Mike

dmiller, Do you actually use an UNALTERABLE Bible version as your standard? Don't you reserve the right to alter your Bible version if you find an error by the translators, or if the translators used a section that is not in the earliest manuscripts? I know of a sect that uses the KJV as an unaterable God-breathed text. They are pretty kooky, in my opinion. You don't strike me as being that kooky. :)--> I'll bet you DO alter your Bible version, if not with white-out and ink or in the margins, at least in your mind.

What The Hay, TheInvisibleDan, sky4it, I'd love to have the time to respond, but I don't just now. See you later.

def59, You wrote: "I use my collected wisdom, knowlege of life and the Bible, my parents, elders in my church and prayer to God." But what do you use when it comes time to REJECT a statement from your parents or elders? Certainly there must be times when you disagree with them, right? That would mean that the list you mentioned above is NOT an unalterable standard for you, but more of a set of sources you find that usually supply information you feel comfortable in accepting. Do you have an ultimate authority, an unalterable one, that helps you decide what will be accepted or rejected? ...like an only rule for faith and practice? *** I want to thank you for participating like this with my questioning and being honest about pretty personal stuff. I promised to not get on your case, and I want very much to honor that promise. The way you've described it so far is, I think, the way most people think. I thought that way in most areas of my life from birth up. This common method of thought is what I mean when use the term "winging it." I do not mean to say that it is bad. However, when I got into science and math, I was taught a new method of thinking that seemed to be much more powerful. However this new method was very limited for use within those areas of math and science. Let's use Geometry as an example. Using this new method I was taught to clear out of my mind ALL of what I thought I knew about Geometry, and would then load into my mind the "standard" or the "only rule for faith and practice" for Geometry. This Geometry standard was a small set of Postulates and Axioms Definitions. Then, with this Geometry standard in place I would see many other pieces of knowledge (Theorems) be built upon that standard, and be in accordance with that standard. This whole procedure was relatively easy to me because I had a GREAT Geometry teacher who made Theorem building sound like a fun adventure. Plus, what I had to clear out of my mind at the beginning, before loading in the standard, was relatively small. Plus, the standard was pretty small too. This new method of learning, with a clear concise standard base on which to build knowledge, was extended to work in other very simple areas of math, and then into science. However, with each step farther from Geometry, the theorems got tougher to find and understand, and the usefulness of the method got less and less spectacular. Still, it was useful for relatively simple situations, but not at all for interactions with human beings and life's deep issues. In those areas I still had to "wing it" because there was no other way to go. Then I took PFAL and was shown in an early session that SOME of that non-winging new method of thought I had learned in Geometry was possible to use in deep spiritual areas involving God and man. Dr goes fast in this section of the class, and if you want I can e-mail you a transcript of it, but a condensed version of it can be found in PFAL page 230. What Dr teaches there, using my terminology, is that by clearing out of the "acceptance storehouse" of our minds ALL that we think we know about God and man, and placing God's Word in there as our standard, we can then build knowledge on that standard that is as solid as the standard. Dr taught us the rules for this, and he showed us many examples of their use. *** The term "winging it" comes from the early days of aviation, before aeronomical engineers, and flight manuals, and flight simulators were invented. People would climb into early airplanes and learn to fly "by the seat of their pants," so to speak, or "on the fly." This method worked well for simple, slow airplanes but as technology increased and larger, faster airplanes were invented, much more careful ways of learning to fly had to be devised. For someone who had never flown an airplane to climb into the cockpit of a 747 and attempt to learn how to fly from the feel of it, and from what they'd seen in movies, and from their experiences of driving a car, certain disaster will follow. I sure wouldn't want to be passenger with such a student pilot. There are times and places where "winging it" is the only way to learn. Then there are situations where "winging it" will fail for us miserably. *** It is not easy to clear out of the "acceptance storehouse" of our minds all that we think we know about God and man. It is not easy to place a standard in there on which to build. This is not relatively easy like it was in Geometry for those who were lucky to have a great teacher. It takes work, but the payoff is great. One of the big payoffs of graduating from the "winging it" method in spiritual matters is that if a large number of people start out with the same standard, and all build carefully, they all arrive at the same answers. This happens all the time in science. The reason we never see this kind of like-mindedness in religion is because most people are "winging it." Even for those few who adopt this new powerful method in religion, often they disagree with each other as to which standard to use, or they don't build carefully on it, and very little like-mindedness occurs. Like-mindedness is great stuff when everyone has arrived at the truth. It's not so good if everyone is in error and is in agreement about it. Sometimes people choose a standard for working on spiritual matters, but they keep changing it, or they have conflicting elements contained within their standard. For them their operations are very close to "winging it" and the results are similar. *** Remember, I promised to not insult you, and I've also said here that "winging it" is often the ONLY way people can live and learn. It is my pleasure to tell you that in PFAL we can learn this new, more powerful method of thinking and learning. In addition to that, I have found that by selecting the written form of PFAL as my standard, the method becomes even more powerful. From what you have described, def59, it looks to me that your present method is the method most people use, and I call it "winging it" in a non-derogatory sense. There is, in my opinion, a much more powerful method available, and I invite you to come back to PFAL see that learning in that environment again is an exciting adventure.

