Mike

Twinky, Have you ever actually tried to keep up with many posters, each with multiple posts, chasing you for responses? If so, can you point it out to me with a link? I'd like to look at the timestamps for inspiration in efficiency.

#10 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement #11 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement Way in the back of the "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" book can be found an isolated "hidden" set of passages. When I happened upon them just several years ago, I could only think "What are these passages doing all the way back HERE?" I could remember seeing them many, many years prior, back in 1972 in my first reading, but in those days EVERYTHING seemed so cosmic and amazing that it blended into the background in no time. But lately, when I came back to PFAL, this set of paragraphs totally astounded me in how oddly they seemed to be hidden in the back of the book. If you were specially attentive, you might have noticed that in the middle of Dr’s 1979 Our Times article, "How the Word Works," he hints to us that doing word studies in the PFAL writings would be a useful thing to do. I don't mean normal word studies with the KJV and a concordance. I mean a PFAL word study, looking at previous usages of a word in PFAL (not in the KJV) for deeper meaning. An example of a PFAL word study, only partially completed, was how we tracked down Dr's previous usage of the word "master" in other PFAL writings and thus gained a better understanding of how he used that word in his last teaching when he told us to “master” the material. Now, in these passages tucked away in the back of RHST, Dr will again hint to the usefulness of doing PFAL word studies. Watch close for the word studies, or previous usage, issue to come up in the middle of all this, because there is a lot of action going on here. *** Let's look at the "Introduction to Appendixes" in RHST to see these TWO ways that Dr says, in essence, "Thus saith the Lord." One first point to keep in consideration is that the first such appendix is titled "The Word Receive" and is about dechomai and lambano. This will come up later. Now I hope you all have a paper copy of this and can read along. We're in RHST "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" page 223 in the 7th edition 1982 (p.257 in the 6th ed. 1972). Hold on to your hats, this gets intense: Let's examine the opening lines of the “Introduction to the Appendices” closely. "If we believe that throughout the Scriptures we have the words of God and not man, many difficulties will disappear." This is just as true with Dr's books as with the ancient scriptures. In fact, it's MORE true with Dr's books, because we don't really HAVE original scriptures to work with, just slightly mis-copied fragments, scholarly compilations, questionable translations, and religious versions. At best we only have man's translations, or versions like the KJV. If we had believed that Dr's books were of God, we would have obeyed his final instructions to master them, and the ministry would have straightened out, instead of careening into the big meltdown. But we did NOT do this and as a result many difficulties appeared. I believe as we return to a meek receiving of the PFAL books "MANY DIFFICULTIES WILL DISAPPEAR." Reading on in RHST: "We must allow the Divine Author the rights and privileges claimed and operated by every human author -- that He may quote, adapt, or repeat in varied forms His own previously written or spoken words. God could have used other forms had He chosen to do so, but it has pleased Him to repeat His own word or words, introducing them in different contexts, with new applications and connotations." How many traditionalists want to confine God to the KJV or some other version? How many want to forbid God to re-issue, improve the surviving remnants, and forbid Him to further clarify to our culture HIS OWN original words, and forbid Him to teach us how to walk into the next administration? Many to most is the answer. Many to most people DO FORBID God these options. That's why we have "many difficulties." As a body we pretty much have all forbidden God the above liberties we would easily grant any human author. Tradition hates to admit the above. Tradition is a prison. The above sentences are talking about Dr's books, NOT the ancient scriptures and their derivatives. How do I know that? Next sentences (with my ALL-CAPS and bold fonts): "Thus it obligates us to study the context, the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION where the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see if it is used in a different sense or not." How many people have Bible versions that are organized into paragraphs and sections? Not too many. How about none? Traditional Bibles are organized into books, chapters, and verses. Look in the table of contents of your Holy Spirit book. It's organized into chapters and SECTIONS and, or course, PARAGRAPHS. How many times have you ever heard anybody refer to a "paragraph" or a "section" in their Bible version? Oh, they COULD be referring to a Bible version. But then why didn’t Dr use the usual construction and say here "Thus it obligates us to study the context, the VERSES, and the CHAPTER where the same word appears...”