T-Bone

I think this thread has jumped the shark…if this goes on much longer Roy Scheider said “ I think you’re gonna need a bigger thread.”

Thanks I'll pay you back in full soon - right now all I have is a fin

Alright so I’m gill-ty of failing to tackle that verse. hmmmm seems like I should get extra points for the double entendre post super bowl

Sorry you had to wait this long for the interpretation of puns: ”and know my children, you should go fishing in the babbling brook in this day and time and hour…that is all…Holy Spirit out”

yeah but not just any number - it's the product of 6 and 7 now - does anyone have a problem with that? well, to be honest - I do...because it's a mathematical problem !

Unraveling the TWI-deception is a big deal, Skyrider !!!! That’s why I think the value of Grease Spot Café is too great to be calculated. Your statement made me think of that proverb "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." – and I believe the original saying was by George Santayana and is actually: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."… …anyway for post-purges-and-cover-ups way corps and Advanced Class grads, it would be wise for them to delve into Grease Spot Café – especially perusing threads like this one – and do some SERIOUS REFLECTION …if they’re HONEST they might even sense some disillusionment they’ve ignored - over the failure of the Advanced Class / the way corps program to fulfill its declared goals AND maybe - if their cognitive skills aren’t totally sedated by now – they might even catch a glimpse of the inconsistencies between the actions of certain TWI-leaders and the ideals they supposedly represent.

Nope - that’s the edition I have…but if there’s a newer edition it might be in that.

hello it's me again Perhaps when you do have time to read my entire post, you’d put a little more thought before you single out just one item you’re not familiar with…ya know that also leads me to believe that you hardly ever apply yourself to actually THINK for yourself, since you seem to be lazy when faced with a challenge. Your laziness is also reflected in your flimsy excuse that a lot of your hard work got lost on Grease Spot Café’s cyberspace…It’s like saying “sorry but the dog ate my homework.” Even if you didn’t have your old posts detailing this SUPPOSED pattern of revelation nor the SUPPOSED transcripts of corps tapes that would support your “thesis” because some of your very large threads were deleted, you should STILL BE ABLE to argue and defend your point with clarity, accuracy, details, and logic IF INDEED it was from YOUR MIND, YOUR DUE DILIGENCE and YOUR PAINSTAKING STUDY of the Scriptures. If for some reason like a major glitch in Grease Spot’s server or if website administrators had to cut back on bandwidth and all the stuff I’ve written about criticizing wierwille, his ideology, analyzing PFAL, way corps program, TWI’s “theories and practice” were lost– I could write it all up again in a heartbeat – because it’s a part of my life story…I didn’t make this $hit up. I did NOT plagiarize someone else’s whacky cult adventure…It’s all in my head and heart! I could still argue and defend any of the points I had made about wierwille’s twisted use of Scripture and his whacky theology – because it all came from using my cognitive skills, and diligent study of the Scriptures. ..most of the time, the main reason I quote from sources outside of The Way International’s control - like Wikipedia, Bible commentaries, systematic theologies, Psychology Today and many other LEGITIMATE wellsprings of knowledge and wisdom, is to show that I’m not the only one who tries to follow an honest and logical way of interpreting a certain passage - - unlike wierwille’s slipshod methods of twisting Scripture to suit his own agenda…the same goes for exposing his harmful and controlling cult-tactics to exploit REAL Christians…I'm not the only one who started realizing he was harmful and controlling. I'll get to that in a bit when I reference Navarro's work. Something every diehard PFAL-fan needs to ask themselves is WHY all the excessive admiration for wierwille? Okay – it may have been partly due to a self-imposed paradigm shift that we as cult-followers experienced. We all tended to view wierwille in a very positive light. In Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, the character Jessica said love is blind. That seems to be a timeless truth indeed – when we love someone it makes us unable to see their faults. wierwille’s self-promotion was camouflaged by the persona that he was a simple clergyman frustrated with the lack of answers and power in his life until God spoke to him. The unvarnished truth of why I was attracted to wierwille, and his ministry was the promise of getting answers to the big questions in life and experience whatever it was to tap into the power of God – by way of taking the PFAL class…over and over and over again and over again… zzzzzzZZZZZZzzz zzzzzZZZZZ But beyond whatever reasons we may have had to hold wierwille in such high regard – there is another more alarming explanation for wierwille being held in such high esteem – wierwille required....mmmmm more like DEMANDED excessive admiration from followers and even outsiders. That is something I have observed in my 12 years of TWI involvement…But to show you I’m not the only one who has come to realize wierwille was a cult leader – I refer to articles from reputable sources like Psychology Today…DEMANDING excessive admiration is something common in a lot of harmful and controlling cult-leaders. Consider some excerpts from a Joe Navarro article. Joe Navarro, a former FBI Counterintelligence Agent and the author of “What Every Body is Saying” wrote an August 2012 Psychology Today article titled “Dangerous Cult Leaders: Clues to what makes for a pathological cult leader”. He said the two questions he gets asked most frequently by students of criminology and psychology are: How do you know when a cult leader is bad, evil or toxic ? and when is a cult leader pathological or a danger to others? Navarro said those are valid questions in view of the historical record of suffering and hurt caused by various cult leaders around the world: “From my studies of cults and cult leaders during my time in the FBI, I learned early on that there are some things to look for that, at a minimum, say "caution, this individual is dangerous, and in all likelihood will cause harm to others. Having studied at length the life, teachings, and behaviors of Jim Jones (Jonestown Guyana), David Koresh (Branch Davidians), Stewart Traill (The Church of Bible Understanding), Charles Manson, Shoko Asahara (Aum Shinrikyo), Joseph Di Mambro (The Order of the Solar Temple a.k.a. Ordre du Temple Solaire), Marshall Heff Applewhit (Heaven’s Gate), Bhagwan Rajneesh (Rajneesh Movement), and Warren Jeffs (polygamist leader), I can say that what stands out about these individuals is that they were or are all pathologically narcissistic. They all have or had an over-abundant belief that they were special, that they and they alone had the answers to problems, and that they had to be revered. They demanded perfect loyalty from followers, they overvalued themselves and devalued those around them, they were intolerant of criticism, and above all they did not like being questioned or challenged. And yet, in spite of these less than charming traits, they had no trouble attracting those who were willing to overlook these features.” end of excerpts From : Psychology Today - Dangerous Cult Leaders - Clues to what makes for a pathological cult leader ~ ~ ~ ~ You should click on that link – and especially all you big PFAL-fans - read the entire article; at the end of the article Navarro lists 50 ...yes I said FIFTY ...a big Five O… 50 personality traits that stand out as the first warning to those who would associate with them, but there are many others. Navarro says this collection of traits give us hints as to their psychopathology. He also said this list is not all-inclusive nor is it the final word on the subject; it is merely his personal collection based on studies and interviews that he conducted in his previous career. Navarro says “If you know of a cult leader who has many of these traits there is a high probability that they are hurting those around them emotionally, psychologically, physically, spiritually, or financially. And of course this does not take into account the hurt that their loved ones will also experience… ...When a cult or organizational leader has a preponderance of these traits then we can anticipate that at some point those who associate with him will likely suffer physically, emotionally, psychologically, or financially. If these traits sound familiar to leaders, groups, sects, or organizations known to you, then expect those who associate with them to live in despair and to suffer, even if they don’t know yet that they will.” When I looked over the list of 50 typical traits of the pathological cult-leader – it’s sad and unsettling to realize that most of them are a spot-on reflection of wierwille. Another treacherous aspect of pseudo-Christian groups like The Way International is how their trap is already primed for unsuspecting victims who are much more likely to be attracted to traditional belief systems like Christianity – something many people are familiar with – compared to something like Scientology. That leads me to think that to understand the power of harmful and controlling pseudo-Christian cults we should look more at their methods than their seemingly innocuous statements of belief. The trick is to see how these harmful and controlling cults put their “theories” into practice – by twisting Scripture…misinterpreting Scripture…misapplying Scripture to facilitate…to justify…to excuse their bad behavior and exploit others. ~ ~ ~ ~ Well...let’s move on…there’s bigger fish to fry…there’s more important things to attend to right now…like your response in this post I quoted. Sooooooo…let’s review YOUR reply to MY post (you can see my original post here ) where I mentioned the four major theories that scholars have proposed to explain the limits and/or extent of inspiration – HOW the Bible got written… ...and let’s keep it simple and just use logic and Scripture reference (the old chapter-and-verse-please-principle... which is the gold standard for Fundamentalists anyway ) to analyze your theological statements: Mike: In those Corps tapes VPW implies that Divine Dictation CAN happen, but GENERALLY the revelation is not given that way. T-Bone: chapter and verse please…If you say “GENERALLY” that implies a rule – a rule is an authoritative regulation or direction concerning a method or procedure, as for a court of law, legislative body, game, or other institution. So, chapter and verse please. ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike: For Thessalonians, he teaches, the revelation first came to Paul alone, and then he discussed it with Timothy and Silus. Lastly, all three of them put it into written form. T-Bone: chapter and verse please – especially the part about “the revelation FIRST came to Paul alone, and THEN he DISCUSSED it with Timothy and Silus.” As far as WHO wrote Thessalonians – most scholars have various opinions due to the differences of tone and other details so it's really difficult to prove for sure WHO the author or authors were. These arguments are ongoing. My position on the matter of authorship of the letters is less important than its overall message anyway. ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike: The end product, the written scripture, comes by way of the revelation first being spoken. T-Bone: chapter and verse please on this SUPPOSED rule. The reason I’m challenging your assumption is because there are numerous instances in the Bible where the message did not come by way of revelation FIRST being SPOKEN. Sometimes it was a vision. There’s an instance of God confronting Balaam by speaking through his donkey. God SPOKE to Moses. Jesus Christ spoke to Saul/Paul while he was traveling to Damascus. The 10 commandments were originally WRITTEN BY THE FINGER OF GOD on stone tablets. There’s instances of people being transported - like Paul to the third heaven - being transported or “caught up” could imply a bodily experience and as such would include input from all five senses. Perhaps various methods are implied by John in the book of Revelation – in Rev.1:1, 2 it says “the revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who testifies to everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ”… to verse 10 “On the Lord’s Day I was in the Spirit, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet, 11 which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.” “ then on to verse 12 and following: 12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man,[d] dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 The hair on his head was white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. 17 When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. 18 I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. 19 “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later. Then on to Rev. 4:1 and following where it seems to imply John took a trip – transported? Caught up? “After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.” 2 At once I was in the Spirit, and there before me was a throne in heaven with someone sitting on it.” Like Paul’s experience, John’s narrative expresses his entire being was involved, in order to follow the voice’s directive to “Come up here.” ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike: So the PATTERN is first a revelation comes, and that could involve words, feelings, or sensations that God knows will accurately convey the revelation. Then the revelation is worked by the recipient, and processed as it is put into written form and distributed. T-Bone: chapter and verse please that the procedure or “pattern” also included “the revelation is worked by the recipient, and processed as it is put into written form and distributed” …what do you mean “worked” and “processed”? “Worked” implies there was mental activity in order to achieve a result. “Processed” is to perform a series of mechanical, chemical or mental operations on something in order to change or preserve it. If the recipients of the revelation from God worked and processed this previously unknown…or hidden fact or metaphysical truth that would mean they used their own mental faculties to create or change the original message. But II Peter 1 says “no prophecy of the scripture is OF any private interpretation” … In Bullinger’s book “How to Enjoy the Bible” Bullinger CORRECTLY notes that little word “of” is genitive of origin – and is simply saying Scripture wasn’t CONCEIVED by anyone’s imagination or personal interpretation – which covers a lot of cognitive skills – in other words, the authors of Scripture did NOT have to do a WHOLE LOT of work to process the revelation of a fact or metaphysical truth other than ( depending on which of the four major theories on inspiration that I mentioned in a previous post, that you subscribe to ) the writers recording their experiences with God the best they could and how much freedom one ASSUMES they had in expressing themselves. ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike: “as it is put into written form and distributed.” T-Bone: Chapter and verse please. Before written records there was oral tradition, or oral lore, a form of human communication wherein knowledge, art, ideas and cultural material is received, preserved, and transmitted orally from one generation to another. The transmission is through speech or song and may include folktales, ballads, chants, prose, or verses. ~ ~ ~ ~ If you ask me what I think one of the many reasons are why you lack credibility at Grease Spot it’s because you reference wierwille to support your “thesis” when in fact many times you interpolate, exaggerate or try to extrapolate from some idea of wierwille’s that’s already problematic – so you tend to make an incompetent researcher, teacher and theologian look even more amateurish. If you’re THE ambassador who officially represents on foreign soil (Grease Spot Café) a return to PFAL – you’re failing miserably. By your interpolations, exaggerations, and weird extrapolations you represent an alternate-PFAL, as bad as PFAL is… yours is worse…it’s Bizarro PFAL…if you’re THE sales rep for returning to PFAL – you’re like a used-car salesman that doesn’t even know how to drive. I wouldn’t rely on old incompetent plagiarizing wierwille for the scoop on how inspiration works. I’m embarrassed to admit I actually believed his lie of saying God talked to him. What a joke! Now there’s laziness exemplified. Copy the work of others…but tell everyone “God told me He’d teach me “The Word” like it hasn’t been known since the first century” …yeah right. That’s all for now

Tying it all together now: 12 step program…the 12 sessions of PFAL…discerning of spirits…the ability to find Drambuie in the enormous selection offered at Dweeb & Leviathan’s Wine and Spirits where you’ll also find a wide variety of cocktail mixers. Cocktail mixers make it easy to create delicious and festive cocktails to guzzle down while on a 5-minute break from “the class”; try their Malignant Narcissist Mixer - a psychological elixir guaranteed to change, enhance, exaggerate, and interpolate wavelengths and languages so your mords get wixed up. This hybrid potion is an extreme mix of narcissism, antisocial behavior, aggression, and sadism. Grandiose, and always ready to raise hostility levels, the Malignant Narcissist! Or experiment with your own concoction - just add your favorite spirit and enjoy. If you don’t shop at Dweeb & Leviathan’s Wine and Spirits you’re barking up the wrong tree. This ad paid for by The Critical Besmirch, Screeching and Felonious Misery of Doctor I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-Not.