I'll be placing the original God-breathed manuscript of this treatise, version 1.0 in it's first released draft, on e-bay, and start the bidding at $100. ... Do I hear $120?

def59, I thought of some more details to help explain my questioning here. It's not the general stand that you take in life that i'm looking for, it's the everyday nuts and bolts of how that stand is implemented that I am trying to direct attention to. Usually, in everyday life, when I make decisions as to whether I accept or reject something I hear, the process is so fast I wouldn't be able to answer for myself the kinds of questions I'm asking you here. It's when I face a more difficult such decision, where it's not so fast, that I can actually see by introspection what procedures I use. If I am searching the storehouse of my mind for how to decide, that's when I see MY recently chosen standard for deciding: the written PFAL I've stored there. Once in a while I can't decide, and I actually open up the books to look for the answer, increasing my storehouse for quicker future decisions. Sometimes this slower process can take weeks, months and even years for an issue. So my questions might be more answerable in this just described context.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a d..... Oops! --> Wrong line! How silly of me! :D--> But seriously, how do yo answer the QUESTIONS? You can foget about the table. It was just a prop.

def59, I think you might not understand my questions exactly. Let me re-explain them. We all hear many things in the course of a day. After hearing something, in your decision whether to accept and believe it, versus deny and reject it, what standard do you use THERE? It sounds like maybe you use the winging method, or maybe the winging it by revelation? -------Do you look in the storehouse of your mind to something that was written for such decisions, -------OR do you look to your spontaneous feelings at each moment such a decision is called for, -------OR do you ask for revelation each time? I'm not trying to beat you up or anything here. I'm just trying to draw out of you what your exact decision proceedures are. Hardly ANYONE ever does this, examine their decision making proceedures, so don't feel bad if it's new to you. It can be scary to do this because it can get us wondering about ourselves. That can be good, though, because we can then set out to consciously decide what proceedures we use, rather than just running along and making many accept/reject unconscious judgments on the fly.

So, Tom, how do YOU answer the questions I just posed? I'll understand if you don't want to post you answers, but I think you might want to try on your own privately. Don't you OWE it to yorself to at least think the questions through?

Mr. Hammeroni, I simply suggest taking the high road of grace and mercy. THEN they can respond to that kind of love more easily that us demanding apologies or bulldozing and executions. God can put their hearts on trial better than we can. There was a lot of confusion and fear they operated in for years. Who can know what was really on their hearts when the wrong actions occured except God? The apologies I have stored up for a few I've hurt are waiting for a better situation to develop before I feel comfortable in giving them. The AA organization and other 12 step programs have done a lot of interesting work on the "how and when" of offering apologies to people who were wronged. It's not as simple as some here might suggest. *** shazdancer, I think you have a very solid point, and I agree. They have postured themselves as the TOP oracles of God for so long it must be very difficult for them to climb down from their artificial perch. But like I said to Mr. Hammeroni, apologies and stuff like that are difficult even if they were alone. Add to that difficulty their need to prepare their flock and I can feel for their plight. How might we help them? Now THAT'S a new topic for brainstorming. How can we help them save as much face as possible, yet square their record with those they have wronged, AND remove themselves from the heavy burden of having to fake receiving all kinds of revelation. Maybe they are already doing the latter quietly within their walls of privacy, and we just don't see it yet. Maybe they are planning the former and waiting for us to be become more accommodating.

