acting rationally, which does not limit how intelligence can be articulated. AI applications include advanced web search engines (e.g., Google), recommendation systems (used by YouTube, Amazon and Netflix), understanding human speech (such as Siri and Alexa), self-driving cars (e.g., Tesla) from: Wiki – artificial intelligence But then there’s philosophy of religion Philosophy of religion is "the philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions". Philosophical discussions on such topics date from ancient times, and appear in the earliest known texts concerning philosophy. The field is related to many other branches of philosophy, including metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The philosophy of religion differs from religious philosophy in that it seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, rather than examining the problems brought forth by a particular belief-system. It can be carried out dispassionately by those who identify as believers or non-believers... ...Philosopher William L. Rowe characterized the philosophy of religion as: "the critical examination of basic religious beliefs and concepts." Philosophy of religion covers alternative beliefs about God or gods or both, the varieties of religious experience, the interplay between science and religion, the nature and scope of good and evil, and religious treatments of birth, history, and death. The field also includes the ethical implications of religious commitments, the relation between faith, reason, experience and tradition, concepts of the miraculous, the sacred revelation, mysticism, power, and salvation... ...The philosophy of religion has been distinguished from theology by pointing out that, for theology, "its critical reflections are based on religious convictions". Also, "theology is responsible to an authority that initiates its thinking, speaking, and witnessing ... [while] philosophy bases its arguments on the ground of timeless evidence. from: Wiki - philosophy of religion ~ ~ ~~ And I’m with you on not presuming the attributes of a higher power or who dreamt up and put this physical universe in motion…but talking about computers and AI stuff always gets me thinking about the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree…perhaps if we are indeed all children of a higher power we would often show qualities and talents that are similar to those of our “parent” or “parents”. So if a higher power designed the human brain / mind would there be a tendency by humans to design an artificial brain/mind?

Things to do as the lone movie watcher: Talk back to the actors Overreact - when something happens or someone makes a threat yell out “oh no not that!!!! Any time Sandra Bullock is about to get into a vehicle yell out a reference to her Speed movie “get on or get off” When they find the lost city - have a You Tube of the theme from Raiders of the Lost Ark cued up and ready to go Take some selfies of you standing in front of the screen so it looks like you’re in the movie. Every so often yell out “down in front” or “quiet please” just so it feels like you’re in total control. ~~~~~ Hopefully the movie is not boring…I sat through Independence Day 2 in a theater of about 10 people - the film was boring - I started rewriting the script in my head and got into redesigning the theater and messed with playlists on my iPhone…good luck…and welcome to Grease Spot!

Mike: You folks are going to have to re-vamp your image of VPW merely stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg! T-Bone: That’s a rather broad statement to make. Did you do a statistical study to quantify and qualify the image of VPW that every Grease Spotter has? Btw you said “VPW MERELY stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg! ” That is a mixed message coming from someone who so highly reveres VPW – because it implies that plagiarizing was not the only bad thing VPW did – do you realize you’re preaching to the choir? ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike: If you want to understand some of the methods of VPW you must know about Gurdjieff… …Part of the Gurdjieff teachings had to do with administering emotional "shocks" to his students to exercise their control over emotions. This is where Gurdjieff earned a notorious reputation. It seems he sometime went too far, and didn't know when to back off with these shocks… Sometimes Gurdjieffian Shocks were emotional, like a false accusation, or a stern belittling. Sound familiar? Sometimes they were sexual, and some could involve physical injury, hopefully slight… …Gurdjieffian Shocks were easy to imitate with no wisdom by Way Corps. When lazy, it is always easy to do phony "tough love." Tender love takes a lot more practice and effort and smarts. Any slob can do tough love. I think erroneous Gurdjieffian tough love happened a lot in the Corps. It still goes on today, both in and out of TWI. I think many of the bad things in the ministry were of Gurdjieffian origin, and it was where these shocks went wrong. T-Bone: That’s not too farfetched if there were some correlations with Gurdjieff. But no surprise there – I tend to think harmful and controlling cult leaders think alike. If one wants to really understand the methods of VPW, one should consider the criterion from links like the following: 10 things to know about the psychology of cults Clues to what makes for a pathological cult leader ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike: I do not worship VPW. Sometimes he made mistakes; sometimes grave ones. We all do, but we don't have thousands of students watching our every move. Men of God in the past all had sin, sometimes the types of sin you don't like. They ALL committed the greatest sin, as you do too. T-Bone: That sounds nice and humble – but the more I hear you say things like that the more I wonder about your ethical standards. I think they may differ greatly from mine. Yeah, I’m not perfect – after all I’m a recovering a$$-hole with smart-a$$ tendencies – but I think there’s a world of difference between me being a stupid, irritating clueless facilitating flunky for TWI and the lifestyle of VPW. I mean, I never stole from others, never cheated on my wife, never raped and molested women like VPW did…Maybe that’s okay in your book – but I find it offensive and demeaning that you lump everyone in the same class as VPW. ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike: God worked with them anyway, and He works with us anyway. I think most of VPW's teaching and actions were good and proper. I am not happy about where he blew it, but I don't focus on it either. I am very thankful to God that He found a way to get me to listen and obey…Not knowing about Gurdjieff means you do not really know one of the major influences that made VPW who he was. T-Bone: It seems to me that you are trying to do a VPW makeover – and placing some of the blame on Gurdjieff… In my opinion, if one really wants to understand the methods of VPW besides looking at it from a psychological aspect (like in the links I gave above) it should behoove every Bible studying Christian to deeply reflect on passages like Matthew 7 learning to discern true and false prophets, true and false disciples, the wise and foolish builders, and Matthew 23 the hypocrisy of religious leaders and the false teachers of II Peter 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike: The only place where I think I totally trust VPW is in the books and magazine articles he published. All else is up to scrutiny in my book. T-Bone: Interesting that you should say that. On another thread that you started The "Second Wave" of returning to PFAL has started - from page 5 and on - starting here I made a number of posts (over 20 posts ) that analyzed PFAL in great detail – showing the error in logic and doctrine and that much of PFAL is not even worthy of our trust - I did not see much rebuttal from you...the only thing you disputed was where you thought VPW's stance was on the theory of the inspiration of Scripture - see here and in that post you deflected to some posts that are lost in archives or something ... …and what’s funny is that on page 11 on that thread you said what sounds like the same refocusing tactic you’re using here - on the 2nd wave thread you said “All this focus on past sins is preventing your spiritual growth. If you are wondering why you are not a spiritual superman like Jesus, THIS is the reason: sin focus.” see here .... sorry but I choose not to be fooled by obfuscating nonsense…this reminds me of the times VPW would try to guilt us way corps into ignoring his offensive behavior by twisting Scripture like “the love of God thinketh no evil” ...you may think that tactic is some bad mojo - but it really makes me wonder about your ethical standards.