? I believe he used the unusual construction of “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION” to alert us to something, that these words are primarily talking about the very book they appear in, "Receiving The Holy Spirit Today." Can “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION” also apply to a Bible version’s verses and chapters? Yes, as long as it's rightly divided via the PFAL guidance that started in 1942. These words can also apply to the other PFAL collateral books which are organized into "PARTS." This passage mentioning "PARAGRAPH" and "SECTION" is telling us that doing word studies within this very book, "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today," is a worthwhile thing to do. Thus I count this as the hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement #10. The phrase "...the same word appears, and where it was used previously, to see if it is used in a different sense or not." refers to the process of doing a PFAL word study. *** Now, let’s take a break. I am beginning to point out on this thread that often we seem to be finding things that were HIDDEN in Dr's books, and that this is a prime example, being tucked away in the very back of the Holy Spirit Book. Interestingly, the very topic of this passage centers on the HIDDEN element in God's Word. Also above, I made brief mention at the first that the appendix following this introduction deals with dechomai and lambano. In PFAL'77 (and I think also in the Advanced Class) Dr explained how God started revealing directly to him the teaching on dechomai and lambano. He explains that he was reading a text that was open to a place that had both dechomai and lambano on the same page. God showed him a vision and made the printed letters of those two words stand out inches above all the other words on the page to get Dr's attention. God used many means to deliver His Word to Dr "like it has not been known since the first century." God gave Dr revelation as to WHOSE research he should spend any time on, checking it out, and whose research should be avoided altogether. God also gave him revelation as to WHICH PARTS of another researcher's material was to be accepted by Dr, and which to reject, and God's ownership of these revelations superseded all human copyright questions. Sometimes in this process God gave Dr phenomena like the vision of heightened letters of dechomai and lambano. And God gave Dr what he often described as a spiritual awareness. You know, the stuff we THINK we have at times too. In this "Introduction to the Appendixes" of the Holy Spirit book, Dr points out that a person can get some facts from 5-senses tracking, but some truths can ONLY come by direct revelation. What he's really aiming at getting to in the first Appendix , what he is introducing here is the Appendix on dechomai and lambano and the revelations God gave him on that subject. Coupling this PFAL’77 story of Dr’s about getting revelation on dechomai and lambano with what is written in this Introduction and Appendix I, is what brings me to believe what I said above about the unusual construction of “the PARAGRAPH, and the SECTION.” This background on dechomai and lambano helps set the tone that brings out the hidden “thus saith” statement #10 above, and #11 below. *** Next lines: "The greatest satisfaction of any Biblical scholar is to fathom what can be searched out from God's Word and to quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out." How many people can find a passage in the Bible that discusses "free will"? What Dr taught us about "free will" and "foreknowledge" and many other subjects cannot be easily traced in the Bible with great surety. Dr got the surety of those things by revelation, not by merely tracking them with his 5-senses in the Bible. There are many other items like this that I may someday write a post about, but here I will mention one more untrackable item. It's about what is coming in the NEXT two pages in the Holy Spirit book. The passage we're examining is the "Introduction to the Appendixes" and two pages later is Appendix I "The word Receive" on dechomai and lambano. Several paragraphs above I mentioned a little of how Dr got what he got on dechomai and lambano. He did not track down all of this information via his 5-senses; he got some by revelation. This information can't be totally figured out by scholars or by 5-senses methods. Scholars who are meek can read this book on "Receiving the Holy Spirit Today" and then they can "quietly accept that which is untraceable and cannot be explored or found out." We can quietly accept the PFAL revelations on dechomai and lambano because they are from God. This is hidden "Thus saith the Lord" statement #11. *** Last lines: "These appendixes have been added to this volume for those who desire to search out and explore the deeper reason for the way in which God has set truth in perfect order in His Word." We desire this deeper, spiritual understanding of God's Word. A 5-senses understanding is too limited to defeat the adversary, who has run the 5-senses realm for many centuries. By meekly searching out and systematically mastering the treasure God has provided in English for us in PFAL we will see "many difficulties disappear." We have the pure Word of God.

