Mike

Thanks T-Bone for the opportunity to dialog. The topic of "apparent errors" in PFAL was a hot topic for me here, and I posted a lot on that topic back then. In those posts I often repeated that the proper METHOD for researching apparent errors in PFAL would be to use the SAME KEYS we learned in PFAL to handle apparent errors in the Bible. The biggest key in Biblical research like this is to ASSUME that the originals were perfect, and then the corruptions set in later. I know this sounds like circular logic, and in some ways it is. But the logic of proving the Bible right is NOT the goal here. The acceptance of the originals of the Bible is NOT something that we derive logically. That would be the Ford describing Henry. The acceptance of the Bible comes from God. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. We hear it, we believe it, God responds. I know I heard the Word of God when I took PFAL, so I accept it. DONE DEAL. No need for the weakly human logic to try and prove it, because God's love proves it better. So I accepted PFAL, and to do the work in "rightly dividing" it I apply the logical keys we were given. Many of he same keys are given by other teachers for many types of studies, like "read what is actually written" and "context, context, context" and "used before." These keys work in all texts. So when I approach the apparent errors in written PFAL it is from the angle that I accept it, I will ASSUME the originals are true, and then work from there. Getting help from a team is even better, putting many heads together. So Raf started his famous "Actual Errors in PFAL" and recruited a team to work with him. I joined them. But as the thread progressed, my pointing out over and over that they started on the WRONG track was ignored. The title of the thread gives it away. The team had the OPPOSITE fundamental approach. I think I stayed on the thread for a while and pointed out that the same circular logic is used that I was accused of. This research team was setting out to prove what they already believed. After hanging in for a while with opposition to the methods being used, I left the thread. Many times after that I have been hounded to stop ignoring their definitive results. I would often say "biased results. no thanks." At one point, after being confronted several times by WordWolf with LONG lists (even longer than your posts, T-Bone!) of "actual errors" they came up with, I challenged him to make another long list, and that was all my method protests within the "AE" thread, and all my protests repeating that SINCE the methods used in the AE thread were unsound, I will ignore them. No such list was ever produced. That is my stand on apparent errors in PFAL. It is easy for me to ignore those AE results because I know the team that was assembled there was grossly incompetent to handle ANYTHING in PFAL. I knew this was the case because my most often repeated theme here was to point out that claims of what was in the teachings (or not in them) were easily countered by me simply posting QUOTES from tape transcripts or page numbers. The team incompetence stemmed from them forgetting things that were in the teachings, or memory morphing key points, or never having heard them in the first place. I still find this here. The material under criticism is not handled with the same care that the apparent or actual sins of the messenger are handled. Sometimes, like with the Bible, an apparent error cannot be handled well. The proper way to handle that is to WAIT. We were taught this. Anyway, T-Bone, I hope that gives you some closure on the apparent errors issue.

