No, no, Tom. I’m the one asking questions here. I need to gage how much background you need to understand my answer. You’re distancing yourself even farther from me by answering my questions with a question or your own.
Mike,
Wasn't it a favorite device of Jesus' to answer a question with a question?
Also, I can't find the post right now - but more than once you have said something to Tom to the effect him "interrupting you with his questions." I fail to see how this works in the thread/forum format. In verbal converstation it is clear when someone is being interrupted because one can hear the voice. But, in this format once a post has been made the next poster is free to add, ask, debate, mock ( how I hate that!) and basically - continue the thread.
Since we cannot read your mind, we do not know where you are wanting the conversation to go, if there are questions they will get asked. You don't have to answer them right away - you can say that you will answer after making a point - but there is no such thing as interrupting - unless it is off topic - perhaps like I am right now. Sorry. I'll crawl back in my hole for a while.
Hey Mike... I was just browsing around on page one and saw your first post on this thread... gee... it was much different than the first time I read it... very slick... go back in and edit it later... oh well... at least you're limited to a couple of hours now so you can't pull some of your old tricks...
adding that part to make it look like the "unorthodox translation" had something to do with me! ha... pretty funny dude.. but again, you're too modest here... much too modest...
Also, I can't find the post right now - but more than once you have said something to Tom to the effect him "interrupting you with his questions." I fail to see how this works in the thread/forum format. In verbal converstation it is clear when someone is being interrupted because one can hear the voice. But, in this format once a post has been made the next poster is free to add, ask, debate, mock ( how I hate that!) and basically - continue the thread.
The answer is easy. While this may be forum for discussion for most folks, this is Mike's classroom and launching pad for his "message". As the teacher, he plays by his own rules. Expect any more than that and you will be dissapointed.
If I am insane, then what the heck do you want my answers for?
Here's a "cut and paste" for you Mike from one of the many posts where I've answered this question:
"I'm trying to figure out if you have any credibility, to determine if you or your message should be heeded... and all you ever do is say "you just have to believe me" (but in many many more words than that)."
That's why I ask the questions... as I've told you many times before.
As for the first part of your question, at this point it's a matter of perception isn't it? ...or is it?
I’ve had the privilege of literally hanging out with dozens of the world’s top brain scientists for seven years, and I’ve had a life-long interest in free will and it’s opposite of machine-like behavior being solely determined by nature and nurture.
Mike, you posted the above over on T-Bones thread... since you don't want to answer the questions about statements you've made what about this one? Which of the "dozens of the world's top brain scientists" have you hung out with? ...and by "hanging out with" do you mean sitting around 'shootin' the breeze, playing pool and having a beer' or has that been in a "clinical" setting?
You wrote much earlier in Post #26 as you refused to deal with some paragraphs of mine in Post #23: “Oh Mike! You so funny! First you deny that it's a test, then you go on to say it's a test, or prepartion, in order to receive the answers! You so funny! HA! HA!”
If I remember rightly, the test part was tongue in cheek where I was playing the teacher role, and is a legitimate figure of speech, while the preparation part was literal.
Now that I defused your reason to refuse, you can reconsider this paste:
If you can’t understand the questions I asked you in those earlier posts, or if you simply don’t want to deal with them, then you either won’t be able to understand the answers I give you to your questions or you'll not want to accept them.
The reason I can say this is because I specifically designed those questions to you to track closely with the issues you are asking me about. Since you seem unable or unwilling to deal with the issues in my questions, then you will be similarly disposed to deal with my answers.
Because you seem unable or unwilling to deal with the issues I feel that we must start with the basics, and build a foundation for understanding these things. To really do that we must dive headlong into the PFAL texts. It is THIS that I really wish to communicate to you and to readers. Those who do not want to do this are free to do so, but I’m also free to not care what they think about me.
Look at it this way, Tom, the questions I asked you are hints. Work with them.
***
You pasted (with my bold fonts) in Post #34: “I'm trying to figure out if you have any credibility, to determine if you or your message should be heeded... and all you ever do is say "you just have to believe me" (but in many many more words than that).”
Yes, Tom, you're VERY trying.