CM, You wroteL: "unalterable standard __ mike has one? That's a good one! lol...lol...lol... __ I needed a good laugh this morning..." What's so funny? --> I put my PFAL books on my Table of Challege, and I don't try to alter them at all, like I many times have altered my KJV. If I see something in PFAL, I now see it as bigger than me, so if I disagree with some passage, I change my thinking to line up with IT, and not the other way around. *** Earlier you wrote: "I'm probably one of the few speaking mike's language" So I don't get it. Do you understand my use of the idea of "unalterable standard" but disagree with my choice of such a standard? I'm guessing here. Another guess is that you have some science backgrond, so my language and use of the idea of a standard is familiar to you? Help me out here when you're done laughing. I can't tell if yer fer me of agin me.

WordWolf, you wrote; "We've been thru this a few times already." Yes, that's a fact. I mentioned this repetition either above or on the thread I had started to which this corresponds. This multiple thread deal is confusing. Then Tom rubber stamped his graffiti on the "Masters..." thread and we had three going yesterday. WHAT a circus! Yes, we've been through it a few times already, buried deep in the "Masters..." , but not only are there new people who had seen it, I'm getting better at explaining it. Do you think I should take a tip from Tom and paste my new condensed, simplified version in posters faces a lot? *** You wrote: "A) Goey already delivered a beatdown on this some time ago." I only vaguely recall that. Any idea of where or any key words I can use to search it out? *** You wrote: "B) I offered to accept your "Table of Challenge" if you'd address the ORIGINAL "Table of Challenge"-the evidence that pfal is less than God-breathed." I explained why I refuse to do that to Steve Lortz just above on THIS thread (I checked). I see that evidence as gathered with a set of tools I don't want to use. I recognize that with the utilized tools, that evidence is impressive, but I discount it and don't want to waste time there. I have spent some years, off and on, operating with with that set of tools and seeing similar evidence. The reason I discount it is because it pales when compared with the evidence I can gather using MY set of tools. I invite you too, to shop "think-space" a little more and AT LEAST try taking my test silently for yourself. It may stimulate new thoughts you've never had. It's not like I'm asking you to take up MY tool set and spend a lot of time with it (although THAT too would be an adventure for you). I'm just asking you to closely examine YOU OWN tool set by looking at my Table of Challenge. *** Here's the latest update of it: Do you use an unalterable standard, with which you line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them? By unalterable, I mean something bigger than you, and that you don't dare change once you have established it as your only rule of faith and practice. Sometimes a person's life undergoes a revolution, and an old standard is discarded, replacing it with a new one. But I mean in the stable now, not during a revolution. Do you have an unalterable standard like that, or do you wing it? Winging it is like changing your standard to fit the feel of the moment, in which the word "standard" wouldn't fit. If you have a stable standard, is it something tangible or abstract, as in having weight if you put it on a bathroom scale? Is it a book that can be seen, or a set of books? Or is it a set of books that disappeared from sight many centuries ago? Remember the rule here is unalterable.

Oakspear, I think we discussed that long ago. I noted that you were one of the few willing and unashamed to have an abstract standard, or willing to admit you were winging it. We also discussed how someone else here like you, who was not into the Bible per se, also had no fear with such an admission. I think it was Abigail. It's the Bible theologian types who seem shy to admit that they don't have a solid and unalterable standard. I think it's because they want to believe that they measure everything up to the Bible, but WHICH Bible version? All versions have errors, so versions won't work. They want to be free to alter all the solid, visible, store-bought Bible versions with their own research, or come up with a better translation of a Greek text passage, or find a best fitting ancient manuscript. A temporary solution might be for them to say their standard is the original manuscripts, but that's abstract and can't be seen or weighed on my Table of Challenge. It's kind of difficult to measure everything up against a standard that can't be seen by anyone. Exactly what the originals say depends on who you ask, and when you ask them. One may translate a manuscript one way, another translator comes up with something else. Then years later they may have new data and new renditions. There's hardly an unalterable standard for those who choose the original manuscripts. They can't have both: an unalterable solid standard, and their ability to discover better renditions of passages. *** Yes, I think it was Abigail who correctly noted that Dr's unalterable standard must be abstract. His standard was the spiritual, unalterable Word of God, the revelations the Father promised Him in 1942, and not the solid, existent natural/factual manuscripts. It used to bother me to no end when Dr would say things like: "We haven't found a manuscript yet, but my spiritual perception tells me that it should read..." or another one was: "We FINALLY found a manuscript that proves what I knew all along..." Those kinds of statements he made not too often, but I did hear them at least four times. All four times absolutely galled me, because I didn't understand it when he said that he decided on the one center of reference outside himself to be the Word of God, that he was selecting an abstract standard. I was thinking his standard was the originals. In my Table of Challenge I changed the wording to hide what I was referring to. Dr never talked about a Table of Challenge at all. I chose that wording to build the concepts on, and then later on re-introduce Dr's terminology. Dr's "center of reference outside himself" corresponds to my "unalterable standard that is bigger than oneself." Dr could select an abstract, spiritual Word of God as his standard, because he had the 1942 promise to steer him right. He eventually produced for us a solid standard, the written PFAL. Before 1942 there WAS no solid standard that was the written Word of God. If there was such a solid written Word before (and hence after) 1942, then all the theologians here would have proudly plunk it down on my Table of Challenge and say "There is my solid, unalterable standard that is bigger than me." A few tried to plunk some things down, but then took off when I asked them about it conforming to the definitions of what I was asking for, like it being unalterable, or how it could serve as a standard for accepting or rejecting, or was it solid enough for others to see it. All that is recorded in the "Masters..." thread for those who care to search it out. I'm tired, and it's one in the morning here. I proofread all of the above, but tomorrow will tell how well I did it. It seems to fit, but we'll see.