Hi T-Bone, I thought if I broke it up into tiny pieces, I could actually respond to your lengthy post for once. There have been a few changes in my life, thankfully positive, and I now have more time to post here. Exactly when is unpredictable, but I get lots of little segments here and there that are free. I had written: snip...You folks are going to have to re-vamp your image of VPW merely stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg! You responded to that and its context following this way: T-Bone: That’s a rather broad statement to make. Did you do a statistical study to quantify and qualify the image of VPW that every Grease Spotter has? Btw you said “VPW MERELY stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg! ” That is a mixed message coming from someone who so highly reveres VPW – because it implies that plagiarizing was not the only bad thing VPW did – do you realize you’re preaching to the choir? Yes, you are right, it is too broad. I guess I was hoping the text after that would clarify it or narrow it down. Bad writing on my part. I'm out of practice and get GREAT practice writing here, so please give me a chance to warm up. My eyes had degenerated greatly in the past 10 years, and reading long texts got to be very difficult, and my writing skills degenerated a little with it. But I got 4 successful surgeries and last December got 2 new eyes almost. Now I'm re-learning the muscles coordinating both eyes. */*/*/* I did no statistical studies, BUT I did run the data thru a neural network pattern recognition system, otherwise known as my brain, and saw over 50 years of observation that VPW was surprisingly unique in a lot of ways. Some of them were negative; I know that. It saddens me, but it is over. What is not over is what went right in TWI, and what was produced when VPW was in fellowship. That happened a lot; IMHO it happened a LOT more than the negatives. But I have to admit, the negatives are flabbergasting, and all the more so in juxtaposition to the good I received in my life then and still. T-Bone, you used the plagiarism as an example of one those negatives, and I want to avoid that distraction right now, so let's put the sexual negatives in it's place. I only have one tiny point to make, though. I know for sure that zero bad sex stuff is in the PFAL writings. John Scheonheit assured me of that twice 20 years ago in 2 separate hour long phone conversations. If the Lord tarries, no one 200 years from now will get the idea of becoming a David with impunity from the orange book. So I promote PFAL, in spite of the negatives others experienced. I also know that if I were in the direct fire of any of the sex scandals of the 1970s, then I probably have been scarred for life and bitterly opposed to VPW. I was in the slow lane sexually all my life, an innocent Catholic boy who went to confession every Saturday. I really feel for those who got hit by that sex bus. I'm older now and looking back I see I was protected by God constantly in the ministry, from monsters in the Way Corps. There were some good ones, and I am thankful for them. But even some good ones could snap and become imitators of VPW at his worst. Somehow, I was always a move away from living under the rule of the crazy corps crap. It came close, though, and close friends were hurt in various ways. Yes, T-Bone I am preaching to the choir on VPW having some negatives, but here with Gurdjieff I am pointing out that the VARIETY of those negatives is FAR from what you all have heard or seen. I'm sure you know the VPW did some good. Some of you did it along with him, at varying distances. Some close up. What I am preaching to this choir is that in addition to the far out surprising variety of negatives, God blessed him, to pass on to us in writing, a MUCH GREATER degree of SURPRISING positives. Every time God had His Word written it was originated by a sinner. Sometimes they were SURPRISINGLY odd writers. What made them holy is that they believed the revelation and passed on. An extreme example of this is Balaam. Of course it works better if they are disciplined and loving. Because VPW was in fellowship ENOUGH, I have enjoyed a SURPRISINGLY great benefit to focusing only on written PFAL to guide us into all sorts of other blessings. BTW, anyone who reads "In Search of the Miraculous" will be VERY surprised at how much of our TWI experience is in there. It is a most wild hookie pook book, that has lots of good truths mixed in with the bad lies, and hilarious BS. But those of us who learned how to separate truth from error (Green Card) can handle it. */*/*/* That's all I have time for, but I want to say that you, T-Bone, have a great format to your lengthy letter. It is clear to read, and my new eyes say thank you. I can trudge down the list with my little break-times. Maybe if you identify an item of most importance I could do that next. I'd like to get to the other posters also.