Wow pretty cool – thanks, Waysider! Now, let’s put that through the PFAL-reverse-engineering-translator – first I say the magic words: lambano…laballo…ballo…throw it in low…lo and behold…then Jueeb…sounds like dweeb… dweeb…a boring, studious, or socially inept person… yup – sounds like someone who has been indoctrinated.

I bet Rev. Moon had his own leadership training program too – so yeah, Moon and wierwille probably did have a common corps language – what’s the Korean word for “indoctrination”? And you got me thinking…wierwille said “The Word” takes the place of the absent Christ and Rev. Moon was the absent Christ - - seems like there was a missed opportunity for a partnership.

Interesting question, Bolshevik ! Imagine if two people from two different cults strike up a conversation. I’ve actually experienced that when I was a WOW in 1976 in D.C. …I was street witnessing (of course I was ) in our neighborhood and met a friendly young man by a small park. He seemed really attentive to everything I had to say after I told him why I was out walking in the neighborhood. He invites me to his home nearby (another good sign I’ve got a fish on the line). I go there – and there’s another guy living with him. My “new friend” explains to his housemate about me being a WOW ambassador on an outreach mission. Then it all happened so fast – I’m not sure how his housemate segued – or should I say took over the conversation – I was no longer the fisherman – I was the fish being reeled in by a professional fisherman. I had only been in TWI a little over a year – and this guy was all over the place in the Bible. If I butted in to ask a question – he had an answer. I was not familiar with any cults, nor did I realize I was actually in a cult myself – but as he continued his spiel my brain had a harder and harder time trying to process where he was going. I kept thinking this is getting weird cuz he was now talking about America being in Bible prophecy. But when he gets to Colossians 1:27 “To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” I felt at ease cuz I’m familiar with that from PFAL. And then he pulls a “pop quiz” on me – he asked me “and what do we call the American flag?” I froze – then answered “uhm – the American flag?” and he says, “Old Glory” – then the rest was a blur as he threw Bible verses and ideas at me to show me Rev. Sun Myung Moon was the Messiah. Yikes! Never heard of this stuff before. I don’t even remember how I quickly excused myself from their home. After that I was trigger shy for a while – whenever I was witnessing, I would size up someone the best I could to see if they gave off a Moonie-vibe or just some know-more-Bible-than-me-vibe – I felt most comfortable if I knew I could control the conversation - if I sensed something I'd suggest to my witnessing partner that they handle this one. I like to call my little story Clash of the Cultists. To answer your question, Bolshevik – if both parties are trying to communicate in two different cult-speak, the options for either person to process, interpret, or express other modes of thought are probably severely limited.

Mike''s last line: “meek, coach-able grads who return to PFAL” Ah yes They prove the truth of this proverb: “A dog returns to its vomit.” And another says, “A washed pig returns to the mud.” from II Peter 2:22 NLT …Peter devoted his words to false teachers who masqueraded in religious garb and leading new converts astray…to make this apropos to Mike’s coachable grads it’s saying fools are stubbornly inflexible and will eat regurgitated PFAL even if it’s disgusting and even though they may have left TWI and washed off wierwille’s muddied theology they come back for more sludge. I’m not sure if this is an issue of folks talking past each other…I’m inclined to think it’s Mike’s AUTOMATIC defense strategy - no matter what someone has said about wierwille. If someone points out wierwille was an unabashed plagiarist, Mike counters with they’re “focusing on the messenger's flesh.” If someone brings up wierwille was a drunkard, Mike counters with they’re “focusing on the messenger's flesh.” If someone brings up wierwille was a known sexual predator, Mike counters with they’re “focusing on the messenger's flesh.” ...and even if someone makes a theological argument that wierwille misinterpreted II Peter 1:20, 21 - Mike just might counter with they're "focusing on the messenger's flesh." On another thread I happened to mention wierwille’s unabashed plagiarism and flagrant disregard for copyright laws and here was Mike’s response on Second Wave" of returning to PFAL has started : Mike said: Such righteous anti-plagarism is really a joke to me. Has your mission in life really descended to fight for "Scholars' Rights" and Proper Crediting. Are you able to think outside that box? It reveals to me a level of desperation in wanting to criticize VPW. If I didn't think this was a terrible affliction that limits you in life, I'd consider it as hilarious as what happens to Flat Earthers. I think you and others here have whipped yourself into a 25 year fit of righteous anti-plagarism, and lost track of real priorities in life and living. But it's your life and you choose what is really important to you. I care not one bit about copyrights on these things. I'm sorry to see it bog down people the way it does. It looks very contrived and artificial to me. Let's talk about more important issues, OK. How's Speaking in Tongues doing for you these days? End of Mike quote ~ ~ ~ To which I replied on the same day a little later – here : T-Bone said: Wow Mike I did a double take reading your post! And here’s why: instead of your typical beating around the bush on the plagiarism issue – you talked about it directly, revealing your true feelings – and for that I thank you !!!!! I sincerely mean that – I’m not being sarcastic. Mike said, ‘I care not one bit about copyrights on these things. I'm sorry to see it bog down people the way it does. It looks very contrived and artificial to me. Let's talk about more important issues, OK.’ Now it’s crystal clear to me what your opinion is of copyrights, plagiarism, proper citation, real scholars and what's due them – and I’m sorry you have such a low opinion of all that – but I will respect your opinion and hopefully you will understand I have a much higher opinion on them than you do. As far as us talking about more important issues – we’ll have to come to some agreement on what is more important. As I’ve already indicated there will be some differences of opinion as to what matters have greater significance or value – hopefully we can amicably figure that out... since your last words were “How's Speaking in Tongues doing for you these days?” I figure we can start there...I’m not sure if you said that sarcastically or if you are indicating that is the first of the more important issues you want to talk about...if you intended to convey contempt...well, let’s just leave it at that. If you really do want to talk about speaking in tongues maybe that would warrant a new thread – I’ve already expressed my opinion on speaking in tongues on a few threads already but I always enjoy the opportunity to reiterate my views. In closing, I wanted to clarify my intentions and the thought behind my posts. I was not making fun of you. My target is usually wierwille and all the deceitful tactics he utilized. That is an important issue to me because in my opinion lying and stealing on a grand scale is wrong. Obviously, you have a different opinion on that. End of T-Bone quote ~ ~ ~ ~ On Sunday Feb 6th 2022 on that same thread I made two posts – in one I covered a bunch of stuff: how wierwille in plagiarizing Bullinger had actually screwed up what Bullinger got right on II Peter 1:20,21, AND how he also copied what Bullinger got wrong – the 4 crucified with Jesus theory, and I also got into when doing theology what are the degrees of authority in theological statements… and in a quick follow-up post hot on the heels of analyzing PFAL’s problematic, misleading and shifty methods of Bible interpretation, I mentioned a few books that have an honest and simple approach to interpreting the Bible as well as getting a basic idea of what theology and doctrine are all about, as well as mentioning the four major theories that scholars have come up with to try and explain the limits or extent of HOW inspiration worked > see my reply here Now mind you, on the 2nd wave thread - starting from my January 23, 2022 post where I decided to zero in on wierwille’s incompetence and theological-sounding-double-talk - or (to convert it into Mike’s currency i.e. something of supposed value that Mike uses in an exchange of ideas with other Grease Spotters) I decided to devalue the "wierwille-dollar" by limiting myself to criticizing ONLY wierwille’s lack of competence as a researcher and teacher AND his “proficiency” in theological- sounding-language that appears to be earnest and meaningful but in fact is a mixture of sense and nonsense – and I kept my aim locked in on that for some 14 posts ! I didn’t get into any of his bad behavior – in other words I did NOT “ focus on the messenger's flesh.” What I find utterly perplexing is that Mike did NOT respond to any of my 14 posts that analyzed PFAL nor did he try to defend wierwille or even address any of my detailed critiques on wierwille’s ideology – nothing except about my post on Sunday where I gave a brief description of the four major theories of inspiration on HOW the Bible got written… something in that got a response from Mike - that following Monday Mike asks me for a tiny summary of plenary verbal inspiration – here - where Mike quotes me saying T-Bone said: “I believe wierwille's theology would have been based on either # 2 Dictation theory or # 4 Plenary verbal inspiration theory” end of T-Bone quote ...and then Mike says to me : Mike said: “VPW definitely did NOT ascribe to the Divine Dictation model. He says so in the Corps Thessalonians tapes when he hits verse 1:1 in both of the Epistles. The reason for this, in those two opening verses, is due to those verses making it appear like Paul AND Timothy AND Silus were authors. In those Corps tapes VPW implies that Divine Dictation CAN happen, but GENERALLY the revelation is not given that way.” End of Mike quote ~ ~ ~ What’s funny is I had JUST GIVEN a tiny summary of the plenary verbal inspiration theory in my post he had quoted! You know, for a guy that gets on Grease Spotters for missing details or forgetting details of the great things in PFAL – Mike misses out on stuff right in front of him…I don’t know - - are PFAL-blinders that obscuring? My point in reviewing some details of my 14 posts on the 2nd wave thread is that I’ve noticed Mike had nothing to say when I carefully, technically, and logically evaluated in a detailed and analytical way some of wierwille’s dubious teachings and speculations and his slipshod methods of interpreting Scripture. My guess is that maybe he could not muster up any tenable counterarguments to my points. Now if you mention anything derogative about wierwille’s character - THAT appears to give him an excuse to avoid addressing wierwille’s ineptitude and deceitfulness and so he launches the countermeasure that the one who is criticizing wierwille’s behavior is “focusing on the messenger's flesh.” It’s kind of amusing to watch him go on a pro-PFAL-rant like on this thread with: Mike said: “How many other footnotes or significant passages have you forgotten were in PFAL? You people reject the spiritual good that was delivered to you, and want to focus on the messenger's flesh. I find that grads everywhere forget what was taught them long ago, or were not spiritually mature to receive it all long ago. There is a lot to be found by those meek, coach-able grads who return to PFAL.” End of Mike quote ~ ~ ~ ~ Seems like Mike makes a big effort to reinterpret, exaggerate, and misquote wierwille, and often alludes to something wierwille said in PFAL, corps tapes or whatever that supposedly supports Mike’s “thesis of PFAL being the greatest thing”– but he makes very little effort to have an actual normal conversation with someone. As I mentioned in my previous post I WAS a supreme wierwille worshipper – NOT anymore though – BUT - I still have all my PFAL books and his other works, Lifelines – his quotes , a 12 year accumulation of Way Mags, Sunday Night Teaching Tapes, my corps journals (plural!), corps night teachings, my own handwritten notes from corps tapes, 2 years in-residence of living, breathing and sleeping PFAL…I honestly believe I have a more accurate knowledge and better understanding of wierwille's ideology and even PFAL than Mike does – and because I am free of the cultic-mindset driven into me by way corps indoctrination, my cognitive skills are no longer impaired … …I’ll go even one better…unlike any diehard PFAL-fans, I believe any “newly-minted” PFAL grad will probably still have a healthy mind and will able to think normally since they haven’t yet succumbed to TWI’s long term process of inculcating a person with speculative and dubious ideas, debilitating and self-destructive attitudes, cognitive dissonance and mind-dulling methodologies… ...the road to indoctrination is not shock therapy but rather a gradual immersion… … it’s like a prolonged seductive intoxicating “romance”…a cult luring neophytes to take bigger and bigger sips of the Kool-Aid…using manipulative tactics like love-bombing, the subtle influence of peer pressure and groupthink... Looking back on my own experience - but now in a healthier frame of mind (intellect and emotions now free of the influence and coercion of a cult) I find it extremely sad and almost laughable (if it were not for the wake of destruction left by the lifestyle and ideology that cult leaders promote) that there’s still some diehard PFAL-fans out there… what qualifies wierwille or any of these cult-leaders of TWI to teach about the Bible, train people to counsel others or to speak authoritatively about any of the important matters of life? …so I say once again - don’t try to bluff me – I WAS a supreme wierwille-worshipper! And don’t forget – I’m not letting those “precious memories” of toxic-nonsense-doctrine go to waste – one of the big reasons I post at Grease Spot – is to help others escape the nonsense…so I gotta break it down on how harmful and controlling cults work… In any of my posts it was never my intention to convert anyone to my way of thinking – I just want to challenge folks to do their best and clearest thinking…individuality is a good thing… ...if everyone thinks alike on everything from interpreting the Bible to living the Christian lifestyle, to politics, to priorities, to managing finances, to what one thinks of “natural man music”, to feeling obligated to highly esteem leadership and chose “the ministry” over family and friends, to feeling compelled to give of their finances to “God’s ministry”, to ignoring red flags, intuition, gut feelings, logic, and common sense - - - they just might be in a pseudo-Christian cult that’s also probably harmful and controlling…and it’s initials just might be The Way International. …My posts are an honest narrative of my experiences, observations and analysis of things wierwille said, wrote and did – and it’s the truth! and if you were way corps YOU WERE THERE TOO and so you KNOW the things that I've said are true ! And I’m not talking about the persona of “Doctor Wierwille” and the pristine image of him packaged in PFAL-propaganda… diehard PFAL-fans still have the wool pulled over their eyes…unfortunately it usually takes being a devoted follower and joining the way corps to see the dark side of wierwille – the supreme hypocrite offstage and in all his glory …when wierwille was not doing his “man of god act” he was in his element – in the zone he was comfortable showing off the “freedom he had in Christ”, being an example of the ideal believer who so renewed his mind that whatever he did it was not sin to him – he excelled at that…because he was just being himself…whenever he sexually molested women he’d say stuff like “this is lockbox, honey…Most believers just wouldn’t understand what you and I did.” Boy, isn’t that the truth !!!! Just to be clear my observations, comments, criticisms and arguments from Scripture and logic are debatable – and are open for debate. What is NOT debatable: anything wierwille wrote, said or did – because it’s documented in books, magazines, newsletters, recorded on tape in teachings or witnessed by those present. What is up for argument is trying to guess at wierwille’s motivation or analyze his use of Scripture to justify an action or to surmise any unintended consequences from what he wrote, said or did. On the 2nd wave thread, I was upfront and honest about who is my target audience being the PFAL-fans Mike mentioned in the very first post on the 2nd wave thread – which includes more than the alleged fans that he supposedly knows personally – it also includes current followers of TWI and also the offshoots…and really ANY PFAL grad who has a strong sense of disillusionment derived from the failure of PFAL to fulfill the goals/claims/promises/benefits that “The Teacher” (wierwille) stated AND the perception of inconsistencies between the actions of “The Teacher” (wierwille) and the ideals he supposedly represented… …I wish Mike was upfront and honest on threads…instead, it’s like playing a dodgeball game with him. When someone tries to hit Mike up for a reasonable explanation of some PFAL “truth” – Mike dodges by complaining about how all the arguments and documentation that he already did on the subject were lost in the archives of Grease Spot Café…this is part of my reasoning to keep referring to another thread (2nd Wave) on this thread – so Grease Spotters have some sense of continuity with Mike’s dodgeball antics…the topics may change – Mike may consider various threads forever “in play” as he dodges and weaves across threads in the cyberspace-time-continuum . you know, I don’t mean to brag but if all the stuff I’ve written about criticizing wierwille, his ideology, analyzing PFAL, way corps program, TWI’s “theories and practice” were lost due to a major glitch in Grease Spot’s server – I could write it all up again in a heartbeat – because it’s a part of my life story…I didn’t make this $hit up. I did NOT plagiarize someone else’s whacky cult adventure…It’s all in my head and heart! I don’t even wish I could forget any of it – and why I haven’t thrown out all my Way books, tapes, notes, etc. – BECAUSE I’m still processing all of it and continue to glean life-lessons of what believing in nonsense will do to your life…there’s many more lessons to be learned…and some of which I want to pass on to other poor souls who guzzled down the Kool-Aid. That’s all for now – the ball is in your court, Mike – maybe one of these days you’ll quit playing dodgeball and take appropriate action like a responsible player in a tennis game…you’ve been served. here's that 2nd wave again

