Mike

Sunesis, I agree with you most whole heartedly that the call for change was totally lacking in specifics and contributed to a very confusing situation. The SPECIFIC change that Dr had called for, starting slow in the mid 70's, and then a little more intensely in the 1979 AC, and continuing on to a peak in his Last/Lost Teaching was that we had to COME BACK to the collaterals and master them, even if we were top leaders and had mastered the film class and had passed relatively simple AC tests on the collaterals. This SPECIFIC change, in it's final form, was delivered in Chris Geer's presence, and Geer even documents the setup Dr personally gave him as they approached the meeting hall, that it would most probably be Dr's dying last words to us all. Geer, in his POP, mentions much about that last teaching's setup but NOTHING of it's contents, which he totally blew off. That it was extremely strong spiritual forces that were obscuring Chris Geer's hearing of this SPECIFIC change Dr had advised in that teaching is obvious when we observe that EVERY SINGLE OTHER top leader turned a deaf ear to Dr's last teaching, and thus it was lost to 99% of the non-Corps population. Even high ranking leaders who were totally unaware of Dr's last teaching (PM me for a few names that may surprise you), leaders who had never been even the slightest bit aware of it, when told about it in very recent years have repeated the errors of previous leaders in-the-know and have TOTALLY blown it off themselves. This says that those extremely strong spiritual forces that obscured Dr's SPECIFIC call for change back in 1985 are still at work today. Many readers of this post will do the same and find some way to totally ignore what I'm saying and remain in a state of total disobedience to God. If we ever want to do what EVERY SINGLE leader of the fallen TWI-1 failed to do it would be to heed the advice Dr gave us to get away from all TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) and come back to the written form of PFAL and master it. THIS is the specific instruction to change that we ALL missed. . . . . . .

Jonny, I was attempting to make a point to other people about a different situation. Sorry if I befuddled you. You weren't involved in that other situation. It's all pretty subtle. I'm cheering you on in your efforts to help your friend. You're a great guy!

Hi Jonny, This is a very touching account. I feel very much for the woman you are helping, as I feel for many others in similar states of excruciating pain. This following is set of a rhetorical questions. I feel comfortable to bet anything that your answers would be the loving, kind, and obvious ones. I'd also bet that most posters here, most of the time, would answer these questions similarly. I'm asking this for the sake of stimulating thought in others regarding a different situation that you had nothing to do with. In your first post on this thread you wrote: "I listen to her (yes we talk on the phone now on Saturdays), and many times she cries, and at other times she writes in e-mails the latest thing Ally divulges, and how it hurts her angers her, and causes her to plot murder in her heart. I tell her that it doesn't sound like murder, only justice. She gets her anger out, and, I listen..." Jonny, do you encourage her to think through and amplify such naturally occurring and understandable murder revenge plots? Or do you encourage her to do her best EVENTUALLY stop all of that kind thinking? I know your answers here are "no" and then "yes" respectively. Jonny, would you think it's wrong for someone else to encourage her to visualize IN DETAIL such a murder plot? Again, I know your answer. Jonny, would you think it a tragic mistake if someone else accidently or jokingly encouraged her to take such revenge? Of course not! Such an accident or joke would not be what she needs to hear at all and would hurt her. Jonny, would you want to protect her from such accidents or jokes? Thank you, Jonny, for allowing me to ask you these rhetorical questions. I know that she is in good hands when you talk to her. I want, like you, for her to find ways to calm down those stresses and eliminate those urges, and let God take proper vengeance on the culprit.

socks, Come on now! So if I cite my sources right immediately where I write it's cheesy, but if Dr does NOT cite his sources in the immediate vicinity it's plagiarism! I sense a shifting standard here. I'd admit to cheesy informercialism if I were to benefit (and at others' expense) by my pointing others in the direction of PFAL. But it's just the opposite, I pay with my time and by my jeer-calluses to help others benefit in hearing where I get light. And my references to the failings of other posters on this thread to see the obvious should be seen, again, in the context of helping them to see where there's more light than they have now. Criticizing someone's failing without offering the solution in the same breath is what I would consider cheesy.