When I first got into the ministry I wondered if anyone in the ministry had been into the Gurdjieff schools that are out there. But all thru those years 1971-88 not a single soul ever brought up Gurdjieff in any circles I was a part of. My college roommate and I got into it around 1969-70. He is still into it. When the ministry meltdown occurred in the late 80s I thought surely they will find out about Gurdjieff, but not a peep. When Waydale and GreaseSpot started I thought SURELY they will discover Gurdjieff now! But no one did. People here think they understand VPW. What a joke! I heard VPW once say to someone "Don't ever try to figure me out, because you NEVER will." I haven't figured him all out totally yet, but I have some clues with Gurdjieff that NO ONE has, except maybe Craig. ...and he blew it with his knowledge of Gurdjieff. I kept quiet about it. After many years at GreaseSpot, I have a few times connected with some of you in private e-mails. In them I have dropped hints about Gurdjieff, but no one got them. At least once I spilled the beans with one of you in GREAT detail. I think he blew it off, or skim read it, and it didn't click, or he didn't ever bother to read it. You folks are going to have to re-vamp your image of VPW merely stealing from Kenyon and BG Leonard and Bullinger. You don't know but the tip of the iceberg! I had a tiny conference about Gurdjieff with VPW at the 1972 Rock of Ages. By coincidence or fate he parked his little camper right next the crazy hippie van I arrived in. In that weekend I must have had an total of one hour of Q&A with him. Gurdjieff was just one item in my long list of questions. When Mrs. Wierwille saw my list she started running blocking plays so I couldn't reach Dr as he emerged to go to breakfast or dinner. He thought that was funny, and seemed to like my questions. I was only 3 months out of my first PFAL class at the time. If you want to understand some of the methods of VPW you must know about Gurdjieff. At that 1972 Rock I brought the most famous book about Gurdjieff with me, titled "In Search of the Miraculous" by Ouspensky, one of Gurdjieff's students in the early 1900s. I showed VPW this book, and with no hesitation he quipped "Oh! I read THAT book!" Then he smiled and gently said "That's a pretty good counterfeit, isn't it?" I nodded in agreement, and had no more need to continue on that topic. From his personality descriptions, I think it is very possible that BG Leonard also was keenly aware of Gurdjieff, and the accurate insights he expressed. Let me tell you, though, reading Gurdjieff or Ouspensky is like a graduate level course in separating truth from error. Craig's Athletes of the Spirit is in that Ouspensky book, along with all of Craig's hype about how acting it out drives the Word in deeper. It sounded to me like Craig was hip to Gurdjieff with all that prep talk. Also, exercises in alertness that Craig talked about are all from Gurdjieff. All of Dr's attitudes toward us paying for the class are in there. Gurdjieff charged very high prices for his class. Part of the Gurdjieff teachings had to do with administering emotional "shocks" to his students to exercise their control over their own emotions. This is where Gurdjieff earned a notorious reputation. It seems he sometime went too far, and didn't know when to back off with these shocks. People were hurt. Sometimes Gurdjieffian Shocks were emotional, like a false accusation, or a stern belittling. Sound familiar? Sometimes they were sexual, and some could involve physical injury, hopefully slight. I heard that BG Leonard once physically threw VPW out and down the stairs for coming to a class late. Is that true? If true, it sounds a lot like a typical Gurdjieffian Shock. Gurdjieffian Shocks were easy to imitate with no wisdom by Way Corps. When lazy, it is always easy to do phony "tough love." Tender love takes a lot more practice and effort and smarts. Any slob can do tough love. I think erroneous Gurdjieffian tough love happened a lot in the Corps. It still goes on today, both in and out of TWI. I think many of the bad things in the ministry were of Gurdjieffian origin, and it was where these shocks went wrong. I do not worship VPW. Sometimes he made mistakes; sometimes grave ones. We all do, but we don't have thousands of students watching our every move. Men of God in the past all had sin, sometimes the types of sin you don't like. They ALL committed the greatest sin, as you do too. God worked with them anyway, and He works with us anyway. I think most of VPW's teaching and actions were good and proper. I am not happy about where he blew it, but I don't focus on it either. I am very thankful to God that He found a way to get me to listen and obey. The only place where I think I totally trust VPW is in the books and magazine articles he published. All else is up to scrutiny in my book. Not knowing about Gurdjieff means you do not really know one of the major influences that made VPW who he was.

I liked this video; it seemed balanced and thorough, even for being so short. In the video's terminology, my hunch from the outside is that the Way Corps was a culty cult at various times and locations. I am SO glad I never joined it! My non-Corps experience in pre-1986 meltdown TWI was that of an ethical cult member. I think Jesus and his 12 would be an ethical cult, when you factor in Jesus, the leader, being a servant of all.

Comedian Bill Murry and my college roommate are students in the Gurdjieff cult schools. Since the 1930s many VERY famous people from many disciplines have attended Gurdjieff schools. It has a strong, quiet following. Their textbooks read like the craziest things imaginable, and then they lapse into pockets astoundingly deep psychology. Their basic theme is that man is unconscious and asleep, and needs to learn how to wake up to cosmic consciousness. The hippie movement revived the Gurdjieff movement somewhat.