The footnote on page 91 of The Word’s Way is an ancillary piece of information that wierwille put there to further explain the sea reference in Revelation 21:1 “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.” wierwille’s footnote on page 91 of The Word’s Way reads as follows: “no more sea,” is a Hebraism referring to “no more wavering, confusion, trouble or unrighteousness.” Granted, wierwille’s footnote does have the word “wavering” but I fail to see the connection to alcohol and drunks as you say nor do I see how it gives support to what you said about it being a ‘Hebrew idiom of the mind in the future as all minds will be fully renewed’ : Mike said: “I see two connections between Leviathan and alcohol. One is how a drunk looks as he tries to walk in a straight line. It looks like someone trying to walk in a boat that is rocking on the high seas, being rocked by a sea monster. It also feels like the high seas to a drunk who attempts to walk on dry land. The other connection occurs in the Book of Revelation where it says that in the future there will be no more sea. That is a Hebrew idiom for no more WAVERING of the mind in the future as all minds will be fully renewed. Add to this the passages about Peter looking at the waves as he walked on and becoming fearful. Drunks are notorious for having a tempest tossed mind, full of wavering.” I will say this about wierwille’s footnote – the ONLY word of his that MIGHT come close to what “no more sea” probably means is the word “confusion.” On page 2265 of NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture the following comment is offered by Revelation 21:1 …’there was no longer any sea.’ Some sources spoke of the purification of creation; others, of its transformation; still others, of its destruction and rebirth. Because the sea disappears, Revelation at least evokes transformation, though scholars debate how literally Revelation intends its different images. Some scholars associate the sea with evil (or chaos, as much earlier in ancient Near Eastern thought), with death (20:13) or with the beast (13:1), but it appears positively in some other passages in Revelation (5:13; 15:2). Perhaps the sea disappears here because Isaiah’s new heavens and earth do not specifically mention it. More likely it is replaced with the joyful river of life from God’s throne (for the righteous; 22:1) and possibly the lake of (for the wicked; 21:8). End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ Early Christian commentaries have had similar ideas of chaos and death as those noted in the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible…to give you a taste here’s Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament Volume XII: Revelation The inside jacket talks about the postcritical revival of the early commentary tradition known as glossa ordinaria – a text artfully elaborated with ancient and authoritative reflections and insights to supplement modern commentaries by framing them with notable interpretive voices that have long since sustained the church…on pages 354 and 355 of this volume it provides the following comments by Augustine a theologians & philosopher and Andrew of Caesarea: Revelation 21:1b no more sea The restless and stormy and stormy life of people will pass away. Augustine. It is hard to know whether [the sea] will be dried up by the terrible heat of those flames or will itself be transformed into something better. For though we read that there will be a new heaven and earth, I cannot recall having ever seen mentioned a new sea, save perhaps in the verse of the Apocalypse, “sea of glass similar to crystal” . Yet in that passage John was not talking about the end of the world; moreover, he did not claim to have seen a sea proper, but something like a sea. Still, as prophecy is prone to intermingle the literal and metaphorical and so veil its meaning, it may be that in our present text, “and the sea is no more,” John was speaking of the identical sea he spoke of earlier: “and the sea gave up the dead that were in it.” For then, this world of ours, made restless and stormy by the lives of men (and hence, figuratively, called the sea), will have passed away. City of God 20.16. There will be no more need of commerce. Andrew of Caesarea. Concerning the sea, it says that “the sea was no more.” For what use is there of a sea when people no longer need to sail it or to acquire by means of it the goods grown in regions lying far away? Moreover the “sea” is symbolic of the turbulence and unsettledness of life, and so there will be no need of it when there remains no trouble or fear among the saints. Commentary on the Apocalypse 21.1 End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ It is inconclusive if Mike actually thought he had a wierwille reference to support his ideas – or that he just imagined wierwille’s reference said more than it did – or that he was merely bluffing and hoped no one would look up the Word’s Way page 91 footnote. I’ve become somewhat of a softie – and now like to give folks a chance to save face. Perhaps Mike would like to revise his comments intermingling Leviathan and alcohol, drunken pedestrians, tempest tossed drunken minds and the supposed Hebrew idiom for no more WAVERING of the mind in the future as all minds will be fully renewed. For some reason the scene in Forrest Gump came to mind – where Lieutenant Dan shows up at the dock to say hi to Forrest coming in on his shrimp boat; Lt. Dan explains to Forrest “I’m here to try out my sea legs.” To which Forrest replies back “Well, you ain't got no legs, Lieutenant Dan.”… Revelation 21:1b Revised Movie Dialog Translation “and there were no more sea legs”. = = = = = You needn’t remind me of remembering stuff that wierwille taught! I still have all my PFAL books and his other work, as well as Lifelines, and a 12 year accumulation of Way Mags, Sunday Night Teaching Tapes, my corps journals (plural!), corps night teachings, my own handwritten notes from corps tapes – since I had easy access while in residence, not to mention for 2 years in residence we had to live, breathe and sleep PFAL…so don’t try to bluff me – I was a supreme wierwille-worshipper! And don’t forget – I’m not letting those “precious memories” of toxic-nonsense-doctrine go to waste – one of the big reasons I post at Grease Spot – is to help others escape the nonsense as I said on the thread The "Second Wave" of returning to PFAL has SUPPOSEDLY started in that post I said: “here we are at the umpteenth session of the ALLEGED 2nd wave of returning to PFAL has started…in case anyone is wondering about these long and detailed critiques of mine and why I am going full steam ahead – it’s because my target audience are the PFAL-fans mentioned in the very first post on this thread – which includes more than the fans that the thread-starter knows personally – it also includes current followers of TWI and also the offshoots…and really ANY PFAL grad who has a strong sense of disillusionment derived from the failure of PFAL to fulfill the goals/claims/promises/benefits that “The Teacher” (wierwille) stated AND the perception of inconsistencies between the actions of “The Teacher” (wierwille) and the ideals he supposedly represented… I am trying to be more dispassionate as well as making more of an effort to suppress my weak attempts at comedy and sarcasm – which is a toughie for a class-clown wannabe. Considering my own experience of leaving TWI and what led me to reevaluate their dogma - it was usually persuasive discussions using calm words, logic, and evidence – whether it was from fellow way corps who had already left before me, old friends I knew before I got into TWI, or other EXTERNAL sources like books on systematic theology, psychology, philosophy, critical thinking and websites like Grease Spot Café. This post was a long time coming – “inspired” by one of my favorite sessions of the PFAL class - battle of the senses (session 6, I think – funny how much I still remember). If I would give this post a parody title, I’d call it battle of the senseless…or maybe YOUR intuition and cognitive skills versus wierwille’s “revelations” …I also thought it could be called PFAL’s sedative to YOUR intuition and cognitive skills. “ end of my quote ~ ~ ~ ~ In case you haven’t figured out my strategy by now – here it is in a nutshell…I’m really not concerned with changing your mind or winning you over to my way of thinking. That’s not to say you’re hopeless – cuz I believe if someone is still alive there’s always hope…My intent is not even to win others over to my way of thinking…All I want is to inspire folks to do their best and clearest thinking…anyway - if we all thought alike then no one is really thinking. and here’s one more piece of unsolicited advice: maybe you should refrain from that sloppy regurgitation, imaginative elaboration and deceitful misquoting of wierwille-theology when you try to bolster his memory or promote some whacky idea - you wind up actually making wierwille sound worse than he already is…you’re not being a good PR agent for the cause. That’s all for now -

Thanks Chockfull ! but hey All, enough about me - as my WOW brother used to say “you’re making me feel subconscious.” FYI he wasn’t deliberately doing a Norm Crosby shtick either

Twinky, thanks for your input also hey All, believe it or not I’m well aware of the problem…Rocky nailed it on the psychological relief benefit I get out of it…but like I said – I’m working on it – which means I’m working on my editing skills…most of the time I can pull together ideas very quickly and post it – but my current editing process is after-the-fact - I’ve already posted it and then spend awhile correcting typos, fixing links, formatting and stuff to pretty it up…I had a boss who told me a story of someone who apologized for writing a real long letter because he didn’t take the time to write a short one…so I understand my problem but forget to implement the fix – spend more time refining the content before I post it.