But if you want to try harder, then why don’t you work a little more on my paste several lines above and the referecned questions in Post #6 and #9?
And you got something wrong in your paste here.
The phrase "you just have to believe me" should read:
"you just have to work with my referenced questions a little more"
Remember those questions in Posts #6 and #9? I do. The ones on recognizing Jesus.
***
I had written: “If I am insane, then what the heck do you want my answers for?”
You responded with: “...at this point it's a matter of perception isn't it? ...or is it?”
Let’s use a little logic.
If I’m insane, then you ought to tiptoe away.
If I’m sane, then the very odd statements I’ve made should be looked at with great care, and every hint, question, suggestion, and tit-bit of an answer should be meekly received and pondered. But razzing and badgering should be avoided at all cost, lest I cast you out of my classroom.
(tongue in cheek teacher role, for the humor impaired)
You wrote: “Wasn't it a favorite device of Jesus' to answer a question with a question?”
Yes it most certainly was. And just plain question asking too. I remember someone showing me their research project of documenting all the many questions Jesus asked. This was in the 70’s when grads would read the Gopsels on their own. It was only later that a lot gravitated away from them.
Answering a question with a question was even taught in Witnessing and Undershepherding, and is a fine device in the proper hands. I don’t think Jesus was the only one to use it.
I object to Tom using it here on this topic because I suspect he has other than genuine learning motives. If he wants to learn this complex topic he wouldn’t mind trying out my suggested questions.
He seems to think he can call the shots for delving into a VERY complex topic that I have a little bit of a grasp on and that he does none. It’s a topic that I spent 8 years on and he none, so I will work it the way I see fit.
***
You wrote: “Also, I can't find the post right now - but more than once you have said something to Tom to the effect him ‘interrupting you with his questions.’ I fail to see how this works in the thread/forum format.”
It’s because I suspect, from many past experiences with him and from his immediate behavior of ignoring my suggestive lead in the matter, that his intentions are not to get the discussion rolling, but stalled, or at least abandoned by as many readers as possible. He wants to smear my credibility, not get the discussion into deeper waters. I keep telling him how to approach it and he keeps on with his agenda.
***
You wrote: “In verbal converstation it is clear when someone is being interrupted because one can hear the voice. But, in this format once a post has been made the next poster is free to add, ask, debate, mock ( how I hate that!) and basically - continue the thread.”
Yes, interruptions here are not the same as in auditory discussion. Here it’s not the physical speaking of the speaker that’s interrupted, it’s the speaker’s attention that’s interrupted, the logical flow of the speakers laid out steps that’s interrupted, and the attention of and flow for readers as well. For very complex topics these kinds of interruptions can be as fatal to the discussion as auditory interruptions.
***
You wrote: “Since we cannot read your mind, we do not know where you are wanting the conversation to go, if there are questions they will get asked. You don't have to answer them right away - you can say that you will answer after making a point - but there is no such thing as interrupting - unless it is off topic - perhaps like I am right now. Sorry. I'll crawl back in my hole for a while.”
I welcome your interruptions, doojable. They are not in a jeering and disingenuous tone at all.
Yes, I expect and accept many innocent interruptions and genuine questions. But when I ask questions back I expect them dealt with and not ignored.
As for “- you can say that you will answer after making a point –” with this complex and tradition saturated topic there are many points that require my delaying a direct answer, and each point needs feedback to gauge it’s completion. This is why my insistence on Tom dealing with my questions in Post #6 and #9. And they are just the beginning of an extended discussion.
And please feel free to come in anytime. Any interruptions you do are like spitting in the ocean. They don't hurt at all. Not a very good idiom to use with a lady, but I don’t know a softer equivalent yet.
If I’m sane, then the very odd statements I’ve made shouyld be looked at wit great care, and every hint, question, suggestion, and tit-bit of an answer should be meekly received and pondered..."
That's not logic at all Mike. Not even logical arguments at all. Those are simply conditional statements. Opinions in the form of conditional statements that you are attempting to portray as "logic . Mikean Logic. Flawed Logic.