Ok. I get asked many questions about little old me. But then, when I answer some of those questions, I'm slammed for focusing only little old me. What's a poster to do?

I admit that the four Prefaces are weakly implied “thus saith” statements compared to the first three “thus saith” statements. In the 70’s I was sensitive to the then false charges that the ministry was cultish in it’s behavior. I’d read all the latest cult expose books, and TWI sometimes had it’s own chapter. The cult expose writers had most of their facts completely wrong, and that made me feel good, but little things like these Prefaces and the way they were worded bothered me. Maybe it’s not poor grammar that bothered me, just what I thought was poor PR style in the face of a hostile world wanting to pin a cult charge on us. In those days I was strongly opposed to the idea that written PFAL was anything like God-breathed, and those Prefaces looked like they crossed at least a PR safety line, if not also a grammar line, making it look too much like Dr was making a veiled “thus saith” claim. In those days I’d have re-written those sentences, or at least inserted cult-charge deflecting text in between them. Now I see that Dr meant them to be that way, and that’s why they never were tweaked like may other lines were in those books. Not all of these "thus saith" statements are necessarily as strong as the first three, but some are. I’m not trying to prove that these claims of Dr's are accurate, and that the PFAL writings ARE God-breathed. I’ve backed off trying to rigorously prove things many years ago. How is it proved that the original manuscripts of Paul's Epistles are God-breathed? Remember, I’m mostly trying to show grads here is that there are vast tracts of written PFAL still relatively virgin to them. Dr said many things we forgot or missed, and these "Thus saith" statements are only the tip of the iceberg. Several of the “thus saith” statements here are solid, but most are subtle, and somewhat need a boost of meek believing to see most clearly. I don’t mind admitting to the weak statements in my collection because of the existence of the strong ones.

#9 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement In discussion here this #8 statement already came up. This statement is printed at the end of JCNG's Introduction, where Dr claims Jesus Christ appointed him a spokesman. It's in the large italic print section. That Introduction closes thusly (but with my bold fonts): JCNG p.8,9 Before closing, let me bare my soul. To say that Jesus Christ is not God does not in my mind degrade the importance and significance of Jesus Christ in any way. It simply elevates God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to His unique, exalted and unparalleled position. He alone is God. I do believe the Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the Son of man because he had a human for a mother; and he is the Son of God because of his created conception by God. So on the basis of the parentage of God alone, besides his choosing to live a perfect life, Jesus Christ is by no means a run-of-the-mill, unmarked human being. Thus, to say that I do not elevate and respect the position of the Lord Jesus Christ simply because I do not believe the evidence designates Jesus Christ as God is to speak the judgment of a fool, for to the very depth of my being I love him with all my heart, soul, mind and strength. It is he who sought me out from darkness. It is he who gave me access to God; even now he is my mediator. It is he who saved me when I was dead in trespasses and sin. It is he who gave me the new birth of God’s eternal life–which is Christ in me, the hope of glory. It is he who gave me remission of sins and continues to give forgiveness of sins. It is he who filled me to capacity by God’s presence in Christ in all the fullness of God’s gift of holy spirit. It is he who was made unto me my wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. It is he who called me and set me in the heavenlies. It is he who gave me his joy, peace and love. It is he who appointed me as a spokesman of God’s accurate Word; may I be found faithful in that calling. It is he who is all in all to me that I might give my all for him. It is he who is God’s only begotten Son.

To be fully honest, I was pondering denying or ignoring the trolling charge, when I realized I don’t really know what it means, except that it’s negative. My shoot from the hip denial would have meant I was denying any and all ill intent. But then I decided to watch the video. I took notes. These items in the video are NOT in my intentions: irritant, upset, bully, threats, discord, anonymous Egads! As far as anonymity goes, PLEASE! Give me some credit! Contrary to troll like behavior, 10 years ago I did a lot of private e-mails and even voice phone calls to make things an actual discussion here. I found that private communications helped 10 years ago to diffuse lots of tensions. I'd love to do that again. Now I can, with more full honesty, deny being a troll. Here are a few items I would put in a list of positive reasons I am here: * Sharpen my understanding of my thesis in myltiple ways through dealing with all conceivable attacks. You folks are good for that, that’s for sure *give me boilerplate for future writings, even writings not connected with Biblical matters. *To inform TWI how they missed the boat, and how they can correct SOME things. (the biggest IMO) *To meet old lost friends from 10 years ago here at GS *To meet old lost friends from longer ago. *Nostalgia. I miss everybody with a passion. I miss the GREAT co-operation we all had for a little while, in a few places. I saw a lot of it. It’s the greatest memories of my life… excepting… maybe… the girls I got to dance with last night. There’s more. I was just in a typing mood.