Hi jet, I've noticed that many of us (me included) may have taken the classes and read the books many times, but it's also the case that our absorption, integration, and retention levels regarding the material were still very low. That's why I advocate (along with Dr's last advice to us) that we come back to PFAL and see what we missed. It's also true and good to keep in mind that God often gives good revelation to evil men. Otherwise we would be totally out of luck. There's only been one man who ever deserved the revelation he was given, and that's the sinless lord Jesus Christ. All the writers of the ancient scriptures were sinners. Although us fleshly men may argue about the degree and timing of sins, to God all sin is sin. Sure, I realize that there are different degrees of hurt that we humans may experience from the sins of others and the timing of those sins. However, it is the case that ALL believing and acting contrary to God's revelation is a total slap in HIS face, even if no humans are visibly hurt in the process. Even if you don't accept that the PFAL books are revelation from God, that Matthew 15:13 quote has been around for 2000 years in print, though out of sight. It is very helpful to know that God is NOT responsible for all that goes on. Also, those first 8 chapters in Romans have many clues to the puzzle of understanding evil. If it weren't for PFAL most of us would have no clue how to see what's in plain sight there. Most of the world's notion of evil ignores that quote from Matthew and the Romans chapters. You wrote: "Anyway, Christianity just does not address much of my ponderments. (if there is such a word.)" It sounds like you may not be aware of those Romans passages. In the KJV some of them are hopelessly translated, but in JCNG Dr quotes a large section from "The New EnglishBible" version that answered a lot for me about why God tolerates evil both in the present and in His foreknowledge. The passage negating the yin-yang philosophy on evil is also pretty convoluted in most translations I've seen. Romans also squashes the erroneous (and extremely common) idea that "all things (even evil) happen for a good reason" but most readers fail to see it due to the distractions brought to mind with the word "predestination" in that same section. I've seen that the notion of evil in the Bible is much more general an idea than it is today in the world. Evil is simply going against God. In Noah's time the entire world was preoccupied with going against God in everything they did, ALL the time. Sounds like the social politics and philosophies of today that are constantly clamoring to promote whatever is perceived to be against God's will. If you'd like some help in replenishing your PFAL collateral collection please PM me. .

Hi jetc57, You are not alone in pondering these things. I was plagued with similar questions long ago, before I took the PFAL class. I was very steeped at that time in Eastern religions and the yin-yang philosophies associated with them. It bothered me to hear evil being justified by them. However, I did quickly get the bulk of my questions answered in the class and in subsequent readings that came with it. I think you can get the bulk of your questions answered too. Please allow me to suggest this as a start: Don't buy the professor's premise. In your first post on this thread you relayed: "The professor answered, 'If God created everything...'" THAT'S where the whole argument goes into darkness, right at the start. The truth is God did NOT create everything. God did NOT form everything. God did NOT make everything. In the very first chapter of the Blue Book we can see a scripture quoted that was the great beginning to my understanding anything about evil. On page 5 of BTMS we read: "In Matthew 15:13 Jesus said, 'Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.'" This verse was an astonishing revelation to me. Not only that but throughout the decades, since first seeing it in the Blue Book, I have noticed that it is entirely absent from our Western cultural heritage and awareness. In skim reading this thread I noticed that even the grads here were unable to spot the professor's false premise. (My apologies if I missed it.) I know we all will benefit greatly when we finally get rid of all the sensationally whipped-up soap operas and the genuine pains that have been saturating our minds, and we come back to the wonderful and simple truths that God entrusted by various means to Dr. Wierwille to put into written form for us students of his class. There's much more on this matter of evil (even a refutation of the yin-yang idea) in the first half of Romans, but I am very short on time lately. Maybe later I can resume if you desire.

Define salvation? Anyone ever hear of... WHOLENESS?

Outin88, Sincerity is a good thing, but not good enough to guarantee truth. It is good enough to help (among other factors) drive a person to the truth. The only way to get a guarantee for truth is directly from the Father. I sincerly seek His approval, and not men's. Most people find comfort in tradition to guarantee "their truth." If enough people, for a long enough time, believe something then it SEEMS safe. What's YOUR guarantee for truth? *** I don't know if it was revelation or not for Craig to be king. I do know God preferred that Israel NOT have a king, and ditto for us. God rarely gets His way with people's cooperation, so He uses plan B. It looks from the tape that maybe it was a BOT decision. I don't know for sure. I do know that God held his nose and had Saul anointed, and then later had to abandon him. It looks like that's what happened with Craig, revelation or not. *** We were NOT taught in the books (or in the film class) that Jesus Christ is absent from US. He went absent from the physical realm at the Ascension, but became MORE present to US via the spiritual realm. What you THINK Dr taught about the absent Christ is wrong. You are thinking of the TVTs, which were woefully in error. This is what I've often posted, and I have posted page references. I will give you this information in PMs if you want to see it. I don't want to waste any more of my time in this thread, though.