Topic: The law of believing, as handled in Round 1 of this PFAL Series, in the thread titled “The Official, the Ultimate, the Amazing PFAL Thread, Come Back to PFAL” somewhere deep in it’s cavernous pages.
allan w.,
In Post #19 of ChasUFarley’s thread titled “Becoming agnostic....” you wrote: “I too think twi over-populised ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER YOU ASK IN PRAYER. I believe at times the first part of a prayer request should be for God to let you know if need be whether you should be praying for the desired result or not.”
I totally agree.
And so does Dr in his teaching of PFAL.
From our discussions on the law of believing in this PFAL Series this point was thoroughly covered. It was the TVTs, not the PFAL teachings that encouraged prayer and believing for any old thing that comes to mind. We were taught to check the available list first, and to have our needs in balance with what we want to pray for if we expect “to receive anything from God.”
The “all things whatsoever” part had to be with respect towards the other things in the Word on the same subject.
The TVTs (Twi Verbal Teachings) and even some more formal teachings by leaders seemed to strip all the balancing away, as you report.
I just wanted to point out that PFAL is diametrically opposed to it and is in accord with your post over there.
P.S. – If it’s worth anything, I think you’re doing a lot better with manners. I too have my ups and downs with this, as many will tell you. It IS a combative atmosphere here many times and very possible to go overboard with fighting back.
Your sno-cone analogy above works for simple topics only.
But my earlier analogy along similar lines fits THIS complex situation better. It involved kindergarten students demanding to be taught calculus before their elementary arithmetic, algebra, and geometry is solidly understood.
In my discussion with Tom and doojable I’ve emphasized that this topic of seeing Jesus, although simple in itself, is loaded with complex error and tradition.
Now, if Tom were to be badgering me on the brain scientist question, which is MUCH simpler, and I were dodging him this way and that, THEN your analogy might fit better. But hold your horses.
In all the posting flurry I forgot to get back to your brain scientist question.
The reason I mentioned them was to lend some weight to the sincere praise I had for T-Bone’s post.
In my very first post here I introduced myself with a similar background reference, and I named a few names. That thread, I think, was pruned last summer.
A few days after posting the names (back then editing was unlimited) I went back and deleted the names for two reasons.
One was that I thought that in the very combative atmosphere, which was boiling at a temperature high for even GreaseSpot standards (it was an intense pile-on involving several threads) I FELT had to actually protect those people from any possible nutcases here who might try to harass them.
The other reason was that I expected someone to use that small list to accuse me of name dropping as a cheap trick.
Both of these reasons have some merit today.
So, why do you want to know the things you asked me of them?
Do you plan on dodging this question?
You asked: “Which of the "dozens of the world's top brain scientists" have you hung out with? ...and by "hanging out with" do you mean sitting around 'shootin' the breeze, playing pool and having a beer' or has that been in a "clinical" setting?”
They had me strapped to a gurney with all these wires attached to my head and then told me a bunch of dirty jokes while zapping me with a cattle prod. What a rush, man!
No, seriously, a large number were guest lecturers to our group and well known around the world, several were local professors and scientists from several very well know institutions, at least two were Department heads of a famous University, one was local inventor of a machine that reads handwriting and is in nearly every post office (just e-mailed with him a little last year), some were finishing PhD graduate students of the luminaries. I was friends with some grad students, one of which I keep in touch with and is now a professor. Many beers went down with many grad students. Went to a Firesign Theatre reunion concert with the girlfriend of one grad student. Enjoyed a first name but distant friendship with a McArthur Award winner and spouse and was invited to parties at their home. On one occasion I was at an hour long meeting with an extremely famous Nobel Prize winner and eight other people, and in another meeting with same and only three other people.
God opened the doors for all this and I learned an extremely large number of things, some of which were DIRECTLY applicable to PFAL and even the topic of seeing Jesus. There are extremely many steps needed to explain this assertion, but if you’re extremely patient and come back to PFAL I’ll explain it to reward you.
