Mike

cman, if you check the context, I was translating what Mark said to you. He had said it in highly abbreviated form, and I supplied the missing words. The other posters thought that my translation was spot on.

What makes you think that, I was thinking that, John was talking about me?

No, because I did it slowly, I could take better aim at worshiping and serving the true God which was being taught in the words. It took me time to locate WHICH words from VPW were the most trustworthy: from words spoken privately, to words spoken on tape, to "it is written." I saw many in the shuffle who took his words in the wrong, opposite order, and they lacked good aim. Those who fell in love with him wanted his personal private words, later his taped teachings, and last (or maybe never) his written words. I did it slow so that I could do it right. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we continually thank God because, when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as the true word of God--the word which is now at work in you who believe. I learned early from this verse (cited 3 times in the film class) that the proper aim is the True Word, and not the messenger.

You seem to have trouble reading my simplistic posts. I read. NEXT TOPIC: .......

Well, that is what I did do the next year, which was 1971. I was being taught the Word by teenagers in twig, and then I would read. Note taking was a part of my life and I did it up bigtime with the Bible. But it was the collaterals and the class that gave me the framework to see it all fit into. It also helped getting a rough timeline as another frame to build my understanding on.

From your academic citations and using the same tools they use. I get the impression you want me to lay out in detail the 28 years that I came to accept the collaterals SO THAT you can poke holes in my methods, and cause doubt in me. I get the impression that you, like all academics would, feel that my acceptance of the collaterals is a mistake and that they can't be truth. You already reject the collaterals, and now you want to reject the details of HOW I got to accept the collaterals. THAT kind of "civil discourse" I reject.

I spent a half hour documenting the main ins and outs of those two years on a timeline. What I did those years varied widely, and I am not going to spend 4 hours digging up and writing up all that I did. I did what I felt I had to do to check things out. That varied over time. If you wanted to do it yourself, you'd figure it out for yourself as you go.

By having a lower bar for what constitutes civil discourse. I see no obligation to engage on every point thrown at me, especially when most of the throwers are far from civil themselves.

It isn't anything like that. It was describing why you are so perplexed that I don't tear up my beliefs with critical thinking skills. You, like all acdemics, hate the idea that I would be FINISHED with that process, because I FOUND the truth. Academics don't like it when some says this. It is anathema to the Academics Creed - We will seek forever. I was a blessed seeker who found. You say that's impossible.

MANY times here I have posted VPW's last magazine article where he calls for a "spiritual makeover" where he challenged us to ASK ourselves about everything we believe: WHY do I believe it. Who taught it to me? THAT I do often, and not just in spiritual matters. But what I do NOT do is trash my current beliefs, and pick up garbage to take their place, simply because it is different from my current beliefs.

I went through LOTS of critical thinking of VPW and the collaterals from the first day to about 1998. All the things you think are lacking in my mode of thinking were done up right, and long ago 1971-98. The only reason for an academic to NEVER think of hanging up his big gun critical skills... ...is because that academic does not think it is possible to ever FIND the objective hard-core Truth. Academics hate seekers who find.

My 60 year old plus memory of my "St. Joseph's Missal" is that not all of the Epistles, in their entirety, are read in the course of a year. So I see that missal as a set of "clippings" from the Epistles, and not a set with complete coverage. Only a short 5 minute reading per Mass from scattered clippings is all I remember. I wonder how 5 minutes times 365 comes out in minutes, compared to how long an audio Bible takes to cover all the epistles in their entirety.

I started with the Gospel of John, and had a notebook to record all the possible interpretations I could think of for each verse. I never finished chapter 1. I already knew the story, and was totally bogged down in minutia. Most of my study sessions were quickly converted to nap time.

God is all those things, but they are invisible to the senses. God puts His heart into print for those stuck in the senses realm. ...which is all of us.

You are mistaking my carefully and slowly positioned LOCKS for unconscious and numb blinders. Unlike most of you, I did not "fall in love" with VPW. I went back and forth for many years on how much and where I wanted to trust him. I was a very careful in thinking through my position; unlike most posters here IMO. Most here snapped when their vpw-idol failed them. For sure, my careful and slow embracing of VPW and the collaterals, was unlike and even opposite of how Penworks made her early TWI decisions. When I reached my 50th birthday, about 28 years after first taking PFAL, I was FINALLY ready to commit my life to the treasure I found by being occasionally meek to the collaterals. J Juedes made up his mind to loath VPW in session one, from what I've seen. Rocky, my expanded "search into religion/theology or any other way to characterize 'the things of God'" started in the late 1960s and was ENDING in the early 1970s years that I was in the Word. I gave it a run, and it sucks what others say about God out there. You folks just love to eat up that junk out of your love to hate PFAL and VPW. You can't fool me.

