Mike

templelady, You wrote: “He speaks not only to the intelligentsia but to the high school dropout, he speaks not only to the billionaire in his estate but the third world farmer. He speaks clearly and distinctly so that all his creation will know his will” This description is apropos for the PFAL collaterals, but hardly of the KJV! Even modern easier to read versions are fraught with difficulties in addition to some verses being translated into the theology of the publishers and ancient manuscript aberrations like forgeries and mis-coping. Clouding the understanding of a high school dropout are Bible land Geography and History including nations surrounding Israel, that obscure many verses’ meanings. Add to that 212 figures of speech, administrations, applicability to the addressee, Oriental customs, complex overlapping time lines, and long lists of names with even multiple people having the same name. Some dropouts can catch up a little if they read footnotes, but that interrupts the reading flow and takes time, in addition to being subject to the foibles of the publishers. Many of the above items require a library of research materials, and those dropouts successful in slogging through all this would require of us a long story as to why they shouldn’t skip high school and straight into college. PFAL was designed so that a 12 year old can take it and begin reading the books, thankfully uncluttered with footnotes until the more advanced volumes of JCNG, JCOP, and JCPS are reached. *** Don’t give up on me supplying some verses for backing up some PFAL concepts here. Time is a major limitation. And, on T-Bone’s thread “What does it take to change your mind?” I mentioned scriptures backing up the Bible’s stand against Western man’s self worship in thinking human consciousness is something grand FOR YOU to search out and supply. Yes, I cued you to ask me, but my plan then was to challenge you to do it after you did ask. I mention this here in this way to avoid derailing there. I also had a HUGE belly laugh when I saw you write this after I wrote of the possible illusion of consciousness: “That one sentance explains a great deal I have been heretofore unable to grasp in your thought processes, thank you for the enlightenment.” What was so funny is the timestamps. Your reading of my post, AND pondering of it, AND writing what you did took a grand total of FORTY MINUTES! I had pondered that idea for 35 years, the people I had first read of it from had devoted their entire lives to it all through the first half of the 20th Century, and now hundreds of PhD hard core brain scientists have been working it for decades. The co-discoverer of DNA, Nobel Prizewinner Francis Crick, in his very last book (like dying last words) and title thereof describes this same idea similar to that sentence I had written as “The Astonishing Hypothesis!” But you, templelady, saw through this exceedingly complex and challenging idea in less than FORTY MINUTES! And I'd bet it was actually a lot less from your performance here, more like immediate? What a laugh! I must say, mimicking you, that one sentence you posted mocking me explains a great deal I have been heretofore unable to grasp in your thought processes, thank you for the enlightenment. No wonder you are lacking in so many fundamental PFAL concepts, and great wonder that you call me arrogant, while you criticize what you never absorbed. I suggest you open the PFAL collaterals to see what you are pretty darn ignorant of and change that status. I think you’ll actually like it.

I'm not done at all. Just taking a breather, and doing chores. There are many unresponded to posts here I am thinking about, and I have tons of new material to cover. Preview: How many people here have checked out ALL the places Dr mentions keys in the collaterals? Suggestion: Open the books and read.

A small world it is! Antonio Domasio has written several fascinating books, one of which I have. I briefly talked with both him and his wife when they were guest lecturers at the group I attended. He's a brain science superstar.

templelady, When I said "Some of the ideas I entertained there seemed to fit with the Word and I held on to them" that was a cue to ask me for the scriptures. There ARE scriptures that indicate man's glory, his brains and his brawn, are a hyped up illusion. Search the scriptures daily whether these things are so, and be noble like the Bereans in Acts 17.