The way it all happened is I saw an article in Scientific American one day almost a couple decades ago and noticed the authors were at that time local professors. I called them up and told them I was a Jesus Freak and a window cleaner and they immediately invited me to join them. ...No, just kidding... I told them I was an amateur comedy writer (fact) and that my topic of comedy was the same as their focus of serious energy (fact) and they immediately invited me to join them. I became a charter member (their words years later) of the group they just so happened to be starting the next day. I was a definite ringer in the group, especially when I disclosed many months later I had no degree, believed the Bible, and was a window cleaner. I provide much comedy relief for them, some of which stemmed from my lack of technical knowledge, and some from genuine humor. They lauded me as a mascot and told me several times that it seemed to them I was completely warding off the New Age kooks and religious zealots that had plagued them for years, but completely stopped as soon as I arrived. I wrote some very serious papers for them that they liked and some of which I later adapted for GreaseSpot and for Open Mic stand-up comedy bits I have been doing for four years now in small and large coffee shops. The bulk of the time I spent with them was in two hour sessions with 10 to 40 people every Wednesday night when school was in session. It all lasted seven years.
If you or anyone else are genuinely interested in this topic of brain science (and not in checking my story out) I’ll supply more in PMs or long distance phone calls, which I understand are now relatively free. If anyone wants some suggested reading, some of which were written by my local scientist friends and aquaintences or visiting luminaries, I can supply references.
Mike -- I did not *plagiarize* that line from Raf. It is something I have always said, believe, and find to be a MAJOR stumblingblock propounded first by docvic, and secondly by you.
If believing equals receiving -- why don't you believe for World Peace (or even a less *noble* cause, in the interest of humanity??)
Reason you don't, is because you can't --- and neither can I.
The answer to your question and that whole issue were fully discussed in the Round 1 thread.
Is World Peace on the available list?
No.
Donchya remember all this?
There is a small promise like this though, a promise for local peace.
Do you know where that is in the KJV?
I'm disappointed in you.
"believing equals receiving" is NOT the law of believing.
"believing equals receiving" is an extreme abbreviation of the law and it leads to many problems (as you state) when MISUNDERSTOOD to be the whole law. Remember the ten items we collected in Round 1? This stumbling block trips up those who refuse to master the material and see the the more complete renderings of the law. You can't blame VPW. You can't blame me. The blame is square on the shoulders of those who didn't fully learn the law. It looks like you may be one of them for repeatedly refusing to listen to the whole thing, both when Dr was alive, and in the Round 1 thread's discussion.
AVAILABLE
Remember that word and how many times Dr said it over and over in Session One?
Maybe you just need some sleep.
Tommorow's another day
...to apply the law of believing
...but only to things on the available list
...and in observance of the other nine items (and maybe a few more).
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
104
50
72
59
Popular Days
May 5
39
May 3
38
Apr 4
34
Apr 3
28
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 104 posts
templelady 50 posts
Tom Strange 72 posts
dmiller 59 posts
Popular Days
May 5 2006
39 posts
May 3 2006
38 posts
Apr 4 2006
34 posts
Apr 3 2006
28 posts
Tom Strange
Mike...
what do they call someone who thinks everyone else is wrong because they don't think the same way they do?
what do they call someone who is the only person out of thousands to come away with a completely different take on what the same words mean?
what do they call someone who keeps insisting they are the one who is right and the rest of the world is wrong?
what do they call someone who refuses to listen to logic and reason whenever they do not correspond with what he believes?
These are some new questions.
Here's one thing they do not call them: SANE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
If I am insane, then what the heck do you want my answers for?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
No, no, Tom. I’m the one asking questions here. I need to gage how much background you need to understand my answer. You’re distancing yourself even farther from me by answering my questions with a question or your own.
Mike,
Wasn't it a favorite device of Jesus' to answer a question with a question?
Also, I can't find the post right now - but more than once you have said something to Tom to the effect him "interrupting you with his questions." I fail to see how this works in the thread/forum format. In verbal converstation it is clear when someone is being interrupted because one can hear the voice. But, in this format once a post has been made the next poster is free to add, ask, debate, mock ( how I hate that!) and basically - continue the thread.
Since we cannot read your mind, we do not know where you are wanting the conversation to go, if there are questions they will get asked. You don't have to answer them right away - you can say that you will answer after making a point - but there is no such thing as interrupting - unless it is off topic - perhaps like I am right now. Sorry. I'll crawl back in my hole for a while.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hmmmm. I'm seeing a *truism* here! ;)
Teacher: "Ok --- today, class, we will be be discussing the merits of sno-cones over chocolate pie.