Thanks, Rocky - I always appreciate the feedback - yeah that’s a toughie but I’m working on it

My post gave a tiny summary (see about quote) but perhaps if it was put another way – that may help – see links below – I copied/pasted several introductory remarks by Alyssa on the first link – you can click on the link to read the entire article…anyway… here it is: In a June 2021 article Alyssa Roat , a contributing writer for Christianity.com said this: Plenary and verbal inspiration means the Bible is God-given (and therefore without error) in every part (doctrine, history, geography, dates, names) and in every single word…When we dive into the Bible, the orthodox approach has been to view the text through the lens of verbal plenary inspiration. In the simplest terms, verbal plenary inspiration means that everything in the Bible is true and inspired by God. The historic view of the church is that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant. from: Christianity.com – what is verbal plenary inspiration end of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ some other links: Glosbe – plenary inspiration GotQuestions.org – verbal plenary inspiration ~ ~ ~ ~ The fact that wierwille said divine dictation CAN happen supports my statement “I believe wierwille's theology would have been based on either # 2 Dictation theory OR # 4 Plenary verbal inspiration theory” the main difference I see between #2 dictation and #4 plenary is that with #4 the authors were allowed some freedom to write in their own style. Either way, there’s enough apparent historical, geographical, “scientific” errors in the Bible, that #2 dictation and #4 plenary verbal are not viable options for my consideration. You raise some very interesting points about the “mechanics” of the message. The NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture offers these comments about II Peter 1:20, 21: Ancient thinkers often viewed prophetic inspiration as a divine possession that temporarily displaced the prophet’s own mind. The distinctive styles of Biblical prophets shows that this view oversimplifies the matter; inspiration still used human faculties and vocabulary (cf. I Pe 1:10-12; I Co 7:40; 14:1 – 2, 14 – 19), although there may have been different levels and kinds of ecstasy (cf. I Sa 10:10 – 11; 19: 20 – 24; I Co 14:2; II Co 5:13; 12:4) Regardless of particulars, however, ancient thinkers (and especially Jewish thinkers) generally expected inspiration to protect the inspired agents from misrepresenting the divine message (contrast 2:1). End of excerpt

Hi again Grease Spotters ! What? Back so soon? Yup – following hot on the heels of analyzing PFAL’s problematic, misleading and shifty methods of Bible interpretation, I thought I’d mention a few books that have an honest and simple approach to interpreting the Bible as well as getting a basic idea of what theology and doctrine are all about – these are more suited for a layman’s study of the Bible – they’re not that technical but still quite helpful to exploring the most important “documents” of our faith. if anyone would like some direction on books with much more depth and are quite detailed and tend to be more exacting of your cognitive skills – please feel free to private message me and I’ll give you a short list of books that I swear by – which could mean they’re so over my head I start swearing out loud (here’s another tip – don’t start swearing in the library - or the librarian just might kick your as- - I mean kick you out). Anyway, here’s the “layman’s list”: Understanding the Bible by John R W Stott I picked up this neat little paperback at a used bookstore back in 1987 – but still review this one periodically. Out of all the other books I’ll mention this one has the shortest list of sound principles of Bible interpretation – they are: 1. Look for the natural sense of Scripture – simplicity. While it is true that in some matters Scripture is not as plain as in others, devout and careful students of the Bible enjoy a wide measure of agreement on the basic tenets of historic Christianity. 2. Look for the original sense of Scripture. This is the principle of history. God chose to reveal Himself in a precise historical context. Therefore, the permanent and universal message of Scripture can best be understood in the light of the circumstances in which it was originally given. So as we read the Bible, we need to keep asking ourselves: what did the author intend to convey by this? What would the original audience understand it to mean? This is commonly known as the ‘grammatico-historical’ method of interpretation. 3. Look for the general sense of Scripture. This is the principle of harmony. From a human standpoint the Bible is a symposium with a wide assortment of contributors. From the divine standpoint, however, the whole Bible emanates from one mind. It is the word of God expressing the mind of God, and so possesses an organic unity. As with legal documents, so with the Biblical text we should seek to resolve apparent discrepancies and interpret Scripture as one harmonious whole. Sometimes referred to as let Scripture interpret Scripture – letting the plain passages unravel the more obscure ones as long as we can reasonably determine they are addressing the same issue. In that we may say every text of Scripture has a double context – historical and scriptural. Its context in history is the situation in which it was written. Its context in Scripture is the place where it is found. some other fun books are: NIV, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture Making Sense of the Bible: Rediscovering the Power of Scripture Today by Adam Hamilton Understanding the Bible: An Introduction for Skeptics, Seekers, and Religious Liberals by John Buehrens The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It by Peter Enns How the Bible Actually Works: In Which I Explain How An Ancient, Ambiguous, and Diverse Book Leads Us to Wisdom Rather Than Answers―and Why That's Great News by Peter Enns How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Fee and Stuart Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible by Richards and O’Brien Understanding Doctrine by Alister McGrath All the above books are fairly easy to read – you won’t get bogged down in a lot of technicalities – and they’re all definitely a lot more helpful than the PFAL books…I don’t mean to hog the discussion on Bible study helps – so if anyone else has some good books to recommend please chime in…If you do get a hankering for more details let me whet your appetite with something from The Portable Seminary. these excerpts are from chapter 3 “Interpreting Scripture” of The Portable Seminary pages 69 and following: Three basic questions may be asked of any text: What does it say? What does it mean? How does it impact me? – Edward L. Hayes Most people are aware that “meaningful” communication is difficult even at the ordinary human level. Between two people who speak the same language or even live in the same household, the meaning of what is said can easily be lost or distorted. Language is quite flexible…Language is continually changing. In the English of Shakespeare’s day, “physics” meant “laxatives or other medicines”; what is now called “physics” would have been known as “natural philosophy.” To interpret is to bring out the true meaning of something written or spoken, particularly by restating it in other words. One synonym is simply “to explain”; another is “to translate.” A bilingual person who stands beside a speaker to translate the speaker’s words into another language is called an interpreter. To evangelical Christians, biblical interpretation is a fundamentally important task because the Bible is considered to be God’s spoken and written Word. The Creator’s own revelation of himself and of his purpose for his creatures is the most significant communication human beings could possibly receive. – A. Berkeley Mickelsen …The Bible is not one book but a whole library of books, written over a span of more than fifteen hundred years by many different writers with a variety of individual styles and immediate purposes. Yet its own claims and its remarkable unity demonstrate to Christians that the Bible is “God’s Word in human language.” The interpreter, always a finite, fallible human creature, must try to see things from God’s point of view – even though they are expressed from another human perspective… …Over the years, devoted scholars trained in the discipline called hermeneutics (from Greek for “interpretation”) have worked out canons, or rules, for translating and interpreting Scripture… Exegesis is the process of drawing out of a text its intended meaning. From the Greek word exegeomai, the word is used to describe the disclosure or description of a document, statement, or incident… The relationship of exegesis to hermeneutics is one of kind and degree. Hermeneutics may best be viewed as the umbrella under which exegesis fits. Hermeneutics deals with the broad principles or rules of interpretation governing exegesis. The Word of God, properly understood in various cultural settings, prompts both the teacher and learner to search for proper meanings employing historical, critical, linguistic, and cultural understandings… Exegesis involves a process: 1. Examining the text itself, its origin and wording 2. Scrutiny of translation 3. Discovery of historical context – authorship, setting, and dating 4. Analysis of literary context 5. Determining the genre or literary type 6. Outlining and diagramming structure 7. Classification of grammar and syntax 8. Systematically studying a given truth in the setting of all revealed truth 9. Applying the text end of excerpts From The Portable Seminary: A Master's Level Overview in One Volume, general editor David Horton ~ ~ ~ ~ Moving on to theories of HOW God inspired the writers. In PFAL wierwille went into that a little bit. He referred to II Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” . However, wierwille did not go into great detail on EXACTLY HOW God inspired the writers…I picked up a pretty nifty book at Half Price Books awhile back that offers up some interesting ideas on the subject. You know when I sat through PFAL I came away with the idea that there was only one way to understand how God did inspire writing of the Scriptures – and that was the vague yet somehow authoritative method that wierwille described – the authors of Scripture were moved by the Holy Spirit… say what? that's it! ...well, that leaves a lot to be desired...(rhymes with inspired ) I always wanted to know a little more than that – even if it was just asking some simple questions like what role did the human authors play in the writing of The Bible? To what degree were they allowed to express the God-given message in a manner consistent with their own personalities? Well…this is another one of those things that’s not clearly explained in the Bible…sort of the same problem we ran into with interpreting the Bible – it’s not a textbook or encyclopedia – so we have to get into our “thought experiment mode” – we know how languages work, so we study the ancient languages all that syntax stuff – we study ancient cultures and historical setting, so we get context. But can we figure out HOW inspiration from God worked? Was it visions? Was it an inner voice? was it a still small voice? what if they didn't understand what was revealed but tried to write about it anyway - did the Spirit of God say "I wouldn't put it that way if I were you". Is it anything like the inspiration of an artist or musician? What is inspiration? It’s the process of being mentally stimulated to do or feel something, especially to do something creative. What is revelation? What is illumination? What is enlightenment? That’s some fascinating stuff I occasionally mull over in little side study projects – and there’s probably overlap and some small nuanced differences in some of it – but for simplicity I’ll just address the basic “inspiration” or “God-breathed” nature of Scripture, in that there’s not a whole lot to go on – - I mean we don’t have any actual VHS video footage to document a booming discorporate voice dictating the Psalms. Nor do we have printouts of an electroencephalogram (EEG) test that detected the electrical activity in Ezekiel’s brain using small, metal discs (electrodes) attached to his scalp – which displayed the variations as he received revelation from God …so we’ll have to resort to THEORIZING … ...A theory is a general principle that tries to explain a phenomenon. It can be defined as a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained…and since we're dealing with something intangible like inspiration...well...there's probably going to be some assumptions involved that may help us relate it to past experiences... ...was there a learning curve with folks gaining the experience of reflecting on what they know and what God would then reveal to them? would it be like a mind-blowing information dump or would it be like a God-infused evolutionary development of their faith? would it feel like a brainstorm on steroids? how did they know it was God and not something bad they had for supper? ...As slow as I am to learn something new, I could see myself having to ask God “hey, can you run that by me again.” ...I wonder if the scroll Robert’s Rules of Writing was required reading at the school of the prophets. Wonder what the cost was for a student parking validation sticker for their camel...donkey...horse...rickshaw... rickshaw? that's Far East - never mind we're talking Middle East here. On pages 24 to 26 of Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey according to authors Bill Arnold & Bryan Beyer, scholars who have wrestled with these questions of how inspiration worked have proposed many theories. Four of the most common are: 1. Neo-orthodoxy theory: conceived in the early 20th century, partly as a reaction to liberalism’s disregard for divine authority. Karl Barth and Emil Brunner are two of its leading proponents. Neo-orthodoxy holds that God is utterly transcendent – meaning God is absolutely different from us and far beyond our comprehension. Neo-orthodoxy differs from evangelicalism in that neo-orthodoxy asserts the Bible is a WITNESS to the Word of God or CONTAINS the Word of God – whereas evangelicalism holds that the Bible IS the Word of God. According to neo-orthodoxy the writers recorded their experiences with God the best they could – but being human, their writings sometimes contained paradoxes or errors. 2. Dictation theory: suggests God simply dictated the Bible to human scribes – giving them the EXACT words God WANTED – writing ONLY what God dictated to them. This view generally doesn’t appear in print but has sometimes been suggested by some segments of Christianity – some conservative and fundamentalist groups. 3. Limited inspiration theory: holds that God inspired the thoughts of the biblical writers, but not necessarily the words they chose. God guided the thoughts of the writers, but he gave them freedom to express those thoughts in their own style. Having that freedom, some historical errors as well as ancient and often erroneous concepts of physical sciences, life sciences, and Earth sciences may be found. 4. Plenary verbal inspiration theory: like the other views plenary verbal inspiration asserts the Holy Spirit interacted with the writers to produce the Bible. “Plenary” means “full” or “complete”. “Plenary” inspiration asserts that God’s inspiration extends to ALL of Scripture – WHICH INCLUDES when the writers recorded any historical, physical science and life science details. “Verbal” refers to the WORDS of Scripture. “Verbal inspiration” means God’s inspiration extends to THE VERY WORDS the writers chose – but it is not the same as # 2 the dictation theory. The writers could have chosen other words, and God often allowed them the freedom to express their own personalities as they wrote – but the Holy Spirit still guided the process so that the finished product faithfully conveyed God’s message. I’m of the opinion that the way one thinks the Bible was written will influence the way one interprets the Bible. There ARE a FEW accounts in Scripture that indicate God communicated a word-for-word message – but assuming God is also the creator of the cosmos – with superlative attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. - and the fact that we find historical errors as well as ancient and often erroneous concepts of physical sciences, life sciences, and Earth sciences rules out the dictation theory for me. Of course, that’s just my opinion – I could be wrong. I find myself leaning toward a mix of # 1 neo-orthodoxy and # 3 limited inspiration theory. Again - that’s just my opinion… I believe wierwille's theology would have been based on either # 2 Dictation theory or # 4 Plenary verbal inspiration theory ... Though these theories of how the Bible was written seem simple enough to describe – the impact of which one or more of these we choose may be profound to our understanding. I think a student of the Bible should be AWARE of the ASSUMPTIONS they hold and WHY, when reading, interpreting, and applying Scripture. That’s all for now folks –