No, Tom. I never felt a need to resort to that. How did such an idea even occur to you? I detect a sense of desparation in many jeering posters. It's obvious WW is desparate to nullify and obfuscate my points with pointy headedness. Why do I rate such attention and time? I must be hitting home some points that the goons who hound me are too nervous to allow unopposed. I am patient to wait for the Lord's judgment. It's coming soon to a theatre near you!

templelady, I've responded in a PM.

Thomas, Please allow this interruption for me to apologize to you for the way I posted addressing you on another thread the other day. I already did this in a PM, but received no response. It occurred to me that you may have blocked my PMs as well as my posts, and if that's the case, this public apology will have to be relayed to you from anyone here who cares about you, and who isn't caught up in the mob mentality against me. When I posted what I did I too was getting caught up in the mob mentality that generated the mood of that hour, which was getting pretty nasty. I noticed much later that some poster on the same thread was able to misconstrue my post as a possible threat to you and your well being. I figure now, after several days contemplation, that if the adversary could inspire that poster to try and twist my post into a possible threat, then in some round-about way you too may possibly have felt a similar thought. Not to allow that possibility to spring up, I am now posting this. My intent in posting what I did was to refute the logic of what you posted, and not to bring any mental pressure or worry to you. I know that adversary always wants to push these negative buttons in us in any way possible. My post was primarily directed at the logic, but I also wanted to give you some practical advice about Internet security. Because of the heat of the moment I didn't see that trying to do the two at the same time was not best. I'm sorry I didn't see this until I saw the words of that poster who likes (and brags about) making trouble. Thank you for considering this, and I'd love to discuss things of this or any nature with you in PMs. I won't be interrupting your thread here any more.