Johnny: "Teacher -- what is a sno-cone???"
Teacher: "You must learn all about sno-cones, before you can ask any questions about them."
Johnny: "But I'm asking you, so I can learn about them."
Teacher: "Anything I may have to say about sno-cones, would fall on deaf ears,
since you obviously know nothing about them."
Johnny: "But I have a legitimate question!"
Teacher: It is only legitimate, if you understand the subject matter."
Johnny: "But that is why I am asking questions, I'm trying to understand the subject matter."
Teacher: "I cannot enlighten you, if you know nothing about them."
Johnny: "Then why discuss the merits, if some of us don't know what a sno-cone is?"
Teacher: Just listen to what I say, and perhaps you will understand."
Johnny: "So I can't ask questions, and get an answer??"
Teacher: I have spoken much on the subject previously, as have others,
whom I revere highly for their knowledge on the subject. Read what was said."
Johnny: "So you won't answer a simple question?"
Teacher: "Like I said --- Read what was written about the subject previously.
When you understand that fully, you may return with your questions."
:unsure:
:unsure: 
:unsure:
(edited for speeling!) ;)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
yes dmiller... something along those lines... eggzakley!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Hey Mike... I was just browsing around on page one and saw your first post on this thread... gee... it was much different than the first time I read it... very slick... go back in and edit it later... oh well... at least you're limited to a couple of hours now so you can't pull some of your old tricks...
adding that part to make it look like the "unorthodox translation" had something to do with me! ha... pretty funny dude.. but again, you're too modest here... much too modest...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Posted by doojable:
The answer is easy. While this may be forum for discussion for most folks, this is Mike's classroom and launching pad for his "message". As the teacher, he plays by his own rules. Expect any more than that and you will be dissapointed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Here's a "cut and paste" for you Mike from one of the many posts where I've answered this question:
"I'm trying to figure out if you have any credibility, to determine if you or your message should be heeded... and all you ever do is say "you just have to believe me" (but in many many more words than that)."
That's why I ask the questions... as I've told you many times before.
As for the first part of your question, at this point it's a matter of perception isn't it? ...or is it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike, you posted the above over on T-Bones thread... since you don't want to answer the questions about statements you've made what about this one? Which of the "dozens of the world's top brain scientists" have you hung out with? ...and by "hanging out with" do you mean sitting around 'shootin' the breeze, playing pool and having a beer' or has that been in a "clinical" setting?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
What do brain scientists have to do with pfal???
I'm missing something here --- clue me in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
You wrote: “What do brain scientists have to do with pfal??? __ I'm missing something here --- clue me in.”
The brain scientist context comes from the other thread, T-Bone’s “What does it take to change your mind?”
I mentioned my study with them over there and Tom Strange was following Modaustin’s Rule #3 of not baiting me over there, but to bait me here.
*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************
Tom,
That worm looks SO good to eat. Gosh! What luck that it was plopped right in here for little old me.
I’m hungry! What great timing. This is my lucky day.
BUT.... what’s that gleaming flash of light with the gentle curved thingy going through it,
with that odd looking thing at the end. I wonder what THAT tastes like?
Is it friend or foe? Now what WAS it they taught me about thingies back when I swimming with the school???
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
You wrote much earlier in Post #26 as you refused to deal with some paragraphs of mine in Post #23: “Oh Mike! You so funny! First you deny that it's a test, then you go on to say it's a test, or prepartion, in order to receive the answers! You so funny! HA! HA!”
If I remember rightly, the test part was tongue in cheek where I was playing the teacher role, and is a legitimate figure of speech, while the preparation part was literal.
Now that I defused your reason to refuse, you can reconsider this paste:
If you can’t understand the questions I asked you in those earlier posts, or if you simply don’t want to deal with them, then you either won’t be able to understand the answers I give you to your questions or you'll not want to accept them.
The reason I can say this is because I specifically designed those questions to you to track closely with the issues you are asking me about. Since you seem unable or unwilling to deal with the issues in my questions, then you will be similarly disposed to deal with my answers.