 Hi Grease Spotters and anyone else who might have accidentally stumbled unto this thread (if you’re a Scientologist remember the safe word is going-clear) …If you recall the minutes of our last meeting, I had pointed out the very tricky false dilemma (a logical fallacy aka a false dichotomy) that wierwille used in PFAL to present a premise that incorrectly limits the choices you have – there is either no interpretation possible or the Bible must interpret itself – but wait Ding ding We’ve hit the daily double!! Besides slipping in a logical fallacy, wierwille also screwed up something else – even though he plagiarized it from Bullinger – he put his own devious spin on it. How Bullinger handles II Peter 1:20, 21 is quite different from wierwille: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. On pages 187 and 188 of How to Enjoy the Bible by EW Bullinger Bullinger zeros in on “no prophecy of the scripture is OF any private interpretation” noting that the little word “of” indicates genitive of origin and forms part of a larger context, the scope or subject of which is NOT what Scripture MEANS, but FROM WHENCE IT CAME – thus the words are brought into harmony with the whole passage – and refer to the ORIGIN and SOURCE of the prophetic Word, and NOT to its meaning or interpretation. That is exact opposite of the way wierwille handles II Peter 1:20 & 21. I believe Bullinger had it right…kind of ironic that wierwille used his own misinterpretation of II Peter 1:20 & 21 to tell everyone else that they shouldn’t try to interpret the Bible for themselves. …( fyi – the page numbers may vary if you have the newer edition - I have an older edition – reprinted by Samuel Bagster & Sons Ltd 1970 and 1974 – which believe it or not, I purchased eons ago at The Way International’s bookstore – it still has The Way’s price sticker on the back – only $6.25 what a deal, folks! since mine is hardbound and the one on the Amazon link is a flimsy old paperback for $18.12 flex it and weep ) Another reason I trust Bullinger’s How to Enjoy the Bible a lot more than wierwille’s butchered up copy of it – is that in his book Bullinger emphasizes time and again the value of engaging your thinking skills when using the keys to the interpretation of the Bible. Whereas in the PFAL class, wierwille comes off as being indifferent to the importance of using one’s own mental faculties since “the Bible interprets itself”. Even though in the PFAL class wierwille goes over many of the same keys to the interpretation of the Bible that are in Bullinger’s book, he breezes through them quickly – which may give PFAL students the impression that wierwille knows what he’s talking about and that they’re so easy to use there’s little thought involved when applying them. From my own initial experience and what I have witnessed in other new PFAL grads – this tends to breed a false confidence that you are “interpreting The Word correctly – just like Doctor did in the class” – when in fact most of the time we were all regurgitating what “The Teacher” taught us. I deliberately use the word “regurgitating” because that’s what happens when you merely ABSORB information – you tend to repeat that information without analyzing or comprehending it. On page 79 and 80 of Christian Theology by Millard Erickson talking about the PROCESS of DOING theology, Millard mentions the degrees of authority in theological statements (now just think about that for a minute – “degrees of authority in theological statements” - and consider the fact that the PFAL class is mostly a lot of theological statements wherein wierwille expresses some facts, fallacies, views, beliefs, attitudes, etc. besides actually quoting parts of the KJV Bible) …anyway…Millard says our theology will consist of various types of theological statements which can be classified on the basis of their source. IT IS IMPORTANT TO ATTRIBUTE TO EACH TYPE AN APPROPRIATE DEGREE OF AUTHORITY – and in each case we SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL STEPS – LIKE LOGICAL INFERENCE. Millard describes them as the following: 1. DIRECT statements of Scripture are to be accorded the greatest weight. To the degree that they accurately represent what the Bible teaches, they have the status of a direct word from God. Great care must of course be exercised to make certain that we are dealing here with the teaching of Scripture, and NOT AN INTERPRETATION IMPOSED UPON IT. 2. Direct implications of Scripture must also be given high priority. They are to be regarded as slightly less authoritative than direct quotes of Scripture. However, because the introduction of an additional step – LOGICAL INFERENCE carries with it the possibility of misinterpretation. 3. Probable implications of Scripture, that is, inferences that are drawn in cases where one of the assumptions or premises is only probable, are somewhat less authoritative than # 2 direct implications. While deserving respect, such statements should be held with a certain amount of tentativeness. 4. Inductive conclusions from Scripture vary in their degree of authority. Inductive investigation, of course, gives only probabilities – since inductive is characterized by the inference of general laws from particular instances. 5. Conclusions inferred from the general revelation, which is not as specific or not stated clearly and in detail than the special revelation, must accordingly be subject to the clearer and more explicit statements of the Bible. 6. Outright speculations, which frequently include hypotheses based upon a single statement or hint in Scripture or derived from somewhat obscure or unclear parts of the Bible, may also be utilized by the theologians. There is no harm in this AS LONG AS THE THEOLOGIAN IS AWARE AND WARNS THE READER OR HEARER OF WHAT HE IS DOING. A SERIOUS PROBLEM ENTERS IF THESE SPECULATIONS ARE PRESENTED WITH THE SAME DEGREE OF AUTHORITATIVENESS ATTRIBUTED TO STATEMENTS OF # 1 DIRECT STATEMENTS OF SCRIPTURE...and yet wierwille did this most of the time - i.e., he presented his speculations and ideas as if they were direct statements from Scripture. I would venture to say - and I challenge any PFAL-fan to prove me wrong – that the majority of theological statements that wierwille makes in PFAL have a degree of authority spanning from # 2 to # 6 – and especially in matters of science, logic and the Holy Spirit they lean heavily on # 6 – SPECULATION !!!!– BUT - in the minds of most PFAL students the class material has as much weight as # 1 direct statements of Scripture. There’s only a few instances I can think of where wierwille actually said he couldn’t prove something by showing us where it was clearly stated in a chapter and verse – and that was in the Christian Family and Sex class – when wierwille got into what the original sin was – he said he couldn’t give a specific verse, but he said the original sin was masturbation. ... ...hands down That's got to be one of the most outlandish speculations he's ever made ! Such a tantalizing mystery over the difference between what Bullinger said and what wierwille said about one little word like “of.” I wonder if this “itty bitty issue” strikes a nerve with any diehard PFAL-fans…in the spirit of Jesus’ stimulating challenge that LEAVES IT UP TO THE HEARER TO DECIDE whether to take his words seriously and pursue understanding “Anyone with ears to hear should listen and understand!” (see Matthew 11:15 NLT ) I’d like to ask…are you ready?...do you have your ears on? remember on page 209 of Whiteside’s book wierwille comments on the content of what he teaches: “Lots of the stuff I teach is not original. Putting it all together so that it fit – that was the original work. I learned wherever I could, and then worked that with the Scriptures. What was right on with the Scriptures, I kept; but what wasn’t, I dropped.” …just for grins, let’s suspend criticism of wierwille’s flagrant plagiarism – and just examine his body of work from the premise of his claim that God spoke to him and would help him piece together what he had “learned” from others and with God’s guidance make it all accurate in the process. If indeed he had God’s help then we should NOT find any errors, theological inconsistencies or any logical fallacies – in either the exact copying of another person’s material or in wierwille's supposedly “correcting", “revising” …or in some way modifying or “accurizing” another person’s material. In other words, the FINISHED PRODUCT of wierwille’s doctrine SHOULD BE ERROR-FREE and FAULTLESS IN EVERY WAY…but such is not the case – as I have been pointing out lately here as well as many other Grease Spotters have pointed out here and elsewhere at Grease Spot Café – wierwille’s PFAL class is chock-full of errors, logical fallacies, cognitive distortions, manipulative propaganda, speculations, misdirections, misinterpretations, fabrications, falsehoods, contradictions, inconsistencies and hype. Assuming that God Almighty is an infinite, perfect, omniscient, truthful, and rational being who is perfectly capable of clearly communicating any type of information to other rational beings - and given that wierwille's body of work contains numerous inaccuracies, contradictions, theological inconsistencies, and logical fallacies - leads me to conclude wierwille made numerous false claims in PFAL and in the book “The Way: Living in Love”. God did NOT guide wierwille to produce a perfect body of work. wierwille must have lied – or if you want to give him the benefit of a doubt, he was living under SERIOUS DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR. Maybe it’s BOTH – he could have been a PATHOLOGICAL LIAR AND “suffered” from DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR. It really should make PFAL-fans wonder about wierwille’s competency as a Biblical researcher, theologian, pastor, counselor, preacher and teacher – that he not only copied the errors of someone else’s work (like Bullinger’s 4 crucified theory) but he also mangled the correct points of someone else’s work (like Bullinger’s explanation of II Peter 1:20, 21 – emphasizing the origin of Scripture - - instead of prohibiting someone from interpreting the Scriptures as wierwille twisted it to mean). And that’s just the “little things”, folks…If you haven’t already you should peruse the About The Way forum and the Doctrinal forum – where Grease Spotters have reexamined all things PFAL, and stuff wierwille taught in other classes like Christian Family and Sex, and The Advanced Class. Spoiler alert – be forewarned - a majority of wierwille’s work is rife with errors, logical fallacies, dubious speculations, fabrications, exaggerations, pontifications, falsehoods, contradictions, inconsistencies, authoritarianism, licentiousness, his signature intuition, fundamentalism, spiritualism and Gnosticism. Would you trust a brain surgeon who operated with that SAME LEVEL OF EXPERTISE? Though it is never stated outright in any literature of The Way International, the words of wierwille in the PFAL class are considered by loyal followers to be on par with Scripture – in other words, whatever wierwille says about a passage has approximately equal authority as Scripture itself! I remember at PFAL ’77 – a live re-filming of the “original” PFAL class of 1967 – one of the master of ceremonies, a TWI-ordained clergyman came on stage to answer the question many of us were wondering “would this new PFAL 77 class replace the old 1967 PFAL class as THE introductory class when joining TWI?”. ...Nope! The clergyman simply asked the audience a rhetorical question saying, “Did the Apostle Paul need to re-write the book of Ephesians?” Thus, a switcheroo happens surreptitiously before the uncritical mind. The absolute authority of The Bible is usurped in a stealthy manner – under cover of the assumption by all, that wierwille was good at “rightly dividing The Word” AND that he was designated by God himself to teach The Word to us “in this day and time and hour” – a pompous phrase that wierwille was fond of saying quite often to give his sermons and ceremonies a sense of gravitas. what is obvious to outsiders or any disobedient follower who is courageous enough to remove the wierwille-colored glasses is that he was a poser who stole and lied to impress others. a special thanks to Oakspear who inspired me with his thread he coined the term PFAL-colored glasses - I was afraid to plagiarize his idea – so I altered the original text so I wouldn’t have to pay royalties to Oakspear I’ve since reflected on the times I sat through a live Power For Abundant Living class, several live Advanced classes, way corps teachings and even times where he gave an unscripted teaching. Seeing him fumble with some definition of a word, teach something on a passage by taking it completely out of context, ignore some other fundamental principle of interpretation or in so many other ways demonstrate his incompetence – makes me think of an actor on some commercial saying “I’m not a real doctor but I play one on TV”. Sometimes he’d offer no text evidence or logical explanation – and just seemed to simply pull an answer out of his a$$ - he’d say something like “Father showed me this” or “If Father wanted me to look into a word in a verse, he’d make the word appear one inch high”. A brief aside here on why all the plagiarizing and teaching shenanigans don't seem to faze diehard PFAL-fans. It has to do with the wierwille-colored glasses that PFAL-fans are unaware they are wearing. What are wierwille-colored glasses? It's to view events, people, situations, ideas, etc. through wierwille's point of view...PFAL-fans have learned to perceive everything through a mental filter. This is a cognitive distortion – a selective evaluation of any simple or complex situations – it's basically a skewed sense of reality. Most new PFAL-grads are unaware of the mental filter that begins to form as they continue to absorb a set of ideas and assumptions first presented through introductory classes like the Power For Abundant Living class and later The Way of Abundance and Power class. All that becomes more and more heavily reinforced through repetition as one stays involved with TWI. This mental filter functions as a precautionary measure to safeguard TWI-beliefs by removing, blocking, sifting, or even adulterating unwanted or competing information, ideas, facts, feelings, etc. that could challenge TWI-beliefs. (To me the most unsettling aspect of these seemingly automatic biases is that I was unaware I had such biases. It's something I could have proactively addressed and reduced or eliminated - but first I would have needed to identify them.). This becomes the TWI-mindset – or groupthink. For me, this mindset was like a ball-and-chain that held me back. It was a crippling mental encumbrance that put restrictions on cognitive skills, creativity, feelings and personal pursuits… …next up, as mentioned in my previous posts, I will get into the different views of Biblical inspiration, and the vital role of intuition and cognitive skills when we read the Bible. That’s all for now, folks Be back soon with more goodies ***DVD bonus feature: check out Scripture Twisting: 20 Ways the Cults Misread the Bible by James Sire ***

Multiple choice question – worth 4 Rock of Ages meal tickets You know you’re in a cult when ____ A. Your Twig coordinator reproves you for a slip of the tongue when you said, “I sponsor someone in the way cult.” B. Your Twig coordinator finds out about your Christmas bonus and reminds you to abundantly share from that too. C. Your Twig coordinator asks you to teach something new and exciting out of The Blue Book. D. Your Twig coordinator assigns you to under-shepherd the new person he witnessed to on the street and suggests you have him do some odd jobs around your home so he can earn money for the class. E. Your Twig coordinator informs you that God is going to bless you big time for letting the branch use your home for the next PFAL class. F. Your Twig coordinator thanks you profusely for covering the last three auto-mechanic’s bills on his clunker. G. Before making any big decisions you always check with your Twig coordinator. H. Sometimes you feel guilty for wishing your Twig coordinator would drop dead. I. All of the above. J. All without exception

You know you’re in a harmful and controlling cult when leadership endeavors to micromanage your faith, your social life, your finances, and all of your relationships with their leave-no-stone-unturned-invasive-strategy. You know you’re in a pseudo-Christian cult when leadership endeavors to take the place of the absent Christ through the lordship of their Pharisaism. You know you’re in a life-dominating-morally-depraved-cult when leadership behaves as if they are above the laws of the land – being a law unto themselves. You know you’re in a life-sucking-money-grubbing-cult when they tell you that the truth will set you free – but the truth itself is not free – because there’s a minimum required donation for the stupid class.