It's what I want to happen, so I magnify any good sparks of life I see to fan those good flames. I'm seeing more sparks this past year than in the past 15 to 20 years. I do the same here. From my perspective, I ask myself WHY would God go to all that trouble to get those great books printed and distributed around the globe? In His foreknowledge He must have seen a good final outcome. We may never see the organization as a whole turn around, but I still expect the older grads who saw this Word in PFAL once work, will finally come back to it. So many things are in place to help it along: this latest website is just one.... the power of the internet... the greatly reduced cost of long distance telephone plans.... the common use of computers for word studies or sharing transcripts, verses, and passages in PFAL study... A great spark of hope is the recent willingness to communicate a little. That Harve Platig wanting his letter posted here greatly encouraged me. A month after that issue calmed down I was able to get a phone call through to him to thank him. It was quite pleasant. I thanked him for that beginning of communication, and we briefly talked about the prospects of the bookstore opening. It opened a few months later. Things are slowly thawing over there. I'm slowly communicating with a few of them here in town. It's slow and muted, but much more than ever before.

Vert, I almost forgot: Do you use an unalterable standard, with which you line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them?

Vertical Limit, You asked me: "what makes you think I haven't mastered it?" Lots of things. Here's one for starters: If you had mastered it, and you wanted to help me get deliverance as you state, you'd approach me from where I'm at, and you'd speak my language. You'd call to my mind the things I relate to, in your attempts to help me. But you don't speak anything like the language of PFAL; you don't come even close to relating to me. *** I had written: "God deemed Jesus' youth mostly inconsequential, and that's why He didn't have that recorded in the scriptures. What He does have recorded is that Jesus was subject to his parents. In oriental customs that means he took up and studied the family business, and he studied the scriptures." To that you responded: "No you deem it that way-no one else does, especially God. You forget what vp said about the culture of the times and how important it is to know. It was more then learning the family business and the scriptures. Check out Moses' up bringing before his showing in Egypt." This doesn't sound at a like someone who has mastered PFAL. I'll admit that in my brevity I might have said more to make it more clear what I meant. When I said God deemed Jesus' youth mostly inconsequential, it's in the context following that I qualify it. For better writing style I could have placed the qualifier closer to God's deeming, like this: God deemed the details of Jesus' youth inconsequential to us readers of the scriptures, and that's why He didn't have them recorded there for us. You say no one deems it that way but me, but what about Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John? Those writers left the details of Jesus' youth out of their accounts. Why? Because God wanted them left out. Those details would have thrown us off the path God wanted us to follow. Why did Jesus ascend and become invisible to us? Because God wanted him that way. God wanted us to know what is recorded in those four Gospels. *** I had written: "What _IS_ important is how just after his youth Jesus handled the counterfeit visions he had in the desert with his mastery of what was written in those scriptures." To that you responded: "They were not counterfeit visions. They were real." They were real in that they were spiritual, but they were from the counterfeit god, the devil. Jesus recognized them as counterfeit, because he had mastered what God had written for him. Thus he rejected them.

Dan, Before you disappear on me... what do you use as your unalterable standard, with which you line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them?