Because you seem unable or unwilling to deal with the issues I feel that we must start with the basics, and build a foundation for understanding these things. To really do that we must dive headlong into the PFAL texts. It is THIS that I really wish to communicate to you and to readers. Those who do not want to do this are free to do so, but I’m also free to not care what they think about me.
Look at it this way, Tom, the questions I asked you are hints. Work with them.
***
You pasted (with my bold fonts) in Post #34: “I'm trying to figure out if you have any credibility, to determine if you or your message should be heeded... and all you ever do is say "you just have to believe me" (but in many many more words than that).”
Yes, Tom, you're VERY trying.
But if you want to try harder, then why don’t you work a little more on my paste several lines above and the referecned questions in Post #6 and #9?
And you got something wrong in your paste here.
The phrase "you just have to believe me" should read:
"you just have to work with my referenced questions a little more"
Remember those questions in Posts #6 and #9? I do. The ones on recognizing Jesus.
***
I had written: “If I am insane, then what the heck do you want my answers for?”
You responded with: “...at this point it's a matter of perception isn't it? ...or is it?”
Let’s use a little logic.
If I’m insane, then you ought to tiptoe away.
If I’m sane, then the very odd statements I’ve made should be looked at with great care, and every hint, question, suggestion, and tit-bit of an answer should be meekly received and pondered. But razzing and badgering should be avoided at all cost, lest I cast you out of my classroom.
(tongue in cheek teacher role, for the humor impaired)
Can you think of any other logical possibilities?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Ok -- I'll go over, and take a look.
(But all the same -- brain scientists, and pfal seem to be somewhat of an oxymoron.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike,
Stop the banter and rhetoric will you and just get to teaching PFAL .... ok ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
You wrote: "Stop the banter and rhetoric will you and just get to teaching PFAL .... ok ?"
I have unanswered posts to still respond to here.
Besides, haven't you flashed on my M.O. yet?
While dealing with challenges and in between the banter, I find nice niches to put PFAL gems into.
I need the comic relief to deal with all the nastiness thrown my way, and I suspect some others do to.
Why? Are you loaded for bear or something?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
ONLY docvic can teach pfal!!!!
(Unless it it Jesus, at the Return.) :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
You wrote: “Wasn't it a favorite device of Jesus' to answer a question with a question?”
Yes it most certainly was. And just plain question asking too. I remember someone showing me their research project of documenting all the many questions Jesus asked. This was in the 70’s when grads would read the Gopsels on their own. It was only later that a lot gravitated away from them.
Answering a question with a question was even taught in Witnessing and Undershepherding, and is a fine device in the proper hands. I don’t think Jesus was the only one to use it.
I object to Tom using it here on this topic because I suspect he has other than genuine learning motives. If he wants to learn this complex topic he wouldn’t mind trying out my suggested questions.
He seems to think he can call the shots for delving into a VERY complex topic that I have a little bit of a grasp on and that he does none. It’s a topic that I spent 8 years on and he none, so I will work it the way I see fit.
***
You wrote: “Also, I can't find the post right now - but more than once you have said something to Tom to the effect him ‘interrupting you with his questions.’ I fail to see how this works in the thread/forum format.”
It’s because I suspect, from many past experiences with him and from his immediate behavior of ignoring my suggestive lead in the matter, that his intentions are not to get the discussion rolling, but stalled, or at least abandoned by as many readers as possible. He wants to smear my credibility, not get the discussion into deeper waters. I keep telling him how to approach it and he keeps on with his agenda.
***
You wrote: “In verbal converstation it is clear when someone is being interrupted because one can hear the voice. But, in this format once a post has been made the next poster is free to add, ask, debate, mock ( how I hate that!) and basically - continue the thread.”
Yes, interruptions here are not the same as in auditory discussion. Here it’s not the physical speaking of the speaker that’s interrupted, it’s the speaker’s attention that’s interrupted, the logical flow of the speakers laid out steps that’s interrupted, and the attention of and flow for readers as well. For very complex topics these kinds of interruptions can be as fatal to the discussion as auditory interruptions.