Greetings and felicitations, Grease Spotters as we open another session of How’s Your Critical Thinking …If you’ve been following along, then you’re aware that this thread has taken a turn for the better, by the objective analysis and evaluation of PFAL in order to form a judgment. Part III of the PFAL book is titled How the Bible Interprets Itself, and Chapter Twelve: In Its Verse, wierwille states on pages 145 and following: II Peter 1:20 is a Scripture that I ordinarily begin with in my classes. In this book I have gone into more background to point out the accuracy of The Word so that now we are ready to study this verse. II Peter 1:20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. This is the first thing one must know if he is going to understand the greatness of God’s revelation in His Word. No prophecy, not one verse, is of any private interpretation. If I say, “This is what I think it means,” I am giving my private interpretation. If you say, “This is what I think it means,” or if any denomination writes, “This is what our denomination says it means,” we have private interpretation. Give two men the same Scripture verse and, by privately interpreting it, they will come to two completely divergent conclusions. All our splits in Christianity come because we do not study The Word from its inherent accuracy. It matters nothing what we think, what our opinions are. The crucial element is what The Word says. You and I have to do our thinking according to the accuracy of The Word. II Peter 1:20 is the only place that idios is translated “private”. At the other places in the Bible it is translated “one’s own” or “his own”. The word “interpretation” is the Greek word epilusis which occurs at no other place in the Bible. The Greek verb form of epilusis is epiluo “to let loose upon,” as a hunting dog is let loose upon game. Idios plus epilusis equals “of no personal letting loose.” One does not just let his mind run vagrantly as when turning a dog loose upon the game; one does not let his mind wander and give all kinds of interpretations to the Scripture. “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any personal letting loose.” After eliminating private interpretation, two alternatives remain in interpreting God’s Word: (1) either there is no interpretation possible or (2) The Word must interpret itself. If there is no interpretation possible, then we might as well forget the whole project of understanding The Word. But this is not the case. The is another answer – The Word interprets itself. The Word interprets itself in one of three ways: (1) it interprets itself in the verse where it is written; or (2) it interprets itself in its context; or (3) the interpretation can be found by its previous usage in The Word. It was a remarkable revelation to us who do Biblical research to discover that the vast majority of the Word of God does interpret itself right where it is written. I would estimate that from Genesis to Revelation 85 to 90 per cent of the Word of God interprets itself in the verse… …One note which we must heed is that the words must be understood according to the definitions at the time the translation was made. The meanings of words change. We would have a problem three weeks from now if a new translation were published today because of changed definitions and usage of words… …There is another point. Verses that are self-interpreting must be in harmony with all other Biblical references on the same topic… …Now let us proceed to the issue of narrative development. Narrative development means that several passages of Scripture on an identical incident or subject may augment the information given in each other. Each passage of Scripture relating to the same incident may not give the same details but the Scriptures must complement and agree with each other or we do not have the true Word of God. End of excerpts from the PFAL book ~ ~ ~ ~ If you’ve ever studied logical fallacies, then it shouldn’t surprise you that wierwille’s premise (either the Bible interprets itself or there is no interpretation possible) offers PFAL students a false dilemma - also referred to as false dichotomy – it is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. Sometimes on Grease Spot Café PFAL-fans will get up in arms when others criticize PFAL and the PFAL-fans will counter with arguments like “it doesn’t matter if wierwille plagiarized other people’s work – all truth is still God’s truth” …One Grease Spotter mentioned wierwille use to say that “you can find truth on the heels of the devil.” In my humble opinion statements like that represent a very weak rebuttal. Consider the definition of systematic theology – it is “a discipline of Christian theology that formulates an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the doctrines of the Christian faith. It addresses issues such as what the Bible teaches about certain topics or what is true about God and His universe.” From Wikipedia – systematic theology As I have detailed in previous posts on this thread and will continue to do so – there lacks an orderly, rational and coherent account of the doctrines of the Christian faith in wierwille’s “teachings” whenever he addressed many topics – such as God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Church, the Christian lifestyle, sin, interpreting Scripture, etc. I’d like to parse the assumptions hidden in wierwille’s plagiarism / all truth is still God’s truth dictum. I am most familiar with Bullinger’s work (which wierwille stole a lot from) and matter of fact - I still remain appreciative of it to this day. On my shelves of Study Bibles, Bullinger's Companion resides for quick access …This is actually my second copy of it – which I purchased in 2004 at a Barnes and Noble Store. My first copy was given to me by my W.O.W. coordinator Dawn in 1976 at the end of our W.O.W. year – I had borrowed hers so much – even photocopying sections of it for study projects – she finally said, “You use this more than I do” and gave it to me. Thanks again, Dawn I still have that – though it’s been repaired in a bunch of places and I even had to “band-aid” the well-worn hardcover by gluing a brown Naugahyde jacket over it – it doesn’t look that bad – sort of works like Ralphie’s brother Randy’s winter wear in A Christmas Story in the scene where Momma Parker bundles up Randy so well for his trek in the snow that Randy can’t put his arms down to his sides…My Naugahyded Companion Bible has that car-door-is-ajar-look …But anyway – even though I love Bullinger’s work I don’t treat it like it’s the ultimate reference…I think PFAL-fans are that way with wierwille’s body of work – with PFAL being like the secret decoder ring depicted in the movie “A Christmas Story”…since it is the redefining ciphers of wierwille’s intuition, fundamentalism, spiritualism and Gnosticism that seem to decode the hidden accuracy and integrity of “The Word”. Admiring Bullinger’s work does not mean I think it’s the ultimate trustworthy reference tool for Bible study – one should still exercise good judgment when reading anything. As far as Bullinger goes, I am particularly wary of his ultra-dispensationalism – which in my humble opinion has no Biblical merit – as well as some of the other highly suspect articles in the appendices at the back of his Companion Bible – especially Appendix # 164 “The ‘Others’ Crucified with the Lord” – which gets into Bullinger’s theory that there were four (two thieves and two malefactors) crucified with Jesus. I will always give credit where credit is due – on the other hand, wierwille could only wish he was even one quarter the scholar that Bullinger was…a true scholar – no matter how good is not perfect…but what distinguishes a scholar from a fraud like wierwille is that a scholar is a specialist in a particular branch of study…a distinguished academic…a person who is highly educated…has an aptitude for study. unlike wierwille's fabrications and exaggerations of his credentials - as stated in the authorized book on TWI, titled “The Way Living in Love” (by Elena S. Whiteside, co 1972, American Christian Press, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 72-89132), on page 175, Whiteside quotes wierwille as he talked about his studies and influences: “I don’t remember much of the past. I’ll have to renew my mind. Oh yes, did I tell you I taught at Gordon Divinity School? Homiletics was my specialty – that’s preaching. I took everything I could take at the Moody Bible Institute too, through their correspondence courses." Way back in early June of 1987, I contacted The Moody Correspondence School Department of the Moody Bible Institute and spoke with Vivian Ruby in the Registrar’s Office. I was stunned to find out they had no record of wierwille completing a course with them. I couldn’t believe it. I didn’t want to believe it. I had to have something more tangible than a woman’s voice over the phone telling me that in effect wierwille lied about something in his education. I asked her to mail me that information in a letter with Moody Correspondence School’s official letterhead…the letter reads as follows: June 29, 1987 To whom it may concern, This is to verify that Victor Wierwille did not complete a course with us. This is not to say that he didn’t purchase a course from us but that he did not complete one. We do not keep records for courses that are not complete for more than 10 years. Sincerely, Vivian Ruby Registrar’s Office ~ ~ ~ ~ Even if you want to give wierwille the benefit of a doubt and suggest he may have purchased a bunch of courses but did not complete them – I would say that’s doubtful – it still doesn’t agree with what he said “I took everything I could take at the Moody Bible Institute too, through their correspondence courses.” Even if he purchased ten classes but didn’t complete any of them – how could he say he took everything Moody Bible Institute Correspondence School had to offer? He made a vague and misleading statement. Needless to say, my "investigation" really picked up steam after I held that letter in my hand – but there was also an ominous feeling…dread...would I find out the foundation of my faith was built upon the shifting sands of a false-teacher? ...well, PFAL-fans - that's certainly something to think about isn't it... ...and If you’re wondering what drove me to investigate wierwille’s background it was probably a sneaky suspicion…a hunch…intuition…a gut feeling that all the commotion and power-grabs after the reading of passing of the patriarch was due to an erroneous and unstable infrastructure that wierwille himself had built....during that time of crisis in my faith - the words of Jesus Christ kept reverberating in my soul: 24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” from Matthew 7 ( you can see the actual letter here > The Moody Correspondence School Department of the Moody Bible Institute ) ...anyway...getting back to Bullinger...I still like to refer to Bullinger’s Companion Bible for its outline of literary structure throughout the Bible, observations on the figures of speech, explanations of Hebrew and Greek words, and general cross-references. I think Bullinger did stand on shaky ground sometimes - because of subscribing to the plenary verbal inspiration theory of how the Bible was written – the theory asserts that God’s inspiration extends to ALL of Scripture – WHICH INCLUDES when the writers recorded any historical, physical science and life science details…wierwille subscribed to this theory of inspiration too… “Verbal” refers to the WORDS of Scripture. “Verbal inspiration” means God’s inspiration extends to THE VERY WORDS the writers chose. I’ll get into the four major theories of inspiration that attempt to explain how the Bible was written in another post. Since this one is kinda long… Ever the unabashed plagiarist, I believe wierwille capitalized on Bullinger’s theory of the 4 crucified with Jesus as a way to distinguish himself from all other theologians - as if to say “look what other Bible scholars had apparently missed.” I totally disagree with Bullinger’s theory on the 4 crucified – but I’ll say this – at least Bullinger did the work. Perhaps he went a little overboard to try and gloss over the differences in the narratives on the crucifixion… I don’t know for sure. However, when you get to wierwille’s spiel – it was a mixture of sense and nonsense that appeared to be earnest and meaningful and at times a rapid patter of deliberately evasive ambiguous language and elaborate and passionate but confusing explanations. From a theological standpoint what wierwille missed was the importance of the central figure at the crucifixion – the Lord Jesus Christ!!!! …I am extremely skeptical of wierwille’s “narrative development” or “Scripture buildup” mentioned above in the PFAL book – for brevity’s sake I did not include his example of the 4 crucified with Jesus, because it was totally SUBJECTIVE as it was a perception that relied on his mind, as opposed to something that exists in reality (but I will debunk it in my comments forthwith). That his meaning of narrative development is subjective is evident from wierwille’s own definition – as quoted above in the PFAL book – he said “Narrative development means that several passages of Scripture on an identical incident or subject may augment the information given in each other. Each passage of Scripture relating to the same incident may not give the same details but the Scriptures must complement and agree with each other or we do not have the true Word of God.” Just because wierwille THOUGHT several passages of Scripture were of the identical incident or subject but giving different details does not necessarily mean that is so – wierwille borrowing from Bullinger’s theory states “two thieves or Greek, duo lestai in Matthew 27:38 PLUS two malefactors or Greek, duo kakourgos of Luke 23:32 EQUALS 4 crucified with Jesus. When I first took PFAL in 1974, after the session on the 4 crucified with Jesus, the class instructor passed around a Bullinger Companion Bible, opened to appendix 164 of Bullinger’s theory of the 4 crucified – and lo and behold there’s a picture of five stone crosses in Brittany, France…Here’s what Wikipedia says of that site: The Five Crosses (in French, Les Cinq Croix) are a set of stone crosses at Ploubezre, near Lannion, Côtes-du-Nord, in Brittany, France, classified as a historic monument by a decree of 7 December 1925 and, as a group, attributed to the 18th century. The central cross is placed on a tall pillar and has a figure of Christ on one side and of Mary the mother of Jesus on the other. The other crosses are plain except for that immediately to the right of the central cross, which bears the date 1728. The base of another is inscribed with the date 1733. Differing accounts attribute the central cross to the 15th or 16th century and consider the others to be medieval, while local lore has it that they were erected to commemorate a victory over English invaders. It is also said that they were assembled from various nearby places by the rector of the church to preserve them from destruction or on the occasion of a religious mission, perhaps in 1728 or 1733. The 1826 land survey shows that at that time the crosses stood, with a different orientation, along the road at about 25 metres from their present position… Interpretation by E. W. Bullinger Groups of crosses are found also in other parts of Brittany gathered together for reasons that are now difficult to explain. Examples are a pair in front of a chapel at Croaziou and three at Pont Hir. However, the English theologian E. W. Bullinger (1837–1913) attached special significance to the group of five at Ploubezre, claiming that it was a confirmation of his theory that Jesus was crucified with four, not just two, criminals: two thieves and two other malefactors. from Wikipedia - The Five Crosses note - if you click on this Wikipedia link you'll see the same exact picture in Bullinger's article. Among other errors, I think Bullinger AND wierwille were both just making a mountain out of a molehill and being ignorant of how people relate an incident – and how people may prefer one synonym over another. To one Gospel writer, the two men crucified with Jesus were described as thieves. To another writer, they’re malefactors – or evildoers. Even wierwille teaches in PFAL that each author of any book in the Bible used their own vocabulary and style when writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (as mentioned earlier, I do plan on getting into the different views of inspiration in a later post ) If you look at definitions of Koine Greek used in the New Testament ( a dialect that developed within the armies of Alexander the Great; Koine Greek is considered to be the language of life, modern Greek can be termed as the language of the books. There are some differences in the grammar between Koine Greek and modern Greek). According to Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, editors Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich on page 532 the Greek word lestai is from a root meaning “to win”, “to seize” and “to seize as prey” and hence lestes for “one who seizes as prey”, used in antiquity for a soldier or mercenary who has an implicit right to booty; Josephus used the term for the Zealots; Rabbinic Judaism adopted the term from the Greek and used it to refer to robbers besides the Zealots. So implicit in the word is robber and revolutionary. And on pages 391 and following of The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament concerning the Greek word kakourgos, has a root expressing a lack and has the meanings of “unserviceable”, “incapable”, “morally evil” “bad”, “weak” and “ruinous.” Both lestai and kakourgos appear to be more synonymous than different as wierwille claimed they were. Matter of fact in Richard Trench’s Synonyms of The New Testament on pages 158 and 159 talks about no passage has suffered more seriously from translators muddling up similar words than Luke 23: 39 – 43 (see Luke 23 – Mounce Reverse Interlinear New testament ) The significant and rapidly changing moral condition of the man referred to as the “penitent thief” is obscured for many by the association which almost inevitably cling to this term. The two malefactors crucified with Jesus, the one a hardened criminal, the other repentant. In all probability he had belonged to the band of Barabbas, who for murder and insurrection had been cast into prison along with his fellow insurgents See Mark 15:7 Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament He too was himself a lestes John 18: 40 Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament This condemned man was no ordinary malefactor – on the contrary, he was a notorious prisoner in the same class of criminals as Jesus Barabbas who the ruling priests and elders had persuaded the crowd to ask for a prisoner release according to the governor’s custom. As a Roman official, Pilate probably didn’t wish to appear too lenient – a weakness that his subjects might exploit. And perhaps having a concern for order - which for governors, often took precedence over individual matters of justice, especially when the accused were not Roman citizens, Pilate presumably calculated that the crowd would select Jesus a popular Messianic figure, whom Pilate deems harmless, over Barabbas, thus freeing himself from the obligation to release a hardened criminal like Barabbas. Matthew 27: 16 Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament Some details from NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture To clear up the “double-vision” of seeing 4 criminals surrounding Jesus - one should also consider the fickleness of human nature - that one of the “thieves” who mocked Jesus in Matthew 27 was also the “malefactor” who had a change of heart in Luke 23. Sometimes people do that when they’re lying at death’s door. Another assumption that wierwille had was that the crucifixes were in a straight line (as if the Roman Execution Tech Support Team were the ancient forerunners of the way corps who are also well versed in the fine art of stringing a line to set up chairs for a meeting ) – wierwille overly dramatizes John 19: 31B – 33 Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. wierwille makes a mockery of the traditional view of the crucifixion scene described in John 19:18 Since the passage says Jesus was in the middle, wierwille acts out the soldiers covering their eyes as they walked in a straight line to ignore Jesus in the middle of the group - to break the legs of the other criminal – and then doubling back to Jesus only to find he was already dead. The scenario is very silly indeed IF the crosses were lined up in a straight line. Rather than the crosses being set up in a perfectly straight line - It’s just as plausible that the three crucifixes were set up in a rough semicircle or triangular configuration especially on uneven ground like a hill – with Jesus’ cross being at the apex point of the semicircle or triangle – it would thus be set back from the crosses of the two criminals. Then, it would be a natural course of action for the soldiers to break the legs of the two criminals in the forefront first – and since it also says “soldiers” (plural) it is possible that there were at least two soldiers who would break the legs of both criminals at the same time – and then head up toward the middle where they find Jesus was dead already. Even if the crucifixes were set up more or less straight across – it’s also conceivable the soldiers - being pressured by the Jewish leaders who did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath – acted hastily to break the legs of those who were obviously STILL ALIVE because they were writhing and moaning from intense excruciating pain. Rather than cobbling together a false narrative of the crucifixion scene like wierwille did in PFAL – it makes a lot more sense to read the Gospels the way they were meant to be read – as individual stories staying within the continuity of each author’s narrative. …With all this finagling and cobbling together a false narrative of the crucifixion scene like wierwille did in PFAL – wierwille was really playing an intellectual shell game involving sleight-of-thought, in which various words and ideas are moved about with the skillful adeptness of a double-talking used car salesman, to the amazement of PFAL students…very inappropriate for someone who goes on about being so concerned for "the accuracy and integrity of The Word” It comes across as being deceitful. How does butchering the Gospels in a piecemeal fashion to concoct an alternate version of the crucifixion scene reflect accurately and honestly the Scripture narrative of the crucifixion? Many Bible scholars have pointed out that each Gospel has a distinct viewpoint and a particular purpose to portray certain unique aspects of Jesus Christ – and as such, logic would dictate that the proper literary flow is to simply read each Gospel all the way through as a whole piece, to understand the author’s original intent and to get the full impact. If you would like to see a unified narrative of all four Gospels you should check out the NIV, Integrated Study Bible, Hardcover: A New Chronological Approach for Exploring Scripture That’s all for now folks …more to come later… …I appreciate all you folks for taking the time to tune in… salute to the PFAL-fans mentioned in the very first post on this thread…including more than the fans that the thread-starter knows personally…including current followers of TWI and offshoots…and ANY PFAL grad who has a strong sense of disillusionment derived from the failure of PFAL to fulfill the goals/claims/promises/benefits that “The Teacher” (wierwille) stated AND the perception of inconsistencies between the actions of “The Teacher” (wierwille) and the ideals he supposedly represented… …okay – that’s really all for now, folks