So, def59, what's your standard? I want to refrain a little from pasting it again, but according to how I asked Tom above, how would you answer my questions? They are scary, I admit. But there's value in facing that fear and being honest. I won't say you're possessed or anything. I promise.

Oh, maybe I DID imply it was better. I'm confused by all this thread hopping. I'm going out for dinner, too.

So far, or at least here, I didn't say mine was better, just that I liked it better, and invited others to try it. What is YOUR unalterable standard?

def59, What books do you mean here? On the other thread you wrote: "Wierwille altered his books many times, so even your book fails your own challenge." 1. He can't alter them now. As my standard, I will not alter them. 2. We were taught that revelation can change after the circumstances change. 3. I wasn't joking about (1), but some alterations in the earlier editions and printings were to get rid of proofreaders' erors, and printers errors. We were taught about them too.

Tom Strange, What do you use as your unalterable standard, with which you line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them? Do you HAVE an unalterable standard like that, or do you wing it? If you have one, is it something tangible or abstract, as in having weight if I put a bathroom scale on the table under it? Is it a book that can be seen, or a set of books? Or is it a set of books that disappeared from sight many centuries ago? Remember the rule here is unalterable.

Tom Strange, What do you use as your unalterable standard, with which you line other things up against to decide whether to accept them or reject them? Do yo HAVE an unalterable standard like that, or do you wing it? If you have one, is it something tangible or abstract, as in having weight if I put a bathroom scale on the table under it? Is it a book that can be seen, or a set of books? Or is it a set of books that disappeared from sight many centuries ago? Remember the rule here is unalterable.

Steve Lortz, You wrote to WTH: "How do you explain "Mike's" imperviousness to reason and the evidence of our senses (what's actually written in PFAL)?" Please, allow me to explain my own "imperviousness" to reason and evidence. As far as reason goes: (1)I see that it is limited (BTMS p.23) compared to revelation. (2) I see that in life situations strict reason is very limited in how far it can go. In simple Geometry it's wonderful and very powerful. In simple Physics situations, like the hydrogen atom reason can produce beauty and power to predict. But as the physical systems get more complex, reason and logic can only be applied in short spurts, with giant leaps in between. When we get to human life and beliefs, hardly anything can be really proved. People who demand proofs and strict logical reason to counter arguments of others, overlook the sad fact that they can't really prove much of anything themselves if they want to attain to their own standards. (3) When reasoning, the fundamental assumptions that the reasoner starts out with, the unprovable postulates the reason is based on become crucial. I chose to place as one of my fundamental postulates the written form of PFAL. When I use that postulate, everything lines up to my satisfaction. People's demands that I drop that as a postulate and prove it to them are refused by me as a matter of policy. When people like you "proove" some contradiction in PFAL, I look at your reasoning and see my postulate missing at the beginning and back off. I have already chosen to not approach ACs and AEs with your set of tools. We get differing conclusions in our reasoning because we start out with fundamentally different approaches. Maybe WTH was objecting to the way you berate me for not adopting your approach with your postulates of choice, and your implying I'm playing with devil spirits if I don't conform to your methods. That ds scare club was held over my head one too many times for me to take it seriously. Maybe WTH thinks that old Craig club stinks and has had enough of it. As to the evidence of my senses, when I read PFAL with my postulate in place, it yields differing results than when you read it without my postulate. I invite you to alter your approach to see what new evidence will be presented to you. If you refuse, I will not berate you. If I refuse to do it you way, it's because I've already shopped at that store, and decided to return the goods. I invite you to shop and compare. Come back to PFAL and try the meekness postulate and see what God shows you.

Why don't you try to better understand what that Table is all about? I recently did a shorter version of it, I think to Abigail, and then with someone else. It's not that complicated. I'm only trying to show that people don't have as solid a footing to stand on as they think. When their footing is thought through a little deeper with my table storyline, they see it gets pretty flimsy. Saying that the Bible is our only rule for faith and practice gets tested when we alter our Bibles so freely with our notes and better translations. Scientists do this all the time when they are trying to get things more solid. They re-examine their fundamental assumptions, and what exactly it is they feel sure of, and try to identify what they are leaning on.

Linda Z, I agree, and think you do have that gentleness of heart. :)--> Yes there were many shifting sands there. I call it TVT for Twi's Verbal tradition. I do see something solid in what found it's way into print prior to 1985. I believe I have you to partially thank for that. Didn't you work in print publications?