templelady, You wrote: “After eight years of study, you are UNABLE to provide requested scripture references. Face it, If they aren't there after eight years of study, they aren't there...” Maybe you aren’t counting all the other posters who engage me here, but there are a several and they write a lot of material to take up my time. I'd love to have the time to show you many scriptures, but I do have other things going on in my life besides this large posting activity on GSC. There are several MORE people, some even originating from here, with whom I correspond by e-mail and phone. This second batch of people are grads who are very eager to open the books and follow-up on what we discuss. You have not shown this inclination, and therefore cannot claim as big a chunk of my schedule as you would like. I’ve repeatedly mentioned that you seem to have totally neglected this most logical activity of searching your KJV long ago to see if Dr was right in your earlier days of PFAL acceptance, but you seem to have no shame about it. I have found that many, many grads took the PFAL class as part of a bandwagon social activity, and not as part of a deep hunger for righteousness and a relentless searching for God and His truth. Many, many grads blew into PFAL when it was socially convenient for them. When it became inconvenient they were blown away from PFAL. Now many of them have blown in here to this very rich social setting, and again it’s a bandwagon’s of activity they jump on. This new bandwagon’s direction is to p i s s on PFAL instead of praise it as the former bandwagon did. In all of these social settings, within the ministry and without, there is little deep inquiry of the subject matter for these grads. This lack of mental engagement with the contents of PFAL both past and present is impossible to hide from me. Like I did for dmiller, about the only thing I can say to help you (and that’s why I’m here: to help) is that you ought to open those PFAL books someday and see what you forgot or missed altogether. I’ve already given you some big examples of this here. If my schedule permits, and if I think my response will help others eavesdropping, I may supply you with some scriptures for some of the areas you have brought up, but I can also bet money you will not appreciate them, and then you will either quickly forget them or pay zero attention to them, just like when you did when you were on the “Praise PFAL Bandwagon.”

T-Bone, You wrote: “What do you mean by ‘learned robotic behavior?’ Do you mean automatic or conditioned behavior?” Yes. *** You wrote: “I thought I was clear in starting this thread that it was about how WE change our minds on beliefs, a viewpoint – analyzing the decision-making process involved when WE choose or reject something. I think what we're discussing here [previous to your post] IS the freedom to choose – the power and responsibility of free will, our decision-making ability.” I am clear on your initial post and the ensuing discussion. What I was proposing was that it could be that some or many of the incidents where we THINK we are making a free will decision (as I tried to define it) we are not, but are in fact mechanically making a conditioned response that includes the feeling of being in charge. I other words, I’m proposing (with reservations) that even when we have the feeling that we are in charge and making a decision free of determining factors, that feeling may only be an illusion. Before I got into the Word I read a lot of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky, where the central theme (mixed with a lot of baloney) was that most human consciousness is actually an illusion. They sought real consciousness as a form of enlightenment. Some of the ideas I entertained there seemed to fit with the Word and I held on to them. It’s all still the frontier of my understanding. Later in my life, in all my studies with the brain scientists I never got any kind of an understanding of free will, and they too very much supported the idea the consciousness is a hyped up concept in our culture. My best understanding of free will is that there is some behavior which, though mixed in with many incidents of robotic behavior, involves what we love and dwell on over a long period of time. Repetitious behavior indicates what’s in the heart, the deepest part of the mind, and that’s where free will decisions are made involving our loved focus, but most outward behavior is robotic and unconscious in spite of convincing feelings to the contrary. I may very well look at the material you’ve suggested here someday.

Try opening the books to see if it's more than a tool.

dmiller, Try opening the books someday. *** Tom, I'm not interesed in changing my fundamental point of view. I'm only discussing what is in PFAL, and not me.

Talk about me and me and a little more me, meanwhile the neglected PFAL texts await those who want answers. The one common characteristic plan of action for the ministry meltdown between Geer, LCM, JAL, and all the other top leaders be they splinter or stump, is to do anything and everything BUT what Dr told them and us to do by re-opening and fully mastering the PFAL texts. There are strong spiritual forces at work, gale force winds of doctrine, all blowing radially outward and away from written PFAL.

sheesh! Tom, you make it sound like I stalk people to hound them, and do nothing but try to hurt them. They come to me, and I give them something, in spite of lots of resistance I get from them and others. You insist on making me the subject, and when I finally do get to start answering your questions you shut me off by insisting I skip what I think are necessary preparations and that I answer it your way. SLAP! SLAP! SLAP! You can face the corner for a while, buddy, and contemplate your insolence. I’ll read and respond to your posts after I deal with my backlog.