Hey Grease Spotters, here we are at the umpteenth session of the ALLEGED 2nd wave of returning to PFAL has started…in case anyone is wondering about these long and detailed critiques of mine and why I am going full steam ahead – it’s because my target audience are the PFAL-fans mentioned in the very first post on this thread – which includes more than the fans that the thread-starter knows personally – it also includes current followers of TWI and also the offshoots…and really ANY PFAL grad who has a strong sense of disillusionment derived from the failure of PFAL to fulfill the goals/claims/promises/benefits that “The Teacher” (wierwille) stated AND the perception of inconsistencies between the actions of “The Teacher” (wierwille) and the ideals he supposedly represented… I am trying to be more dispassionate as well as making more of an effort to suppress my weak attempts at comedy and sarcasm – which is a toughie for a class-clown wannabe. Considering my own experience of leaving TWI and what led me to reevaluate their dogma - it was usually persuasive discussions using calm words, logic, and evidence – whether it was from fellow way corps who had already left before me, old friends I knew before I got into TWI, or other EXTERNAL sources like books on systematic theology, psychology, philosophy, critical thinking and websites like Grease Spot Café. This post was a long time coming – “inspired” by one of my favorite sessions of the PFAL class - battle of the senses (session 6, I think – funny how much I still remember). If I would give this post a parody title, I’d call it battle of the senseless…or maybe YOUR intuition and cognitive skills versus wierwille’s “revelations” …I also thought it could be called PFAL’s sedative to YOUR intuition and cognitive skills. Since I left TWI, this has been a thoroughly engrossing topic because it explains a lot of things - like how I got duped by wierwille in the first place and eventually becoming completely entangled in the convoluted dogma of a harmful and controlling cult-leader. Matter of fact, in August of 2006 not too long after I joined Grease Spot I started a thread TWI's sedative to the conscience which discusses the way wierwille’s ideology tends to impair or weaken one’s sense of feelings, awareness and analysis. Though they vary in strengths we all to some degree have both intuitive cognitive decision-making methods and analytic cognitive decision-making methods and depending on our unique individual makeup we usually have a tendency to lean more one way or the other. In an earlier post I mentioned the four major characteristics of wierwille’s ideology in PFAL - there’s probably more …and you’ll have to pardon my offhanded humor – that’s just how I deal with difficulties sometimes…I believe that’s the rub with stuff like intuition, spiritualism, and Gnosticism…we’re talking about the abstract…intangibles…immaterial…airy stuff…it becomes extremely laborious to poke around in…and I’ve said it before - it’s probably because I don’t know what I’m doing, and I don’t know what I’m looking at . I’m sure there’s lots of other dyscognitive odds and ends in wierwille’s philosophy besides what I’ve mentioned – some have been discussed on Grease Spot… and unfortunately for many survivors of a harmful and controlling cult there seems to be an inexhaustible supply of toxins to our cognitive skills in the residuals of a former mindset – i.e., mental baggage - negative experiences that we have not let go. As a sucker who fell for wierwille’s con game, I remember how adamant I was – convinced that wierwille was a master at “working The Word” , given everything I knew about him - gathered from not only sitting through the PFAL class for the very first time and believing all he said in the class about his years of research, pastoring, looking for definitive answers, personal experiences and especially the things he shared in the TWI-authorized book “The Way Living in Love” which I read about the same time frame of taking the PFAL class for the first time (don’t you love that “for the first time” – how many times did we have to sit through that thing?!?! ) – I was really impressed not only by all the hard work he said he put into finding those answers but also Whiteside’s book recounting wierwille hearing God’s voice promising he would teach him “The Word” if he would just teach it to others…and so as far as I was concerned he earned my trust with his slick handling of the written Word and of course his visitation from God – so I followed along with whatever he said about spiritual stuff, and had no hesitancy “investing” my whole life in it. The legal definition of a confidence game is as follows: The confidence game is an attempt to defraud a person or a group by gaining their confidence. The method is usually adopted to obtain money or property of another person. This act of abusing the confidence of a person is a crime in the U.S. The main elements of confidence game are: 1. intentional false representation to a victim as to some present facts 2. knowledge that the representation is false 3. intention that a victim should rely on the representation 4. representations being made to obtain a victim’s confidence and thereafter his/her money and property from : US Legal - the confidence game What is confidence? The feeling or belief that one can rely on someone or something; firm trust. The state of feeling certain about the truth of something. It’s embarrassing to admit – and seems so silly and childish now how back then I really thought I could rely on wierwille to always point me in the right direction because of the mission God gave him. I looked up to him as a child looks up to their father. I was spellbound by the chapter Are You Limiting God? In the Blue Book “The Bible Tells Me So”. On pages 23 & 24 wierwille lays it all out on how the spiritual realm works. Being into art and music I had a thing about transcending an ordinary life – to find meaning and purpose – such an ambitious goal for someone all of 20 years old…man oh man, I found THE ULTIMATE SHORTCUT.. .. .. anyway in Are You Limiting God? wierwille says: ".. .We frequently limit God in ourselves by our wrong believing, by accepting the knowledge that comes to us through our senses. Our reason says, 'That just cannot be,' and so we confess the negative, when all the time His spirit within us is crying out, 'Sufficiency in everything.' We have been so schooled to revere the knowledge that comes to us through our five senses that we fail to recognize the knowledge that comes from the higher realm, the spiritual where the Word of God, and not reason, has first place. Both realms or worlds are here: the natural world is factual; the spiritual world is true. As there are four kingdoms in this world, and one supersedes the other: the plant kingdom, animal kingdom, kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God; so, there is a natural world and a supernatural or spiritual world. The natural world and everything in it comes to the mind through or by way of the natural senses. The truths of the spiritual world are absolutely not dependent upon the senses, but rather on the spirit from God in man." End of excerpts There are a number of confusing elements in wierwille’s statements. One of the issues is confusing metaphysical truth and scientific truth and making metaphysical truth superior to scientific truth. There’s lots of other questionable stuff like Gnosticism’s tendency toward speculation and seeking special knowledge, and the differentiation between spirit being pure versus matter being evil. For someone who was young and naive like I was, this all sounded great and “technical” and I felt truly enlightened – I mean I found out stuff that most folks twice my age didn’t know about. in a matter of a few short weeks, I had absorbed a supernatural worldview that explained so many things. We tend to base our beliefs on trusted sources…and PFAL was mine. As I mentioned before, I “learned” to doubt my own intuition and cognitive skills while “mastering” the habit of trusting the intuition and cognitive skills of a cult-leader. What does all that have to do with PFAL? Good question. I’m glad I asked that. Remember I started out this post by talking about intuition and cognitive skills. PFAL is a class billed as teaching you the keys to a power for abundant LIVING – in other words it just a means…directions to a certain way of life. It’s just a how-to class. But normally a how-to book or class provides DETAILED and PRACTICAL advice – it should focus on ACTUAL DOING or USING something rather than spewing out theories and ideas. In the Orange Book “Power for Abundant Living” on page 4, wierwille stated: “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 and so that the abundant life which Jesus Christ came to make available will become evident to those who want to appropriate His abundance to their lives.” The first issue is that throughout the introduction of the book, wierwille is concerned with material abundance rather than the intangibles of Christianity – like godliness, a reverent awareness of God's sovereignty over every aspect of life…an exercise or discipline that focuses upon God and from this Godward attitude arises the character and conduct that we usually think of as godliness…As Twinky pointed out in an earlier post from I Timothy “But godliness with contentment [God's idea of prosperity] is great gain.” What PFAL does is tinge one’s worldview with materialism. There is a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values. PFAL is like a sales brochure – a tool to answer questions and close sales. How can I be successful? How can I increase my prosperity? PFAL has the answers. However, from experience – my 12 years of involvement – I’ve figured out, those answers are not tried and true. It is all THEORETICAL. We tend to base our beliefs on trusted sources and PFAL was mine. There is an ebb and flow to life – and we must act or react. That’s when the rubber meets the road...theories and ideas are PUT TO THE TEST when our efforts make contact with reality. However, the journey unfolds, we may from time to time find intelligible and practical stuff. But what about the things that don’t make sense or seem incapable of handling reality? What about all the disappointments and frustrations? PFAL has a lot to answer to. The phrase “the acid test” alludes to a chemical test to prove the pureness of gold. This test was developed in the late 18th century and used nitric acid, which dissolves other metals more readily than gold. So, the amount of metal dissolved would prove the pureness of the gold. The acid test was used to distinguish gold from copper or some other metal. The term came to mean a process to prove the value of something, or the standard that something must meet to prove its value, a sure or decisive experiment. This is a crucial step in dealing with the fantastic claims and hype of PFAL. Matter of fact, this also gets into what’s probably one of the most basic issues of Christianity – how to relate faith to reason. Faith deals with revelation – or some supernatural disclosure which could not be discovered by the unaided powers of human reason. Now reason is the natural ability of the human mind to discover truth. With science, truth is determined by verification – as in the scientific method – which is a lot of observation and experimentation. Flying a plane or launching a rocket into space are doable because scientists found out the truth about gravity – like there are ways to work around it. Science is practical – if it works, it’s true. Scientific truth gives us no criteria for metaphysical truth. Therefore, what is needed is another definition of truth for the metaphysical realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s called the correspondence theory of truth “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.” From Wiki - correspondence theory of truth So basically, truth consists in some form of connection…correlation…resemblance…agreement between a belief and a fact. For me, this gets into how I look at the Bible – and there’s a lot of ways to look at the Bible – even as a Christian. I believe fundamentalist groups like TWI are usually hard-pressed to link the Bible with science. I believe the Bible is metaphysical truth (metaphysical = in a