You don't like the logic, because you think it associates VPW with Paul. You see the phrase “VPW wrote PFAL” close to the phrase “Paul wrote Ephesians” and your emotional grasp on this makes you THINK that means think I associated VPW with Paul in my logic. But actually I associated the SHORTHAND of my saying VPW wrote PFAL with the shorthand of us all saying Paul wrote Ephesians. Is it wrong to say Paul wrote Ephesians? No. There is a legitimate use of “wrote” there. It’s also legitimate to say Paul is the author of Ephesians. Is it wrong to say God was the real Author of Ephesians? It’s also legitimate to say God is the author of Ephesians. There is a legitimate use of “author” there. It was a shorthand to say VPW wrote it, to avoid the unnecessary spelling out the whole sequence of how PFAL came to be.

First name Kris? I knew her a little from Rye NY. I am bracing myself to read it. But I already bought penworks' book, and just barely beginning it. I like the idea of possibly discussing parts of each book with each author, either here or e-mail. I go slow with these things. There's SO much to do in life.

I used a shorthand that my original proPFAL audience would understand. It's the same shorthand we all use when we say Paul wrote Ephesians. Is this actually new to you? Did you think you found an error, and couldn't see what I meant?

#8 - VPW "Thus Saith the Lord" Statement This item has hardly ever been seen by grads. Here is a passage (my bold fonts) on page 124 of OMSW: "It’s a remarkable thing that God put His promise in the past tense—‘I have already given to you’—and He still does this today. Many, many times He puts in the past tense what still is the future for us." Does anyone know where those many, many places are? Dr says it's TODAY that God puts promises into the past tense that are still future FOR US. Dr can only be referring to the modern revelations from God, TODAY, that Dr was putting into written form FOR US GRADS. There's the hidden "Thus saith." Twice, in his last months, and IN WRITING Dr urged us to re-think everything we believed. This should include the new birth and everything we think about it, including whether or not we have fully arrived at that blessing. This passage in OMSW p. 124 should get us thinking bigtime. Some of the things we were totally sure of may need revamping or at least fine tuning, otherwise why would Dr challenge us to re-think everything? I nearly fell off my chair when I first read this passage in recent years. It leads to many answers as to why thing went so wrong for us. I knew I had to re-think everything. Just to be thorough, here are those two times in writing at the VERY END of his life, where Dr urged us to re-think everything: JA85 p.17 R up "Our Only Rule for Faith and Practice" You have to honestly come to the place that you're willing to keep asking yourself, 'Where did I learn what I believe? How did I get to the place where I believe what I believe today?' For the most part, men believe what they have received from tradition and not from directly reading it in the Word of God. JA85 p.12 L low "The Fountainhead of All Truth" (Our Times) We must honestly come to the place of asking ourselves: Where did I learn this? How did I get to the place of believing this? Who taught me this? The counterfeit is so much like the genuine, you have to know the accuracy of the Word to separate truth from error. *** The only candidates for where Dr is referring to God doing this many, many times today is in the PFAL writings. The only place where Dr points to God's Word being alive today is in the PFAL revelations. Dr said (in an Our Times article) that if he knew any other place where he could get the Word he'd go there. (I think it's "How the Word Works") Actually, certain facts that are used in PFAL he DID go to get, the last I know of being the star of Bethlehem work of Dr. Martin of Pasadena. He's credited in JCPS. But the only place that is ever acknowledged by Dr as modern (today's) God breathed writings, where God could many, many times do the past tense thing, is PFAL. The key words in the OMSW passage are "today," and "many, many times," and "for us." *** Yes, well before Dr died he pointed out with increasing intensity* that we needed to shift gears and focus on the written materials God inspired him to write. The days of trying to obtain God's Word from the ancient manuscripts was essentially finished by 1982, but when Dr announced this* in October of 1982 at Craig's installation and ON TAPE, there was no corresponding action to change the direction of the ministry. * - both of these items will be expanded soon. *** In segment #6 of the 1979 AC Dr teaches that we can only become like minded (and thus enjoy community believing) by studying the same thing. Here's how he put it: "'Such as I have, I give' such as you have, you give. You can’t give, class, beyond what you’ve got. First Corinthians, one, ten - such an important verse of scripture, maybe so many of them are - I should all - have all of them put on charts but only put on, I guess, what I feel in my heart I’d like to have. First Corinthians, one, ten: 'Now I beseech . . .' The word 'beseech' means to implore - lovingly beg you. We have it here on this chart. "'. . . [Implore - lovingly beg] you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Number one:] that ye all speak [and the word 'speak' is lalao - it literally means 'running off of the mouth” - so that we should all have the running off of the mouth - talking about] the same [what?] (thing), [Number two:] . . . that there be no [what?] divisions among you; [And number three:] but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind [nous] and in the same [what?] (judgment).” "And class, that can only be when we all speak the same thing on God’s Word. No one will ever qualify for first Corinthians one, ten, unless they get their heads and their hearts into the accuracy of the integrity and the greatness of God’s Word. How will we ever speak the same thing unless we study the same thing, people, and let the Word of God speak for itself. If you and I do not rightly divide the Word of God, there’s gonna be division among us." *** The only common thing for study and mastery we were given is written PFAL.