WordWolf, You quoted a portion of my ideas on a topic with: “I now see Dr’s job was to give us what we could receive at the time and allow us to help him get what God taught him distributed around the world in printed form.” You then wrote: “How strange he never actually MENTIONED any of this....” I’m admitting he never said this with my “I now see....” This is a result of hindsight and seeing what Dr was most successful at. He did also admit to falling short in his life, but I am thankful for what he did do right. *** You wrote: Of course, this "perception" allows you to cover 2 deficiencies: __ A) not interacting with vpw daily __ B) the disconnect between your doctrine and what vpw said/did daily, as reported by eyewitnesses” I don’t count this as a deficiency. I do believe that those who were closest to him suffered from that disadvantage if they were prone to dwell on his flesh and not on his more formal teachings, especially the written ones. *** You wrote: “How strange, then... If you review the ROA '79 tapes, you'll hear vpw bring up speaking in tongues, and doing it at one point. The syllables were not merely "familiar"-they're almost verbatim from the class. Odd how what can be CHECKED seems the opposite of what you've said.... ....and how you spent almost no time with vpw, but you supposedly have an opposite report with nothing to base it on but convictions.” This is not a major point, so that’s why I spend almost zero time on it. I saw he had plenty of fluency in some of the more informal 10:30 am meetings. I know many others were there too, and can remember. As for the ROA I can offer a few possible explanations, but won’t bother. I’m not trying to prove anything here, just offer my recollections. Accept them or reject them, I don’t care. I was a big stickler on fluency and led many T.I.P. excellors meetings during Intermediate classes. When I heard Dr’s fluency I took special note. I also noted many leaders with little fluency, and it bothered me. *** I wrote: “I frequently saw the filler word method (just, just, just, Father, Father, Father) of prayer dealt with.. Then you wrote: “Where and when are these "frequent" incidents you're reporting? You were not on staff.” Yes I was on staff, for a little over two years, from 1976-78. However, the events I reported here were local, in the 70’s, in Long Island, New York. I don’t remember the names and dates, this being over 30 years ago. I remember the problem, and I remember local leaders addressing it. *** Among other things, including a verse in Hebrews, I wrote: “No matter how soft and slow an polite I am, the sheer volume of corrections I offer is sure to be taken like a slap in their faces. No matter how well phrased, for a normal human being to be told that they are wrong on a massive number of points is sure to hurt. However that hurt should only be temporary for those who want to learn.” You translated (wrongly) this as: “I am entitled to be insulting to the other posters. They deserve it and are not adults who reason. Their maturity level is less than mine. Their understanding is far deficient compared to mine. And even if I DID use manners, it wouldn't matter. And-in the long run-they'll be thankful I was rude and abusive with them.” I’d translate it as: “I am trying to serve the other posters, and deserve some latitude like brevity and skipping some formalities of politeness, that eager learners are usually willing to give me. They are behind in their studies and shouldn’t complain. Though physicaly mature they have forgotten or never absorbed massive amounts of data, just as I did, except I have a chronological advantage of having come back to the books to correct these problems and have been doing so for 8 years now. Their understanding is far deficient compared to mine, but this is just temporary. I look forward to the day when they can help me where I am deficient, because it’s a Body and all can supply. Even if I DID use full blown manners with the reckless and still defiant, it wouldn't matter. And, in the long run, those in this arrogant category, should they come back and receive the full enlightenment available in written PFAL, they'll be thankful I was courageous enough to defy the disapproval heaped on me here for lightly (and only occasionally) slapping them around, rubbing their noses in their own poop, enough to get their attention and showing them where they missed the boat long ago. *** You mistranslated another passage of mine with: “See how God endorses my rudeness with them? __ I'm the same as Paul here in Hebrews, and you all are the same as Timothy here. You should all be thankful I'm making the effort.” This was the passage where I blew it by not supplying the intended “NOT” as I corrected above, which should correct your middle sentence above. The other two look pretty good. When it comes making a necessary and exclusive decision between manners and truth, I’d say that truth can often be the winner, but not always. Sometimes it must understandably wait. *** I wrote: “Asking for "chapter and verse please" is a very useful tool I'm sure has been around for a while, and the IDEA behind is it even older than the chapter and verse divisions were made. __ However, there are ways in which that tool can be abused, like trying to apply it where it cannot apply. I think you were doing this with me. If the concepts I brought up were not self evident to you, then I suggest you think about them some more if you want to keep up with me in conversation.” You wrote: “If the concepts you purport are of God, then-according to vpw-they will be documented in Scripture. The exception was The Great Mystery-and that was revealed 2 millenia ago.” I don’t think that was the only strategic secret God stuffed up His sleeve. Some trivial concepts are factual or true yet not supported by scripture. Not all the addition and multiplication tables are documented in scripture, but then again, they don’t need to be in order to be recognized by rational people as worth holding. I think asking for chapter and verse and recognizing that topic studies can be as useful as word studies is another, even though both would be very difficult to derive from scripture. It was these two trivialities that me and templelady were discussing and were the context of my comments. *** You wrote: “If you're putting forth a concept as GODly, then where did GOD say it was so?” I agree here, provided we’re not talking about trivial concepts. *** You wrote: “You claimed they were "self-evident." This is a poor, poor answer from someone supposedly following techniques in pfal of understanding and applying Scripture. __ You-of course-were challenged on this. NOBODY gets an exemption on this. JESUS CHRIST didn't get an exemption on this one. So, make your case.” It all depends what the “they” refers to. The they were trivially self evident concepts. You’re expanding the context of my remarks here, to areas I would not make them in. *** You wrote: “‘Think about it some more’ is tantamount to admitting you can't find it in Scripture.” Yes, for trivial things that need not be in scripture. BTW, what did you think of my remarks about the difficulty of finding foreknowledge and free will (as opposed to mechanical determination) scriptures I made in T-Bone’s thread on “What does it take to change your mind?” ? Here we have some NON-TRIVIAL concepts that are quite elusive to concise scripture definition. What cannot be found in the ancient scriptures is very interesting. What about the possibility of lost scriptures? I’ve not brought this up, but have seen others do it. How well God protects the scriptures after He gives them is a large topic, and usually the documented loss of scripture mentioned in the OT is excluded. They were eventually recovered, but what about the period of time they were missing? Who’s to say with certainty that the ancient scriptures we have is the complete set? Other possibilities include the changes of administrations, and to whom things are addressed. It should be obvious that any writings addressed to those in the Gathering Together would be purposely excluded by God from the ancient scriptures. Most believers in the Gathering paint it as a picture where everything is zapped into us and there’s no need for written instructions... but “chapter and verse, please.” *** You wrote: “And claiming others can't "keep up" is not a valid discussion tool-it's an insult. (Ad hominem attack, for those keeping up.)” No, not necessarily. You are looking at it from the perspective that I have nothing to offer and readers have no need. But if it’s actually the other way around, then things are different. For example, if I’m teaching calculus and a student who hasn’t memorized his multiplication tables wants to understand me, it’s perfectly proper for me to insist he do some serious catching up if he wants to keep up with me. It would be grossly impolite for him to insist that I cater to him. *** Now I have some serious catching up myself in responding to much older posts than yours.