I'm weary with those who do not want to know the facts. It's worse than that, I'm weary with those who WANT to not know the facts NOR the truths about and in PFAL. Nor can I any longer see any possible profit in wasting my time addressing willing mis-representers. Because the following was already typed in some PMs I'm going to do some quick pasting here, and invite any who want to get the story accurate to PM me. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Hi xxxxx, Here is the beginning of the evidence. Below is page 11, the first page of the second chapter in the Orange Book with my commentary afterwards. ******* Chapter Two Availability, Receivability, Usability In order to tap the resources of the power of God, one must know first of all what is and what is not available from God. There are some things that are not available today; and if they are not available, we can pray until we are exhausted and we still will not receive an answer to our prayers. If we want to effectively tap the resources for the more abundant life, we must find out what is available to us, what God has promised us. In the secular world we constantly apply this principle. Take, for instance, this book which you are reading. Could you have gotten it if it were not available? Certainly not. Spiritually the same is true. We must find out from God's Word what is available. As an example of availability, III John 2 tells us what God desires for us. ******* Now let's go through it sentence by sentence. "In order to tap the resources of the power of God, one must know first of all what is and what is not available from God." Here, in this first sentence, the power behind the law is attributed to God: ...the power OF God... and ...available FROM God... Here, in this first sentence, the operation of the law is limited to what is available. These are the two tid-bits dmiller said Dr NEVER taught on: that the law only works for what is available (God's promises) and God is the power behind it. *** "There are some things that are not available today; and if they are not available, we can pray until we are exhausted and we still will not receive an answer to our prayers." This refutes the impression dmiller said that he got from reading PFAL, that we can manipulate God. It also established the law being limited to what is available, not just any old thing we want to believe for. *** "If we want to effectively tap the resources for the more abundant life, we must find out what is available to us, what God has promised us." Again, we are the limited ones, it works only for what is promised and on the "available list," and God is the one who is behind it. Here also I see more where I got my faucet analogy from: "tap the resources." *** "In the secular world we constantly apply this principle. Take, for instance, this book which you are reading. Could you have gotten it if it were not available? Certainly not." The law and the principles even work in the secular world, but the REALLY work in the spiritual. This is what I was talking about earlier in the thread about the anomalies spotted in the law. It doesn't seem to work as powerfully there with the competing forces. Here also is a subtle hint from Dr that the Orange Book is from God and not from Dr. In the film class he uses a pen in this example, holding it in his hand as if writing with it, while here he uses the word "book." What book? It's in the text: "...this book..." He doesn't write "...a book..." He doesn't write "...some book..." He writes "...THIS book..." !!! He's saying, in a most profoundly subtle way that this Orange Book was made available from God. Dr technically "penned" it, but God made it available. I agree it looks so subtle that I could have read all this portion into it and the subtle message is mine alone and not Dr's. I wondered that too at first, until I saw about hundred more spots like this that lined up the same way. We weren't able to accept this years ago, so God had Dr put it into the record in ways we wouldn't see it nor object to it back then. As a result we unknowingly helped him distribute the books around the globe. *** "Spiritually the same is true." Two realms in which the law can be applied. The spiritual is dominant. *** "We must find out from God's Word what is available. As an example of availability, III John 2 tells us what God desires for us." We are the limited ones, and we don't manipulate God. We must find out FROM GOD'S WORD what is available. The promises in God's Word make up the available list. ******* So, that's just one page of the orange book, and it looks pretty proved already. There's TONS more. This is a spiritual drama we're in. There are HUGE forces at work to hide this stuff, just like Dr's last teaching was lost. Do you know about that one? I'm not talking about "The Hope" but the one he did two weeks later and was lost by and/or on all top leadership, that's ALL top leadership. I'm very upset with the whole collection of posters at this time, and for many reasons. I feel very much like ending all my posting, as I pointed out to you yesterday by PM that we are not to cast our pearls before swine. When Jesus was before Pilate he refused to defend himself. This thread is more of a battle of egos than a fight for truth, and I don't need to win a trivial ego pi$$ing contest. I know that many don't have the books to check out the evidence I say is in there. There is a CD with all of Dr's books on it that many posters have. I've seen them offer it to others at times, but not now because I am involved. What is going on there is more about me than anything else. I refuse to post the full proofs. I'd prefer that you do not post this information. I want to work only with you on it, and I'd prefer you only work with me on it. The other posters are good at manipulating opinion of the uninformed. You have forgotten much, or it slipped by you unawares way back then. You are very uninformed. There are many posters with the Orange Book, yet none are posting what's in there. If they had any desire for truth SOMEONE would open it up and immediately see the evidence. That tells me it's too late for me to help them. Agape, Mike @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Hi xxxxx, I'm very thankful to be able to talk to this way. I just can't stand facing ten jeering posters at once any more. Please allow me to get tough with the subject matter, while I value your heart to deal with this communication and me. If we could talk by phone someday this process will be much easier. I have an unlimited long distance phone plan. When I get tough in typing through the logic you can't as easily hear my heart, which is soft toward you. It took me a while to see that you were softer than your typing, too. So, from my last letter and that page from the Orange Book, do you at least see what I'm talking about...? that MUCH was forgotten from the books? Dmiller's