transcendent sense or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses) – that it is a revelation from God – written by people inspired of God. Considering that people are not perfect, have worldviews shaped by their times and culture, I think the Bible is best understood as metaphysical truth and not as scientific truth. “Historians, archaeologists, mainline and liberal theologians generally believe that the authors of books in the Bible simply accepted the contemporary Pagan beliefs taught in neighboring countries about the shape of the earth, and the layout of the universe. That involved a flat Earth with the Sun, Moon and Stars revolving around the Earth…” from: Religious Tolerance.org - cosmology The literary intent of the Genesis 1 cosmic hymn is to depict the world as having been originally established as a place of order. In our culture, our concept of existence usually involves physical material – something tangible – it has mass – takes up space or experiences – like love, the passage of time…living from hand to mouth defines a meager existence. By contrast, in the ancient world something existed when it had a function – a role to play. In the ancient world people were much more inclined to think of creation not so much as to produce the physical cosmos but to establish order and making it functional. The cosmos was not seen as complicated machinery or systems but more like an assortment of kingdoms - realms regarded as being under the control of a particular being. Therefore, it was important to know who governed a particular domain. In my opinion what differentiates Genesis 1 from competing belief systems is that the God of the Hebrews was sovereign – supreme ruler over everything in that he named and assigned a function to everything. Some info from The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John Walton Consider the opening passage of the Bible - “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” – if I use the correspondence theory of truth, it seems reasonable that Genesis 1:1 might very well correlate with the big bang theory. The Bible wasn’t meant to be an encyclopedia or textbook. I don’t think Genesis 1 was intended to describe the science of how the universe was created, like an Astrophysics for Dummies book – it’s more like an ode to The Creator – the One who started it all. The big bang theory is one of scientists’ best guess on how the universe began – it is “the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution… the theory describes an increasingly concentrated cosmos preceded by a singularity in which space and time lose meaning (typically named "the Big Bang singularity")” from: Wikipedia - The Big Bang Theory In other words, the universe started with an infinitely hot, infinitely dense singularity, then inflated — first at unimaginable speed, and then at a more measurable rate — over the next 13.8 billion years to the cosmos that we know today. The possible connection of Genesis 1:1 to the big ang theory could be that God is the one who created the infinitely hot, infinitely dense singularity. But to be honest, this is just my warm and fuzzy way of relating a metaphysical truth to a scientific truth - in other words - that's just my opinion - I could be wrong. It's important to understand the nuts and bolts of our worldview. How was it built? What sources are we trusting - putting our faith in? Ronald H. Nash Ronald H. Nash (May 27, 1936 – March 10, 2006) was a philosophy professor at Reformed Theological Seminary. Nash served as a professor for over 40 years, teaching and writing in the areas of worldview, apologetics, ethics, theology, and history. In his book Faith & reason: Searching for a rational faith by Ronald H Nash on pages 51 and following Nash makes some clarifying statements and intriguing questions he said Christian theism is only one of many competing conceptual systems. On what grounds can people make a reasoned choice among worldviews? Which worldview is most likely to be true? What is the best or most promising way to approach this kind of question? When faced with a choice among competing touchstone propositions of different worldviews, we should choose the one that, when applied to the whole of reality, gives us the most coherent picture of the world. Nash said from one perspective, there are six criteria by which we should test worldviews – and because there is merit in seeing the relationships among these criteria, they can also be treated as three groups of two: 1. The tests of reason and experience 2. The tests of the outer world and the inner world 3. The tests of theory and practice Nash observed it’s possible to reduce the number of tests still further since they obviously overlap – for example # 1 tests of reason and experience and #2 tests of the outer world and the inner world can be thought of as extensions of the theoretical test of #3. He goes on to say it’s possible to regard all six criteria as elaborations of one basic test, coherence – since the term coherence points to the fact that the various elements of the worldview should be internally logical and consistent and should fit all that we know about reality. Test of reason is logic or the law of noncontradiction. Since contradiction is always a sign of error, we should expect a conceptual system to be logically consistent, both in the individual or sub-propositions and in the whole. A conceptual system is obviously in trouble if it fails to hang together logically. I know this is some pretty heady stuff to talk about – but what does this have to do with PFAL? I said it before and I’ll say it again – I’m glad I asked that question…but will I please stop asking that! Okay, I will…Sometimes I get on my own nerves. It goes back to thinking for yourself – instead of just absorbing information from someone else. It means growing in confidence with your intuition and cognitive skills. How do we do that? Use it or lose it. Flex those “muscles” – put a load of thinking and feeling on them instead of letting them atrophy. Some passages indicate the more we align ourselves with the sentiment and moral demands of the Bible – the more reliable our instincts become – Psalm 37:23 https://biblehub.com/psalms/37-23.htm and the Bible does seem to suggest that when we seek wisdom as our highest priority, our intuition can very well be a safeguard against tragic mistakes: Proverbs 2: 3-5 https://biblia.com/bible/esv/proverbs/2/3-5 Ecclesiastes 7:12 https://biblia.com/bible/esv/ecclesiastes/7/12 Psalm 111:10 https://biblia.com/bible/esv/psalm/111/10 James 1:5 https://biblia.com/bible/esv/james/1/5 I do not disparage the work of genuine, honest, altruistic Christian leaders, teachers and scholars. I appreciate their work for the way they have broadened my horizons and provided clarity and depth to my faith. But we should also remember the words of Jesus Christ in John 7:17 https://biblehub.com/john/7-17.htm “Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” I believe there’s something to this verse that might have to do with HOW our intuition and God may work together – in that metaphysical truth is self-authenticating through the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit – perhaps that is also implied in passages like John 16:13 https://biblehub.com/john/16-13.htm and I John 2:27 https://biblehub.com/1_john/2-27.htm I’ve always enjoyed detective and mystery novels. Disentangling oneself from the stifling and at times crippling mindset of PFAL is like a mystery. You realize there’s a problem – a crime has been committed against your personhood. It appears that your authentic-self was put in a comatose state – it was a deep and prolonged unconsciousness. This was done to you surreptitiously. Who did it? How did they do it? What was their motive? What circumstances gave them the opportunity to put your intuition and cognitive skills in a deep sleep? Jean Shinoda Bolen's insightful book The Tao of Psychology - Synchronicity of the Self made reference to Agatha Christie's novels about her detective characters often using an intuitive approach asking what is the meaning of this event, what were the circumstances surrounding it, and what are the possibilities implicit within the event ? But in order to see the whole picture Bolen says intuition's counterpart is also necessary - which is a straight forward logical approach of the situation - what details of the circumstances do the five senses take in? Intuition and cognitive skills are your investigative tools for solving the case of the anesthetized authentic-self and making it fully operational again. In talking about my PFAL experiences and observations I’m reminded of a scene in one of my favorite movies, a 1998 film The X-Files: Fight the Future In an early scene FBI Special Agents Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, are on a rooftop investigating a bomb threat against a federal building in Dallas. They and the rest of the emergency response team scattered throughout the building have thus far failed to locate the bomb. That’s when Mulder says: “Whatever happened to playing a hunch, Scully? The element of surprise, random acts of unpredictability? If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.” Mulder’s hunch takes them on a new and broader investigative path, as a dangerous conspiracy is starting to unfold…that’s what my forage into the murky ill-defined haze of wierwille’s ideology within PFAL has been like. Richard Paul and Linda Elder in their book Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life have some good advice for unraveling a problematic mindset: “If the quality of your life is not what you wish it to be, it is probably because it is tied to the way you think about your life. If you think about it positively, you will feel positive about it. If you think about it negatively, you will feel negative about it…For most people, most of their thinking is subconscious, that is, never explicitly put into words…The problem is that when you are not aware of your thinking you have no chance of correcting it. When thinking is subconscious, you are in no position to see any problems in it. And, if you don’t see any problems in it, you won’t be motivated to change it…most people are in many ways victims of their own thinking”. There are many ways to expose the various levels of your own thinking. For me, writing things out is a big help…like in a journal…and talking to someone else…Grease Spot is great for that… ...take for instance a statement from PFAL, “the law of believing works for saint and sinner alike”. For most clear-thinking folks that statement will trigger a slew of questions and inspire challenges which basically goes along the lines of Socratic questioning - and in a group setting it involves a disciplined and thoughtful dialogue between two or more people. It is often used in teaching and counseling to expose and unravel deeply held values and beliefs that frame and support what we think and say - using focused yet open questions, we can unpack our beliefs and those of others. When we dialog with another person or persons - unless you are all playing a game of random association – the problem-focused group can be very productive depending on how much everyone stays honest and on track. When you write something down, type in a post online, say something out loud to a friend – you give a thought definite form – something that's somewhat tangible in that once it's out in the open it may summon deeper thoughts from yourself as well as invite useful feedback from others. It's not a matter of trying to impress others with what you know, striving for literary perfection or philosophical eloquence – but of getting better at articulating your own experiences, observations and realizations – learning how to express your ideas and feelings fluently and coherently…And when it comes right down to it, there are many ways to address a problem. The whole idea is to get you to engage all your levels of thinking – recalling information and experiences...analysis, evaluation, synthesis, creation, application, etc. You're striving for meta-cognition which is an awareness of one's own thought processes and an understanding of the patterns behind them. That’s all for now –

Meanwhile the greatest cargoes of life are waiting to unload – there’s problems in the supply chain.