Thanks for the tip, but I'm already hip to it . I tried reading my first Bible in 1970 but got nowhere. A year later my first Bible understanding of any sort happened in my first twig fellowship. The collaterals inspired me to read my Bible, AND showed me lots of tips on HOW. They also showed me WHERE to read in my Bible. Because I had heard "Jesus Part One - His Earthly Ministry" all my life in the RC church, teachings like "Jesus Part Two - His Heavenly Ministry" were very valuable tips I got from the collaterals. I had never heard most of the accounts in Acts, and the Part Two Jesus shows up three times there. I had never heard anything of the Epistles except mere CLIPPINGS that would be read in church with no context or teaching provided.

Bad guess. God's Word is as much God as God is God. Where are you going to find God's written Word, outside the collaterals, where if is understandable? Jesus lined himself up with the written Word, and that was not idolatry.

I know almost nothing about David and his dancing in the Bible, or even if it is the same thing we call dancing. If anyone has some insights here, I am interested in hearing them.

Another note on dance and spirituality.... or actually a question. Have I brought up this? ...the connection between early Grateful Dead dance lyrics, the early Deadheads, and the trio we all know lots about: Lonnie Frisbee, Jimmy Doop, and Steve Heefner. Ask yourself this: how did those three Jesus freak hippies, all ultra-smart communicators, all get together in the same places at the same times? What an odd combination of characters. I have been looking into the environment in which these three met and operated since 1987. In 2012 I added looking into the Grateful Dead and dance connection to these three guys meeting in an experimental, underground Christian movement. I believe it was Ken Kesey who personally constructed that experimental, underground Christian movement and the environment that our lovable trio got their start in.

Did I mention yet that Gurdjief (the inspiration IMO for AOS) was a dancer, a whirling dervish Russian style of a dancer. That was a little weird, in that some of the muscular free will is lost in the momentum of spinning. Ballerinas must have to have the greatest of discipline in this area, because they have to do it to the music and not fall. In my early searching days I came across odd things in the Muslim religion (did I get the terminology right there?). For one, a good friend at work with me at the Western Union Company in NYC was a black Muslim. We had long talks and he showed me that a big belief in his religion was that Jesus was the only sinless man who ever lived. That stuck with me, and I verified it in later decades a few times. The other thing I found in those early days was there is muslim sect called the Sufi people. I was just getting to the point of seeing some of that, but it was interrupted when I got into the Word. I should You-Tube it someday! :) I think Gurdjief was also a Sufi. Some of the Deadheads get into spinning, and of course, most of us got into it with no music when we were children.

Plus, often SIT is silent. I think then there is still micro movent of muscles. And THINK of the muscles involved! In dance it is our walking the earth (senses realm) muscles. In SIT it is our walking the Word (spiritual realm) muscles. */*/*/* There are FAR more muscles and nerves involved in the mechanics of speech than in walking. This is called the Sensory Humunculous in the brain. Humunculous is Latin for "little human." It depicts the relative nerve density of the sensory nerves at the surface of the skin. It's is our sensory input inventory of what is touching our skin. The output nerves are similarly dense for the tongue and lips.

...and hopefully, pneuma hagion has to be there. If the reason for doing it is for THE Pneuma Hagion, I am sure that He is alert to it, because Jesus said the Father SEEKETH such to worship Him. P.S. - there is movement of different muscles in SIT.

The Deadhead Community I hang out with these days think of dancing and the music as crucial components of a religion. In my youth, when I disliked dancing and was quite jealous of people who could dance, it seemed that S.I.T. was similar to what I saw in dance. It felt like the mechanics of speech were in a dance at times when I'd SIT. In my excellor's sessions, when I brought up this dance association, a few students lit up with the idea and quickly progressed into abundant fluency, with no noticeable repetitions. In dance you move muscles (with free will) according to the dictates of the music. In SIT you move muscles (with free will) according to the dictates of the spirit. Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Sounds to me the imagery spoiled the music for you. Yes, art is emotion, and the music ALONE gave me great emotions. I have a few songs in my playlist for car trips. I literally avoided looking at the dance parts after the first viewing. In those days I was literally a dance phobe. I hated it, and avoided it everywhere, since childhood. It was only 10 years ago that I learned to appreciate it both as an observer and a participant. It is the most fun thing I ever found in my life.

Actually, the early walkmans came with earfoams, not earphones.