DWBH, this very thought is one of the tiny points I am showing is incorrect. It is definitely not of my own making. It comes from VPW quotes that he hid it from us until now. Yes, there are some details that I am still working out the best I can as I go, but the major idea is stamped into VPW's whole ministry, and THAT's where I got it. I'm not done proving this tiny point. It gets proved by the entirety of the list, not by any one item separately. If you can examine the 22 statements then you can see I picked up on what is in the texts and tapes.

classic shoot the messenger, because the message is too uncomfortable.

Here's the icon motto that has been mine since I signed up: Friendly Opposition, Offering ANOTHER Other Side If it was distraction I wanted, why would I offer to go into Doctrinal? I think you are not thinking through the cognitive dissonance [proPFAL but antiTWI ] lurkers can get to see the Pure Evil model here versus the helping hand they saw in PFAL. I can help them separate VPW from PFAL.

Citing the benefits to me are not what I normally think about and prepare myself to write on. Writing about me is not the message I want to get into. That demote it on my priority list. I have lots of other things I want to do in my life, and my time here is pretty much spoken for. PLUS, I know anything I write here is going to be used against me, just like in courtroom situations. Shouldn’t I, just like in courtroom situations, block that influence mechanism. A discussion of good logic and things close to it is better done in a conversational setting, and not in a courtroom jury influencing setting. Is there any question that you (and others) ask me questions NOT to find and understand the details of my message, but to find suitable targets to attack?

Aw shucks! I forgot that I wasn't finished with the 22 statements. If it bothers anyone that my leaving for Doctrinal would break up this fine set of 22 statements we all never knew were in PFAL... if it bothers anyone much, then I can stay just long enough to finish the set of 22 statements.

You have grossly and intentionally misrepresented my statement. I wrote: “the Pure Evil model of VPW that HAS BECOME the central element of Greasespot Correctness.” I say that the Pure Evil model is a defacto central element, not the original intention. I think I’m helping GS get back to more efficiently helping people. The Pure Evil model of VPW causes GS to miss out on helping a whole (and possibly large) demographic consisting of TWI refugees and those still stuck in TWI. There are people who feel quite blessed with what they learned in PFAL so they put up with the abuses (or memories of them) from TWI. There is at least one active poster here who did once fit into that category. I read his story. I’m helping those TWI oppressed people to see the GREAT difference between what happened in the books from what happened with the administrators, sometimes including VPW as well. The difference between VPW and the contents of the books is blurred by this Pure Evil model. I don’t remember it being that well installed 10 years ago, and there were FAR MORE proPFAL posters here then as well. I think the Pure Evil model, that looks to me to have taken over here, causes lots of people to find zero help here.

That elevation is what you WANT my message to be. If it's merely simple hero worship on my part, then it can be dealt with and suitably trashed. But as I post details that show it is NOT worship of a man, but is actually worship of the God Who gave all those ideas to VPW’s teachers and to their teachers for centuries, then that plan is thwarted. *** Here are two reasons my message is hard to deal with: This stepping aside of mine from the hero worship charge exposes the schitzo nature of the Pure Evil model of VPW that has become the central element of Greasespot Correctness. With the plagiarism charge, everything in PFAL is described as coming from good, holy, respected teachers. But then I bring out some of the PFAL material here and those same ideas suddenly become tainted by the Pure Evil model. THAT’s one of the reasons my message is so hard to deal with. Good ideas from Bullinger, Kenyon, Styles, Leonard suddenly become bad ideas when they’re in PFAL. That’s a schitzo problem. *** Another reason, I’m thinking, it’s like the situation surrounding that way Jesus was received by the Pharisees and the way it’s handled in JCNG. If Jesus said he was God, then that would CLEARLY be insane and there’s no reason for management to feel threatened by him. But for Jesus to claim that he was the SON of God was TERRIFYINGLY POSSIBLE for them and NOT at all insane. It would be highly unusual, and a very big claim, but not an insane one because the scriptures had the idea in there already for many centuries. It is scriptural that GOD is forgiving and flexible enough to overstep all of our criteria for who should be trusted as a teacher. That God can and does forgive great sinners is very well documented. That God can and does work with the unworkable is very well documented. So, the more lucid I make my case for the possibility of God working with a sinner to greatly bless us, the more my message MUST be eliminated, in order to pay homage to the Pure Evil model. When the message is made more and more clear, and more and more misunderstandings eliminated, then the messenger, the bearer of the message, must be portrayed as evil, self absorbed, or insane. So every systematic attack on me BROADCASTS to every reader here, that my message is being shoved under the rug, because it is coming out as too lucid.