Great Scott, Twinky! How wrong can you get !!?? Here is the rule book. You go find out how to cover the sins of those who wronged YOU. Hint: It's called love. I don't have the time, nor the desire to debate details of ALL what went wrong, except for those who wronged me and those whom I wronged. There comes a time when we all need to take the Light we were given and love those who have never had the chance to hear it. All this focus on past sins is preventing your spiritual growth. If you are wondering why you are not a spiritual superman like Jesus, THIS is the reason: sin focus. There comes a time when you should grow your own tree, and see how much good fruit you can harvest from it. Time is short.

Twinky, I answered T-Bone in a very specific way. And one that focuses on the love and not on what might need covered. In other words, I didn't fall for his bait. Instead of T-Bone and others here learning from me and my impressions on this, he and you should go to the scriptures I listed and ask God to be specific as to what sins He had in mind. Love energizes believing and casts out fear. We, as a group, didn't do so well there in the 80s, compared to how some localities did in the 70s. After 1986, I was shocked at the lack of love everywhere I looked in the exploding ministry. Love covers a multitude of sins. I'm for love.

Ok, here is a short elaboration. I had posted much earlier: On 5/6/2021 at 9:04 AM, Mike said: I am convinced that 99% of all the woes reported here are due to us all NOT GETTING IT RIGHT the first times. */*/*/*/*/*/*/* T-Bone, you ask about the woes that stand out TO WHOM the most? I suggest you ask the same question of God, when He talks about these kinds of things. What kinds of multitudinous sins do you think God had in mind when He inspired Peter to write the following? 1 Peter 4:8 NIV Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. If we had gotten the LOVE part right, things would have gone better. How badly do you crave seeing a multitude of sins covered over with love? Do you think much on this verse, in this GreaseSpot atmosphere of exposing sins? Peter was not the only spiritual person who loved the idea of having love cover sins. Proverbs 10:12 Hatred stirs up dissension, but love covers all transgressions. Proverbs 17:9 Whoever conceals an offense promotes love, but he who brings it up separates friends. 1 Corinthians 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. James 5:20 consider this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover over a multitude of sins. Colossians 3:14 And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness. T-Bone, please let me know what you learn from all these verses, and about what specific kinds of woes we could have avoided, had we gotten down better the love part.

...and use Half n Half instead of milk!

The only super bowl I care about is Cheerios.

T-Bone, what makes you think I have time to even READ all that, let alone respond to it? You are like a survey that goes on too long, and deserves a control-alt-del. You are like a nightmare High School teacher who thinks students go home in order to do hours worth of homework at a time. Of all those reams of obvious traps you are setting for me, which ONE is the least trapiest, and the most conducive to ONE bite sized heartfelt conversation? We're getting old and are going to die soon, so make it good. Which one would help you find closure for your Way woes? Or do you want closure? Would closure mean you would have to abandon your home here full of complainers and sin focus experts? Is it worth the daily rush of negativity you get here. If you can turn off the crap, we can talk. Hit me with ONE heartfelt bite size item from that scroll of mostly junk, I am sure. If your heart is rotten in this, I will spot it and ignore your response. So clean up your heart and let's talk.

Sorry Bolshevik and T-Bone. I botched the buttons here, and meant to respond to this: And then Bolshevic quoted me from an earlier post of mine here: On 5/6/2021 at 9:04 AM, Mike said: . . . From 2002-2008 I was an advocate here that we return to PFAL to see how much we missed the first time(s), and to see how much we forgot or drifted from. I am convinced that 99% of all the woes reported here are due to us all NOT GETTING IT RIGHT the first times. Now, on Feb 16, 2022 I am adding: Yeah, and let me clarify that GETTING IT RIGHT means in it's fullness, AND with enough depth to withstand the onslaughts of the adversary to tear us away from the good we DID get partially right for a time. The ministry and people's lives all resembled marble cake: light spots and dark spots and all swirling about in time and geography. You can see the same thing in Acts. Some of us started getting into the realm of doing all the things that Jesus Christ did and greater, and that threatened the adversary's grip on the world big-time. We did absorb SOME of what we were taught, and at times and wit some of us it worked VERY well. That's why proPFAL people are tenacious about the good, when they successfully resist focusing on sin and failures. That's why they are coming back. We did absorb SOME of what was taught, but lots of it was too much for us to absorb or use back then, AND some of it got lost in the shuffle of distractions. But there are lots of happy grads coming back to PFAL now, and in lots of ways.