I’ve been reading Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, 7th Edition and in a chapter that gets into divine knowledge and God’s sovereignty, this thread came to mind several times. A theory I never really considered when trying to understand God’s knowledge and sovereignty is that God could have voluntarily placed limits on Himself – to allow freedom for His created beings... Some points from the book that I like mulling over – and a lot of this gets into open theism and maybe some things one poster touched upon much earlier on this thread…anyway from the book: Classical theism has made a strong claim that God is timeless, in the sense of existing outside of time and sequence. Yet we praise God not because He is beyond time and change but because He works redemptively in time for our salvation. We may tend to think omnipotence as the power to determine everything - being coercive like a puppeteer. A monopoly on power is easy to manage. What’s much more difficult to govern is a universe with created beings that have the option – the freedom – to disobey. Omnipotence does not mean that nothing can go contrary to God’s will (like our sins do) but that God is able to deal with any circumstances that may arise. Though by nature God is omnipotent – in a sense, God can be vulnerable because of His decision to make a world filled with beings who have free will. The Creator of the universe has chosen to limit his power by delegating some to the created beings. American theologian, pastor and author Greg Boyd said “It takes far more self-confidence, far more wisdom, far more love and sensitivity to govern that which is personal and free than it does to govern that over which one has absolute control.” Just wanted to add this stuff as food for thought.

Chat Bot, heal thyself (* standard reply disclaimer: your post is very important to me/us at T - B o n e _ _ _ _ _ and will be answered in the order it was received. Tik Tok Hunan Wok give a dog a bone)

you've already answered that question in your previous post

Mark made a good point – it seems to be misleading, and I find it frustrating when you post something like this in doctrinal exploring the Bible…At first I was hesitant to respond – but then you said “The subject of the thread is addressed to those who do feel the bible is a book to live their lives by”. I guess I took the bait. And while I do agree with you on the idea “The point being you can prove anything from the bible if you want to. A verse here, a chapter there, this religion, that religion, any will somehow get you whatever you want.” I would also like to express my disappointment and frustration - - I thought this was going to be a discussion on God’s forgiveness, hypocrisy, salvation, morality, or something in that general religious neighborhood. I could be wrong but the way this has played out it looks to me like you really wanted to talk about something else – maybe it was that you don’t believe in God or the Bible or any religion…or the negative aspects of a belief in God/the Bible/religion - I’m not sure…but anyway maybe next time if that’s what you really want to talk about, choose the appropriate forum – so you don’t waste everyone’s time – and state up front what you really want to talk about. If I knew this was really going to be another discussion/debate on your beliefs that there is no God and that anyone can prove anything from the Bible – I probably would have ignored this thread…anyway – have a nice day.

This is your philosophy of life - is it not? Does your belief system allow for making sacrifices to help someone else? If you are tempted by an attractive woman to cheat on your wife - but you resist cuz you know it would hurt her - does that make you a hypocrite of your own philosophy? would you still feel good if you got really drunk and while driving home - you hit and killed a 12- year-old crossing the street? If you answer yes - you would still feel good then you wouldn't be a hypocrite, would you? just curious - you said you don't believe in God or the Bible - what do you believe about good and evil? If a guy gets an AR-15 and takes out a bunch of people in Las Vegas because it feels good to him - is that okay? That was an event that actually happened. 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting .This is a two-parter question: if your answer is that it's okay - then WHY was it okay for him to kill all those people? If it's not okay for him to do that - they WHY was it not okay for him to kill all those people? I'm not trying to start an argument with you - just wanting to understand your belief system.

need clarification on this too why do you think religion is the one thing that allows you to believe anything or anyway you want and get the same results ? what results? that seems too general...I think everyone is free to believe anything they want - but that doesn't make it so.