posts were the epitome of ignorance, and they totally stunned me. I thought he was above that. I showed you only one page, and it contradicted all three of his points. There are much more than ten places I could have found, and that one page was just the beginning. Those points are repeated and expanded upon elsewhere many times. *** The crux of the matter is what IS NOT in our memory but that IS in the books. We'll get to what's not on that list soon, but remember that Dr wrote we can pray until we're exhausted, and if it's not on that available list, it's no deal. *** Many posters like you think that ANYTHING was on the available list, and then one need only get needs and wants parallel and then crank on the "law of believing." No, that's not what is in the books at all. In the first session we were taught (and in the book) that there were FIVE things we have to know to receive ANYTHING from God. Please don't feel insulted, but you are operating (just like dmiller and most of the others) from the TVTs (Twi Verbal Traditions) and not from the books. You all just don't know what's in there. I too was in ignorance until I got the books opened again. It will be a wonderful surprise when you see it, if you want to see it. The TVTs said "anything," but the books said only the available list, the promises of God. The ANYTHING you are referring to (I think) is that this process works for anything, and that it's not a weak process but a powerful one. However the process must start with the available list, and we we can NOT put anything on the available list. Only God puts things on the available list via His promises. *** If any one of the five steps aren't in place the process fails. PLEASE don't be insulted. We all forgot a lot, or never got a lot right the first time. ME TOO. You have it all scrambled up. Here are the five steps briefly. We must know: (1)what is available (2)how to receive it(believe) (3) what to do with it after we got it (4)needs and wants balanced (parallel was also used) (5) God's willingness equals His ability. When all five are right, THEN (and only then) it works for ANYTHING. The available list comes first, the anything comes second. That's what Dr wrote. *** Some think that we can fudge the process by saying of any old desire we have that it's a need. Like I said, the thinking of most is scrambled, first of all. Second, we can't fool God about what genuine needs are. The scrambled version came from the TVTs, not the books. I could cry for how scrambled so many got it. Only by opening the books can we see what Dr really taught us. I wish you would take me up on the offer. I wish dmiller would open his books. This is a crazy, crazy drama. I weep daily for my family. It's in such ruins. It's so simple to set it straight by opening the books, but no one wants to DO it. How about you? Do you want to talk more. Agape, Mike @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Hi xxxx, There is often a problem with some that think the available list is never defined. But Dr teaches clearly that it is the same thing as the promises of God. God defines that list by what he promises. By further reading you'll see that Dr told us to go to the Word and find that promise of God that fits your need. Yes, there were abuses due to the failure of many, especially leadership to get these things accurate. The abuses came from the weakness of the flesh, not the weakness of the list of God's promises. People didn't go to the Word, but they DID go to the TVTs and things got scrambled." There were many wrongs, and not just in the topic of believing. All the wrongs were in the practices, but not in the writings. You could say the same of David and Solomon, that they did tremendously wrong things, but Jesus recognized that the revelation God gave to those flawed men was bigger than the men, so Jesus respected their writings. *** VPW certainly blew it in SOME places and at SOME times, and he admitted it. Where he got it totally right, along with his team of editors and other contributors that others say he stole from, is what ended up in print. Where WE ALL got it totally wrong was the low priority we put on seeing exactly what was written. If we had paid better attention to the writings, instead of the man (and others), then we wouldn't have been duped by his (and others) weak moments. The writings are bigger than the man. VPW is not the REAL author. The only way to see this is to see what is written. Agape, Mike @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Hi xxxxx, Oky doky. I can do all sorts of debating and proving when it comes to what is actually written in Dr's books, all the way to the point of forcing my points with great strength when I take the time, but I can do absolutely nothing at all to force anyone's desires. Neither can God, as He set it up that way with free will. I'll back off completely and respect your desires and will to walk away from PFAL and towards something else. Without going to all the passages on believing, I think I did show you, and just from one page, that three of dmiller's bold faced points were totally wrong. I could have spent the time to gather together many more passages to prove those three points over and over, but I kind of knew it would be a waste of time. I sensed some of your desires from your posts and earlier PMs. The three points negating dmiller in my one page proof were: (1)that Dr taught believing was NOT the power of OUR mind, but of God's mind and that He supplied all the power and workings behind the scenes. (2) We cannot manipulate God into doing anything, only play by His rules. (3) The only things that the law of believing REALLY works for are things God has placed on the available list. The probabilities may be still high for other things, but not sure. Everyone knows that a positive attitude will AT LEAST increase the odds of success at anything, for anybody. Please keep this in mind as other posters misrepresent Dr over and over on may points. What's in the books is totally different than what's in their heads and what they THINK is in the books. You might also keep in mind that these three points will work for you in the path you have chosen to walk, even though it's outside PFAL. Not only that, but there are many other points in YOUR memory that are from the corrupted TVTs and not from PFAL, even though you THINK Dr taught them that TVT way. Those points could get adjusted if you would like to someday re-connect with me or with the PFAL writings. Please, though, if you have the opportunity, if you think it will help other posters think more accurately about what they went through with TWI, please quietly and privately tell whoever might benefit that they just don't know what's in those writings. Relying your own or on other poster's memory is sure to lead to error. Opening the books is absolutely necessary to discover what's REALLY in there.