Whenever my posting causes a great amount of attention being focused on me, then I know my posting is hitting a nerve. When the message gets too difficult to deal with, attack the messenger. It's the standard ploy. I prefer to focus on my message and not me.

By your own admission, you have not seen the many times I'm being asked to talk about about LITTLE OLD "me." When I say "I'm growing" and the context is spiritual, then the "I" you see in that quote, to the best of MY ability as the Christ in him, Mike. Now that you have that translation you can resume your mode of "thinketh no evil" and we can resume our talk about "Christ formed in the SOUL."

I've heard that it's a dangerous Russian hacker cogno-meme, and that it self replicates after the third repetition. Be careful with it.

Oh Wow! This is so cosmic. I was searching in the wrong place for Twinky's post. I got very confused by the flurry of posting this morning, and didn't notice a page change. I now see a bunch other posts I totally missed. I did see Twinky's post earlier and actually liked it. I could see she got a few fine points, while disagreeing of course, but at least we communicated a little more. I will find it later, and read the other posts. But today is a busy, busy day at work, and tonight is the Deadest night of the week in San Diego. There's a wonderful Grateful Dead cover band that has played here every Monday night till 2am for the past 26 years! The Deadheads here are nice gentle people, the lost tribe of the hippies, and their children, and their grandchildren. The whole group reminds me MUCH of the hippie Way Ministry of 1972. It's like a secret dance club; secret because it's on Mondays. I'll be missing for a while.

Socrates, This was Einstein's favorite joke. It's very much related (though not obviously) to the famous question: If a tree falls in a forest containing no people, does it make a sound? Both are famous because a hundred years ago the nucleus of atoms was looking like it was defying the logic that gets twisted in the joke and the question. In other words, the absurdity that they illustrate was found to ACTUALLY HAPPEN in super small places like an atom's nucleus. I've been pondering the two of them since my Freshman Physics year in 1968. But I do not think I'm bringing that absurdity up to the large scales of human life. So, I respectfully disagree with this association of yours.

When I look at my thesis from my best guess approximation of what it must look like from your position... I can't blame you at all. I can agree it is absurd from your perspective. *** From my position, even if I'm wrong in my thesis, I still have a story that is awesome, bigger than me, inspiring me to grow in all capacities, helping me build great love for God and others.... In other words, all the things that cooked when simple twigs and simple branches ran simple classes and had simple bookstores are now cooking for me, except the large influx of people. I refer back to my posting J.S.'s comments on how I'd do well in life, even if I focused ONLY on written PFAL. Then, if I'm not wrong in my thesis, then much better than a placebo-effect pacifier, the power of God is there again o augment all my efforts, as I grow again. *** Either way, I decided at age 50 that I would end my searching for the ultimate truths and I would focus the rest of my life on DOING the truths I had found so far, knowing that I truly did search with all my might non-stop for many years. At age 50 I decided it was time to stop any more searching and knuckle down and live it with all my might, whatever God had delivered to me by that date. That was shortly after I had come back to PFAL, because I noticed some (and later a lot) of things I had missed in it. I felt safe with written PFAL, having a relative 10 year vacation from it, and a total 10 year vacation from TWI. All my previous associations of it were positive. I ran into negatives, but they were all administrative and mostly Corps related. *** So, it's not absurd at all to me. To me it's a positive and stable belief system, like the one we had cooking on the field here and there in the early 70s before TWI took them over with supervision, like with Way Corps and stuff. *** The only difference between my belief system now and then is this: what I research. Before I'd mostly research in the KJV for what I needed in life and I'd check up on whether VPW's teachings were right. Now I mostly research PFAL for what I need in life. Period. I have no more need to check up on whether VPW's teachings are right. Can you see how my thesis is not at all absurd FROM MY POSITION?