***
You wrote: “Since we cannot read your mind, we do not know where you are wanting the conversation to go, if there are questions they will get asked. You don't have to answer them right away - you can say that you will answer after making a point - but there is no such thing as interrupting - unless it is off topic - perhaps like I am right now. Sorry. I'll crawl back in my hole for a while.”
I welcome your interruptions, doojable. They are not in a jeering and disingenuous tone at all.
Yes, I expect and accept many innocent interruptions and genuine questions. But when I ask questions back I expect them dealt with and not ignored.
As for “- you can say that you will answer after making a point –” with this complex and tradition saturated topic there are many points that require my delaying a direct answer, and each point needs feedback to gauge it’s completion. This is why my insistence on Tom dealing with my questions in Post #6 and #9. And they are just the beginning of an extended discussion.
And please feel free to come in anytime. Any interruptions you do are like spitting in the ocean. They don't hurt at all. Not a very good idiom to use with a lady, but I don’t know a softer equivalent yet.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Mike Posted:
That's not logic at all Mike. Not even logical arguments at all. Those are simply conditional statements. Opinions in the form of conditional statements that you are attempting to portray as "logic . Mikean Logic. Flawed Logic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Goey,
I think you're getting unnecessarily technical here, and I DID use the word "little."
But I'll try to remember using "conditional statements" for thoroughly listing all possible outcomes next time.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Topic: The law of believing, as handled in Round 1 of this PFAL Series, in the thread titled “The Official, the Ultimate, the Amazing PFAL Thread, Come Back to PFAL” somewhere deep in it’s cavernous pages.
allan w.,
In Post #19 of ChasUFarley’s thread titled “Becoming agnostic....” you wrote: “I too think twi over-populised ALL THINGS WHATSOEVER YOU ASK IN PRAYER. I believe at times the first part of a prayer request should be for God to let you know if need be whether you should be praying for the desired result or not.”
I totally agree.
And so does Dr in his teaching of PFAL.
From our discussions on the law of believing in this PFAL Series this point was thoroughly covered. It was the TVTs, not the PFAL teachings that encouraged prayer and believing for any old thing that comes to mind. We were taught to check the available list first, and to have our needs in balance with what we want to pray for if we expect “to receive anything from God.”
The “all things whatsoever” part had to be with respect towards the other things in the Word on the same subject.
The TVTs (Twi Verbal Teachings) and even some more formal teachings by leaders seemed to strip all the balancing away, as you report.
I just wanted to point out that PFAL is diametrically opposed to it and is in accord with your post over there.
P.S. – If it’s worth anything, I think you’re doing a lot better with manners. I too have my ups and downs with this, as many will tell you. It IS a combative atmosphere here many times and very possible to go overboard with fighting back.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
There --- is --- NO
LAW OF BELIEVING!!!
(regardless of what docvic, or you say.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
You're plagiarizing Raf with that line!
***
Your sno-cone analogy above works for simple topics only.
But my earlier analogy along similar lines fits THIS complex situation better. It involved kindergarten students demanding to be taught calculus before their elementary arithmetic, algebra, and geometry is solidly understood.
In my discussion with Tom and doojable I’ve emphasized that this topic of seeing Jesus, although simple in itself, is loaded with complex error and tradition.
Now, if Tom were to be badgering me on the brain scientist question, which is MUCH simpler, and I were dodging him this way and that, THEN your analogy might fit better. But hold your horses.
********************************************************************
********************************************************************
********************************************************************
********************************************************************
Tom Strange,
In all the posting flurry I forgot to get back to your brain scientist question.
The reason I mentioned them was to lend some weight to the sincere praise I had for T-Bone’s post.
In my very first post here I introduced myself with a similar background reference, and I named a few names. That thread, I think, was pruned last summer.
A few days after posting the names (back then editing was unlimited) I went back and deleted the names for two reasons.
One was that I thought that in the very combative atmosphere, which was boiling at a temperature high for even GreaseSpot standards (it was an intense pile-on involving several threads) I FELT had to actually protect those people from any possible nutcases here who might try to harass them.
The other reason was that I expected someone to use that small list to accuse me of name dropping as a cheap trick.
Both of these reasons have some merit today.
So, why do you want to know the things you asked me of them?