WW, Sorry to have so little time right now, but you alerted me to a major typo at the end of my last post. When I wrote: "I’m claiming to be the Father here, merely a supplier of His words," I blew it in typing and proofreading. It should read: "I’m NOT claiming to be the Father here, merely a supplier of His words." Now the word "merely" makes sense and readers' perceptions of my ego have at least a chance of being accurate.

templelady, I’m glad you brought us back to the origin of this latest tangent. I’m all for exploring verses behind Dr’s handling of sonship rights. The way I’d proceed, if I had the time right now, would be FIRST to simply re-read the sections that it comes up in PFAL and follow his cited scriptures. In those sections would also be some extra-biblical self evident logic that would need some pondering. Then I’d check my KJV for more places where identical words and similar ideas come up. I don’t have that much time right now, though. That we use SOME extra-biblical self evident logic is unavoidable, but it IS good to try and minimize it. Your use of the “chapter and verse, please” tool was just such an appeal to extra-biblical self evident logic, because you can’t find anyplace in the Bible where it’s suggested, at least not in those exact words. The idea is in there, though. Very few of us in TWI got past the idea of doing word studies and took up topic studies, where the same idea but non-identical words were used. The latter is less sure, but more far reaching. I was explaining several posts ago to you that the study of sonship rights shouldn’t rest solely on the word “rights” because the idea is bigger (and older) than that word. Dr was taking many scriptures, many words, many ideas and explaining them (by inspiration) with the more modern word of “rights.” Again, I’m all for backing up PFAL presentations with scriptures. I have engaged in that all thorough my years in the ministry. We all should have. In the early 80’s some Corps people did a real neat research project where they searched for alternate scriptures to teach the whole class with. I think I have the “Alternate Verse PFAL Syllabus” they produced, and I’ll look for it. Had you ever heard of that project? It was very revealing to see how many verses Dr could have used but didn’t. For instance, when he taught body/soul/spirit he did some elaborate hand-stands to appeal to our perceptions of self evident logic to see that soul and spirit were NOT synonymous in the Bible, like they are often treated in other circles, but totally different. It always fascinated me that Dr did not use the following verse: Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. I think Dr deliberately did not use this verse to reward those of us who would later find it as we “searched the scriptures daily whether those things were so” after taking PFAL, much like the noble Bereans in Acts 17. If you or any others didn’t do this way back then, then I’d suggest you never really finished the class, and are in no noble position to reject it, much less criticize it. When I found this verse in my early years it told me that whenever we saw Dr appeal to our perceptions of self evident logic to see some point, there could ALSO be tons of backup in the scriptures. In other words, you are asking me to do your long neglected homework for you in backing up PFAL assertions. I am willing to help you to a degree here, but only to help you get started in this. If I perceive that you will blow off my supply of backup on one topic like “rights” and move on to other criticisms, then I feel I’d be wasting my time. I am close to that perception already.

templelady, Asking for "chapter and verse please" is a very useful tool I'm sure has been around for a while, and the IDEA behind is it even older than the chapter and verse divisions were made. However, there are ways in which that tool can be abused, like trying to apply it where it cannot apply. I think you were doing this with me. If the concepts I brought up were not self evident to you, then I suggest you think about them some more if you want to keep up with me in conversation.

doojable, It took a long time, and I’m not totally done with it yet, but I have shed the idea that the ministry, especially HQ and the root activities with Corps, was supposed to be a big babysitter/provider for us all. I now see the root levels as providing materials like books, magazines, classes, tapes, major events, and training as well as overall supervision. I now see Dr’s job was to give us what we could receive at the time and allow us to help him get what God taught him distributed around the world in printed form. It was to be the limb-to-twig level where the specific details you brought up were dealt with. I did see some HQ guidance for some of these specifics, but a lot more was supposed to and did take place on the local levels. I did see Dr handle some local specifics in the early years, but there was just too much of this for him to handle in the last ten years, from 1975-85. Answering a false charge on some other thread a few weeks ago (forget which), I once saw Dr urge some more fluency in the SIT that was going on, and I also did see and took special note of his SIT being MUCH more fluent than what we heard in the film class. There were some familiar sounds, but he had a rich and beautiful way of SIT. I frequently saw the filler word method (just, just, just, Father, Father, Father) of prayer dealt with, and Earl Burton dealt with repetitious and flesh filled T.I.P. tendencies. ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* Tom, I think what you are wincing at has several sources. One is I am human and I sometimes respond too tough and too quick. On this source I try to constantly upgrade. THAT source you are quick to see, but I think you miss the others. I am dealing with some of people who need tough talk at times. You completely overlook them. I think those who are very apt to criticize PFAL with vicious glee, but who have little understanding or memory of what’s actually in that material need to be fed a dose of their own medicine at times. But by far the biggest source of difficulty here is the massive error held and projected by PFAL critics here. No matter how soft and slow an polite I am, the sheer volume of corrections I offer is sure to be taken like a slap in their faces. No matter how well phrased, for a normal human being to be told that they are wrong on a massive number of points is sure to hurt. However that hurt should only be temporary for those who want to learn. Hebrews 12:5-11 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. I’m claiming to be the Father here, merely a supplier of His words. The effects are the same on the hearers, first humiliation and then later peaceful learning. Nobody likes to be told they are wrong, but a wise man loves reproof in the long run.