I'm happy with my documentation and associations on this matter. The ball is in your (plural) court. But it brings up a much more significant, and oft repeated point of mine. Look how no one here had any memory or consciousness of us being taught in that WWAY footnote that in the Book of Revelations the "no more sea" means no more wavering. How many other footnotes or significant passages have you forgotten were in PFAL? You people reject the spiritual good that was delivered to you, and want to focus on the messenger's flesh. I find that grads everywhere forget what was taught them long ago, or were not spiritually mature to receive it all long ago. There is a lot to be found by those meek, coach-able grads who return to PFAL.

WWAY p. 91 footnote

I see two connections between Leviathan and alcohol. One is how a drunk looks as he tries to walk in a straight line. It looks like someone trying to walk in a boat that is rocking on the high seas, being rocked by a sea monster. It also feels like the high seas to a drunk who attempts to walk on dry land. The other connection occurs in the Book of Revelation where it says that in the future there will be no more sea. That is a Hebrew idiom for no more WAVERING of the mind in the future as all minds will be fully renewed. Add to this the passages about Peter looking at the waves as he walked on and becoming fearful. Drunks are notorious for having a tempest tossed mind, full of wavering.

Thanks.

I have no idea what "# 4 Plenary verbal inspiration theory ..." is all about. A tiny summary would suffice. At the moment I don't have time to read your whole post and flush it out. VPW definitely did NOT ascribe to the Divine Dictation model. He says so in the Corps Thessalonians tapes when he hits verse 1:1 in both of the Epistles. The reason for this, in those two opening verses, is due to those verses making it appear like Paul AND Timothy AND Silus were authors. In those Corps tapes VPW implies that Divine Dictation CAN happen, but GENERALLY the revelation is not given that way. For Thessalonians, he teaches, the revelation first came to Paul alone, and then he discussed it with Timothy and Silus. Lastly, all three of them put it into written form. The familiar verses are from 2 Peter 1:20,21 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. The end product, the written scripture, comes by way of the revelation first being spoken. So the pattern is first a revelation comes, and that could involve words, feelings, or sensations that God knows will accurately convey the revelation. Then the revelation is worked by the recipient, and processed as it is put into written form and distributed. If you are good at searching the archive here, I posted this several times in past years, along with transcripts of the Corps tapes. Some of my very large threads were deleted, though, when bandwidth prices were prohibitive.

I don't understand your first line. If I were to research the Leviathan thing I'd start with it's idiomatic usage. It may be similar to the serpent thing in Genesis. I think it was Bishop Pilai who said that though snake or serpent are literal translations, the idiom should steer a translation to the word "enchanter." No, I wasn't referring to devil being partial there. The partial I was referring to is what's left of a human when possession or oppression are involved. Remembering my original audience of that piece of text, I wanted to communicate other ideas to their secular minds, and mentioning devils is just a distraction to them.