Do you plan on dodging this question?
You asked: “Which of the "dozens of the world's top brain scientists" have you hung out with? ...and by "hanging out with" do you mean sitting around 'shootin' the breeze, playing pool and having a beer' or has that been in a "clinical" setting?”
They had me strapped to a gurney with all these wires attached to my head and then told me a bunch of dirty jokes while zapping me with a cattle prod. What a rush, man!
No, seriously, a large number were guest lecturers to our group and well known around the world, several were local professors and scientists from several very well know institutions, at least two were Department heads of a famous University, one was local inventor of a machine that reads handwriting and is in nearly every post office (just e-mailed with him a little last year), some were finishing PhD graduate students of the luminaries. I was friends with some grad students, one of which I keep in touch with and is now a professor. Many beers went down with many grad students. Went to a Firesign Theatre reunion concert with the girlfriend of one grad student. Enjoyed a first name but distant friendship with a McArthur Award winner and spouse and was invited to parties at their home. On one occasion I was at an hour long meeting with an extremely famous Nobel Prize winner and eight other people, and in another meeting with same and only three other people.
God opened the doors for all this and I learned an extremely large number of things, some of which were DIRECTLY applicable to PFAL and even the topic of seeing Jesus. There are extremely many steps needed to explain this assertion, but if you’re extremely patient and come back to PFAL I’ll explain it to reward you.
The way it all happened is I saw an article in Scientific American one day almost a couple decades ago and noticed the authors were at that time local professors. I called them up and told them I was a Jesus Freak and a window cleaner and they immediately invited me to join them. ...No, just kidding... I told them I was an amateur comedy writer (fact) and that my topic of comedy was the same as their focus of serious energy (fact) and they immediately invited me to join them. I became a charter member (their words years later) of the group they just so happened to be starting the next day. I was a definite ringer in the group, especially when I disclosed many months later I had no degree, believed the Bible, and was a window cleaner. I provide much comedy relief for them, some of which stemmed from my lack of technical knowledge, and some from genuine humor. They lauded me as a mascot and told me several times that it seemed to them I was completely warding off the New Age kooks and religious zealots that had plagued them for years, but completely stopped as soon as I arrived. I wrote some very serious papers for them that they liked and some of which I later adapted for GreaseSpot and for Open Mic stand-up comedy bits I have been doing for four years now in small and large coffee shops. The bulk of the time I spent with them was in two hour sessions with 10 to 40 people every Wednesday night when school was in session. It all lasted seven years.
If you or anyone else are genuinely interested in this topic of brain science (and not in checking my story out) I’ll supply more in PMs or long distance phone calls, which I understand are now relatively free. If anyone wants some suggested reading, some of which were written by my local scientist friends and aquaintences or visiting luminaries, I can supply references.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mike -- I did not *plagiarize* that line from Raf. It is something I have always said, believe, and find to be a MAJOR stumblingblock propounded first by docvic, and secondly by you.
If believing equals receiving -- why don't you believe for World Peace (or even a less *noble* cause, in the interest of humanity??)
Reason you don't, is because you can't --- and neither can I.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller,
The answer to your question and that whole issue were fully discussed in the Round 1 thread.
Is World Peace on the available list?
No.
Donchya remember all this?
There is a small promise like this though, a promise for local peace.
Do you know where that is in the KJV?
I'm disappointed in you.
"believing equals receiving" is NOT the law of believing.
"believing equals receiving" is an extreme abbreviation of the law and it leads to many problems (as you state) when MISUNDERSTOOD to be the whole law. Remember the ten items we collected in Round 1? This stumbling block trips up those who refuse to master the material and see the the more complete renderings of the law. You can't blame VPW. You can't blame me. The blame is square on the shoulders of those who didn't fully learn the law. It looks like you may be one of them for repeatedly refusing to listen to the whole thing, both when Dr was alive, and in the Round 1 thread's discussion.
AVAILABLE
Remember that word and how many times Dr said it over and over in Session One?
Maybe you just need some sleep.
Tommorow's another day
...to apply the law of believing
...but only to things on the available list
...and in observance of the other nine items (and maybe a few more).
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.