It's pretty simple. Sometimes an idea has a modern word to describe it but no ancient words. Sometimes it's the other way around. This is also often the case with comparing any two languages, leaving out the ancient versus modern notion. I think it's pretty self evident. Just like "chapter and verse, please" is pretty self evident. Otherwise I'd ask you where you got that idea to ask me "chapter and verse." Can you find "chapter" in your Bible text? Can you find "verse" in your Bible text? Can you find "chapter and verse, please" in your Bible text?

templelady, I confess to another late edit addition above, and hope you haven't missed it.

templelady, You're assuming that the translators of just one version got every word translated properly. How do you know other translations do not contain more instances of the word "right" ? Besides, when the KJV was translated the word "right" was a relatively new concept in Western civilization, especially to the upper class intelegencia that did the translating. It was also relatively missing in the ancient world, HOWEVER, you may want to check in Acts where Paul asserted his rights as a Roman citizen, even though that more modern word may not be used. You need to check the Bible not only for the word "rights" but also for the IDEA of rights, and it looks like you did not look nearly this thoroughly. ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ ************************************************************************ doojable, Dr often and repeatedly, increasing it by the year, URGED us to get back to the Word, back to printed PFAL and that's where the reproof is. Since we just blew off his urging to just re-open the books for many matters, we'd have just blown off his urging to just deal with specific matters like this that you just just just mentioned.

templelady, Way back in Post #56 you wrote: “One of the most insidious thing I have had to clean from those Little gray cells in my head is the notion that we don't have to ask Heavenly Father for anything, just thank him for it because it is a done deal. NOT!!” This sentence, although I DID respond to it, has been bothering me for the past few days while I’ve been working and doing chores much more than posting. Is it the case that TWI-2 actually got into squelching the asking of the Father for anything? If so I mourn all the more for how much we grads have drifted from not only written PFAL but even simple KJV verses that were accurately rendered. Just the opposite of the idea of feeling condemnation for asking God for help, even the KJV says we should have peace when we ask of our heavenly Father. Philippians 4:6-9 Be careful [anxious] for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you. You see, templelady, both asking AND thanking are encouraged here, and not JUST thanking. I know we were taught in written PFAL (and KJV) that God knows our requests before we ask them, but this accurate teaching is there to give us peace that we can rest assured that God is so enthusiastic about hearing our requests that He sees them in His foreknowledge. It’s a gross TVT distortion of this is to discourage asking. Those who were hit with a lack of peace by a teaching that we shouldn’t ask of God seem to have missed not only the Philipians verses but much PFAL teaching. Here is what is written on thanking AND asking (with my bold fonts) in GMWD pages 90-91: Psalms 105:43: And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness. For God to deliver His people is a joy to Him. You never knew God had joy? He surely does. When He brought Israel out of Egypt, “...he brought forth his people with joy....” It was a joy to God to deliver His people. He brought them out of Egypt with possessions of silver and gold. There wasn’t one feeble person among them. God led them with a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. He gave them food to eat and water to drink. They had all their needs met. God was pleased that He had the privilege of doing all these things for Israel. God also has joy today when He delivers people. It brings joy to the heart of God that He has people who come to Him and say, “I need a little help, Father. I thank you for giving it to me according to the promise of Your Word and for remembering the promises that You made to us as Your sons.” Psalms 105:43-45: And he brought forth his people with joy, and his chosen with gladness: And gave them the lands of the heathen: and they inherited the labour of the people; That they might observe his statutes, and keep his laws. Praise ye the Lord. Isn’t that beautiful! God is full of joy to help His children who in turn carry out His Word. The TVT teaching that all asking is bad is also a distortion of the following where we were taught that SOME TYPES of asking are out of order. It is written in TNDC pages 64,65: Christians have a delegated authority today which God in Christ has given. But the Church has failed to claim and appropriate its just rights. The Church has not claimed its rights, power and authority because Satan has talked us out of it. My friend the late Rufus Mosley used to say, “God is all the time trying to do the best He can for you and the devil is all the time trying to do the worst for you; the way you vote determines the election.” There is only one good power in the world – the power of God. Satan also has power, but only destructive power which he can use when people permit him to rule them. Because of our legal rights in Christ Jesus, we do not approach God like a beggar asking for food. We go to God as sons appropriating, by believing, our legal authority and right. When I go to God in prayer, I know the promises of God and I believe God. God is faithful to His promises and I claim my legal rights before Him as a son. I wonder who else was oppressed by this admittedly “most insidious” false doctrine that asking is bad, like templelady describes here. I know that by coming back to PFAL, like to the passages quoted above, they and their “little gray cells” can find complete liberation from this “most insidious” false doctrine most easily.