I can give you more context. In the setup, I said that the forum I wrote that for was devoted to free will discussions. The biology of the human decision process comes up often. Someone posted an article about AA that was critical of it's use of the word "disease" when working with addiction, which seem to be a loss of free will or control. I told them it was worse that that and that "allergy" was also used. But these words did NOT indicate a naivete in the mechanics of recovery AA sponsored. The words objected too were simply archaic and rural. The part on the "self" was a secular way of discussing delicate issues with my free-will academic friends. The delicate subject was how AA handled words like possession and oppression. That's devil spirits for those with the ability to look at things spiritually. The sharp AA members understand that if they chose a close enough "higher power." But the academics choke on the those words and ideas, just like some here do. So I thought I'd transliterate for them with that wording on fractured and partial "selves," some of which are not quite human, but devils. The AA organization specializes in helping people who have hit rock bottom. My egghead audience was very familiar with the lack of definition and stability of what is commonly meant by "self." Twinky had asked about the spiritual aspects of AA. I wanted to assure her and all others interested that their secular and archaic vocabulary should be totally forgiven, because the ideas in their texts are solid. They get right in the faces of devils once in a while and they are able to do it in a secular enough way that works often for atheists and agnostics.

Didn't Jesus use that technique to benefit his apostles?

I wrote most of this in a discussion group that focuses on the brain and the mind. My main interest there is "free will" and I started studying it over 50 years ago, even before I started reading the Bible. Most academic researchers of the brain and the mind Mock the 12-step programs, so I wrote this for them. BTW, Twinky, I had heard the opposite, that VPW liked the AA organization's principles, and I know for sure he "borrowed" (LoL) some of their ideas in his teachings at times. A tiny bit of background. The discussion was on the archaic use of terms like "disease" in the 12-step programs. It is fashionable in modern academics that research the brain to think that the human self, the soul, is an illusory fiction. It's silly, and I pay little attention to this in my research. But it comes up often these days in those circles to say there no reality to self. Crazy, I know. I addressed this a tiny bit in what I wrote for them. This, below, is what I wrote: //////////////////////////////////////////////////// About 35 years ago I has a close friend who had been in AA recovery but relapsed, badly. In order to help, I accompanied her to a number of “open” AA meetings for psychological support. I learned a lot. There was a lot of chaotic, and pathetic speech there, but I quickly learned that there were a few seasoned old timers with substantial wisdom, who were keeping the train somewhat on the tracks. At their suggestion, I bought their big “Blue Book,” the AA Bible, to help me help my friend more efficiently. That book was an EYEOPENER! Forget DISEASE, they called alcohol an ALLERGY ! But as I read their Blue Book it became apparent that the language used in it had a strong flavor of an ancient dialect of American English. It was country-style language in many passages and articles within. It turns out most of it was written by old people, in rural Ohio, where their language style had not quite turned the century into the 1900s. "Allergy" was their word for addiction, as that was the term in the air the authors of the Blue Book breathed. Once I got over that hump, lots more of the Blue Book made sense. The extreme types of addiction they talked about used a mental economy that terms like “possession” helped to convey. The audience of these archaic terms, like allergy, disease, oppression, and possession, were NOT interested in the latest academic paradigms from medicine or philosophy. The members of the audience the Blue Book was addressed to wanted ONLY to be able to make better decisions tomorrow, because yesterdays decisions were disastrous. This book fascinated me, and I vowed to read it again…. someday…. as soon as I had time…. which never happened. Maybe next month. It was totally focused on the practical and not the academic use of terms. The terms oppression and possession seemed in many ways to be involving a “self.” I know in this group the term “self” can be scorned as obsolete by an eloquent poster, who obviously relies on (in the post’s text) the mental economy that the term “self” refers to. LoL I always get a chuckle when that happens. I like the term “self,” although I recognized that is not like a polished set of stable elements. My “self” is constantly taking in new information, and morphing in micro ways this way and that. Exploring slightly modified versions of itself is something the self does, constantly. But overall there is a central core to most "selves" that best friends have no trouble identifying. The “self” is a good and useful approximation… most of the time. But in extreme situations, it can get battered. Useful versions of a self can be unstable and easily “lost” in the shuffle. Fragmentary “selves” that ARE stable, can be none-the-less extremely destructive. These are the oppression and possession stages that are very well described in the archaic language of the AA Blue Book. Once a reader has the ability to read past these two terms, plus the "disease" and "allergy" terms, the Blue Book is a must-read for anyone interested in the human decision process, independent of their stance on "free will" or "no free will."