For those who WANT to know, start with PFAL page 11, and PM me.

templelady, Please check your PMs.

Whispering "fire" in a crowded theater is a crime.

You have to be pretty jaded to call this nothing.

WW, If you have the orange book you have the evidence.

If Dr had said it was by revelation you'd have a problem with THAT TOO. People forget that the BOT voted on these things. I have posted the transcript, and linked to it here, that indicates it was NOT by revelation. The whole situation with Saul indicates that the whole annointed kingly thing was outside God's will. God reluctantly chose him because the people insisted. I remember the consensus at HQ was for Craig in the late 70's as the idea of Dr's successor came up every now and then. Since by 1982 all of top leadership was opearating by the senses God's hands were relatively tied anyway.

This whole thread better be gone in the morning! I've hit the "report" button on my post and on Pirate's. Are there any moderators out there? I tried to call pamsandiego but there's no answer. It's 11 pm here. I would have called someone else but it's 2am on the East Coast.

No garth and Thomas, It wasn't a warning. Thomas used a gross rhetorical move and I called him on it . Plain and simple. Garth you are trying to stir something up.

Sure! Open up to devil spirits of MURDER!!! Why should this thread be subtle. Let's get it out into the open

Outtie, I know the feeling well.

Thomas LB, Whenever someone says something like that to me it broadcasts either their own extreme lack of compassion or lack of argument. Would you taunt a person in a mental hospital similarly? If I really were psychotic or wacko, your displayed wisdom is at the same low level as the peasants taunting the temporarily caged Frankenstein monster with sticks and fire. Think about it. I know where you live and work because you've broadcasted it on many websites. But don't worry, you have nothing to fear from me, and I think you know that. I don't think you're that cruel towards the genuinely insane or THAT stupid about your safety. I just wanted to let you know that I know it and that it's THEREFORE open to all that the situation is a lack of argument that you suffer. Maybe you should take that class of yours again!

templelady, I'm contemplating investing the time for some proofs to what is on the table. Some of it I did long ago and submitted to JAL as I posted. You see I have to weigh the profit of doing so with the precious time it will take to do it right. I have three separate research projects going at once: following what we're doing in my fellowship, playing catch-up on what I blew it on personally the first time through, and outreach. In the outreach category I am dealing with more than just GreaseSpot people, and most GSC people by now have dug into their positions. Another factor I have to weigh is that people appreciate things much more if they do the work themselves. For me to spoon feed these proofs may not only waste my time, but cut short the blessings you'd get if you decided to leave no stone unturned and you searched yourself. Ditto for readers of this thread. *** Would it make a difference to you if I proved that Dr taught that believing should be focused on the promises of God, and that all the credit goes to God and all the energizing comes from God? THAT'S the beef I had with dmiller's post. Do you have the books yourself? Would you be willing to do it over phone, which would save me a lot of typing and composing time, after i gather the passages together? I notice that you are not fearful of your address being on the internet, how about me having your phone number? In addition to time savings, when I post I have to keep a general audience in mind, and I've found it MUCH easier to deal with individuals once I've gotten to know them just a little. ****** dmiller, You wrote: "What the bible has to say about faith, and what docvic has to say about the *law of believing* are two separate entities. One contradicts the other. One depends on God the source for blessings, and the other depends on the steeling of the human mind to believe for that which would have been *unavailable* otherwise." Why is it that I don't get that picture when I read in these very recent years? In the faucet analogy I used earlier would you admit that turning the faucet is trivial compared to the efforts of the suppliers of the water? I most certainly DID get the picture YOU described from the TVTs. I most certainly DID get my faucet analogy from recent readings of PFAL. In fact, I JUST REMEMBERED that Dr used to talk about negative believing was like standing on a water hose. So maybe it's NOT so much MY analogy as I thought. How can you be so certain that what you remember coming from reading PFAL is not the TVTs. Memory can merge things like that very easily. How can you even say this: "...would have been *unavailable* otherwise." ? The Available List is identical to the promises of God inDr's teachings. I'm beginning to sense a pulling of my leg, or worse than mere joking around. Are you deliberately trying to get my gourd? Are you trying to dare me to prove my points and waste my time? Are you listening to spirits that most certainly want to do that to me? I've detected a personality change in you in the past two weeks. *** You wrote: "Everything I have ever read in pfal or the studies in abundant living has led me to the conclusion that God can be manipulated by my thought process, rather than my thought process should be in accordance with His will." I feel sorry for you. You're losing it. That's not in there at all. It's in your head. HOW?

"If I know Mike..." That's a big "if." At least Raf is honest now about not listening to me since invoking the "ignore" feature. ****** Jbarrax, That wasn't a typo; it was a joke. Do I need to explain it further?