CM, Do you feel a strong urge to control me or to control the flow of this thread? Just wondering. *********************************************************** *********************************************************** *********************************************************** *********************************************************** As usual I'm pretty far behind in responding to the many posts I'd LIKE to respond to. If anyone feels I'm missing any very important items in my attempts to catch up, or if anything got lost in the shuffle, please bring it back up. Oh, yeah, and if anyone thinks I'm dodging anything I shouldn't, then highlighting the item and copying it with Crtl C will put it on your clipboard, and then Cntrl V will.... Hey! What am I doing? You already are well practiced at that... Carry on.

P.S. - Just in case anyone here doesn't know it, there is another current active thread that is dealing with some of the same issues as this one in the About the Way forum named "Personal experiences not valid..." by penguin.

sirguessalot, You wrote a lot, but included within is this phrase: "...what triggers us to change minds..." The opposite of the notion that this phrase embodies is “free will.” Free will means free of determining causes or triggers, lacking triggers, operating in spite of triggers. I am believe that MUCH of human behavior does not stem from free will, but is robotic albeit exceedingly complex, and stems from or is a response to the combination of stimuli and previously learned robotic behavior and stored predilections and even genetic makeup. What seems to defy description is the notion that SOMETIMES free will is exhibited instead of the trigger-induced behavior and thought dexcribed above. Free will is pretty exotic. Does anybody have any Bible verses that definitively spell out the notion of free will in this context? They are as hard to find as definitive verses on God's foreknowledge. I can't find any for either topic, both of which are oddly related. I can find verses where these words are used (only very few) but not explained. Both of these notions, however can be found spelled out in PFAL. If anyone wants to comment on this last line, please join us in the Round 2 thread on PFAL. (Late Edit Addition): P.S. - I believe the lack of verses in the ancient scriptures on this modern idea of "free will versus robotic behavior" has been a springboard for some Calvinistic false doctrines. Likewise, I'm very sure that the lack of verses on foreknowledge has given rise to the erroneous teachings on God lacking absolute and complete foreknowledge by Chris Geer and CES. (such odd bed-fellows!) P.P.S. – God’s foreknowledge and predetermination and free will are linked here: Romans 8:28-31: And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? The free will is in our choosing to love God. The foreknowing is God seeing our choice long before it occurred. The predetermination is the pre-planned and orchestrated blessings God gives to His loved ones.

I'm to tired to look it up right now, but isn't what we were taught more like: "Experience is no GUARANTEE for truth." ?? In other words, it CAN line up with truth some times, and then go against the truth at other times.

Has anyone noticed that some themes running this thread are quite similar to T-Bone's thread "What does it take to change your mind?" in Doctrinal? *** Are personal experiences valid for cash at the corner bank? Not usually. Are personal experiences valid for tuning up your car? Not usually. Are personal experiences valid for violating a neighbor’s rights? Never. Are personal experiences valid for changing one’s legal age back 20 years? Never. Are personal experiences valid for jumping to the moon? Never. Are personal experiences valid for learning and reflecting? Yes, certainly. This inventory is long, so I’ll stop here. *** dmiller, if you want to bait me, please do it on the thread where it’s appropriate for me lay out my cards to show others that you’re full of baloney.

But valid for WHAT? That's the essential question here. I can see lots of things they are valid for, but if we BASE doctrine on them we may have a problem, especially when we consider the other differing experiences of other people, or even our own at other times in our life.