Thanks, socks. I often enjoy your posts, and I often remember our exchanges years ago with thankfulness. You dropped a good hint for everyone for one of my challenges recently on what is the opposite skill that balances critical thinking skills. I see you are able to think without bitterness.

Thanks T-Bone for repeating my challenges in my response to Twinky, AND for showing everyone reading with a brain that you have NO IDEA how to address the points I made.

You wrote: "Have you ever taken a step back and looked at the absurdity of some of the nonsense you post here?" Do you mean to say that some of the nonsense I post here is not absurd? */*/*/*/* You wrote: "I mean, you're not a sage or a prophet or someone who has stumbled upon the ultimate source of wisdom for all ages." You see, THIS is your problem (and many others here, too): You think that a Christian has to be someone real special or something if they want to do significant work with and for God. If that were the case we'd all be sunk. I am SO glad that in the OT God would take any weirdo, misfit sinner who could believe to get jobs done. You got an elitism spirit suppressing your expectations. Do you think I should take that sentence seriously? Let's see, should I believe you or the Word on this? I like what Peter said about it. 1 Peter 4:11 If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. Let' see, I think I'm going to take Peter's perspective on this and not yours. You wrote: "PFAL is just another one of thousands of bible classes that have come and gone. Yes, it presents some controversial, unorthodox concepts that go against the flow of mainstream Christianity. Beyond that? Well, it's just another bible class and not a particularly good one at that." Oh really !? Can you name a class that nearly always ended with every new student able to SIT? I saw MANY such classes. I have noticed that all the splinter groups have failed to do what PFAL did. We had about 1,000 new people learning SIT every month. Please tell me about these so-called equal classes someone may have befuddled you with. I seriously doubt if many teach that the dead are dead, that ALL can SIT and do all nine if the loving heart to serve is there. The Loving Father, does that come out in the other classes out there. One of the things that helped me was VPW's boldness. He got the job done. I don't see that happening elsewhere; not like the Glory Years. */*/*/*/* You wrote: "Perhaps if you didn't devalue critical thinking so much you might be able to recognize that. Then again, maybe you have too much invested in your quest to ever consider that." Who ever said that I devalue it MUCH? Not me! I only joked with you on your first sentence above. Please re-read what I said about critical thinking skills to Twinky a little earlier, and then tell me who was absurd: what I said, or your exaggerated distortion of what I said. If that is the way you paid attention to PFAL then that is a likely reason for you not getting the results: you read into the text what the author does not intend. I love critical thinking skills. I just don't make an idol of them. I don't depend on reason to be perfect. Do you? Just to expand your horizons, as well as other over-critical thinkers here, what do you think the opposite skill is to critical thinking? How does one balance their skill set if critical thinking is lauded to the stars? Now that is an easy question to flip off. You can say "stupidity is the opposite." Would you? But that would not be a skill. I know that there is a good, wholesome, useful, profitable opposite to using critical thinking skills, but I bet you do not. Think about it a little. When a situation calls for critical thinking, then I am all for them. Most people think there is no time when they are not useful. Do you think very young children use critical thinking skills as they emerge from infancy. I mean a 1 or 2 year old. I re-state my case, since you got it so wrong. People over rely on critical thinking skills. In our culture, lately, critical thinking skills are exalted above the logic of the Word, as if they will ever find the truth on their own. Part of the temptation of Eve was that she would have super thinking if she ate the wrong fruit. Smart people are often taken down by the adversary because they already have fallen into the idolatry of worshiping their own brains. I suggest that all should seek something in addition to critical thinking skills, though they are very useful in more trivial, mundane matters, than fellow-shipping with God and His Word. */*/*/* Just one more advanced thought: have you ever used critical thinking skills to evaluate critical thinking skills ? That is exactly what I was dragging you through above. I am critically thinking about critical thinking skills. BLASPHEMY in academic circles, I know. Worse than plagiarism. Would you forbid me to use critical thinking skills to expose the limitations of critical thinking, or is that coming to close to an idol for comfort.

Never heard of her or it. Do I need to?