Jeaniam

This whole thread probably belongs in doctrinal. I'll just reiterate that twi is run by @-holes.

I guess I agree that nowadays it is.

This has probably been covered before but where does the money go that is collected by the Off Shoot groups? I have been briefly involved with several of them and could not figure out what they did with the money. Most of them still had home fellowships.

Does it go to foreign missions or to help inner city kids learn the gospel or to help poor people come to Christ or to help genocide survivors in other countries with basic fundamental necessities? The ones I attended did not broach the subject but it was prayed over before the plate was passed and something was said about blessing back the givers.

The revs who led the groups were dressed nicely and one even talked about his stock portfolio when the rest of his group seemed struggling to make ends meet.

I wonder sometimes how long people would feel comfortable contributing to home fellowship churches if they are looked at funny when they ask where the offering goes (or abs or whatever they call it now). I was within hearing distance once when someone asked and he was given a curt answer.

I remember now, it was a horn of plenty that was passed not a plate.

My memory must be healing to have forgotten that. :D

I'm involved with an Off-Shoot or splinter group that is headed by Rev. Chris Geer. The ABS that is generated in my area STAYS in my area and is administered by a gentleman who has a full-time (or more) job and uses none of it for his own benefit. It has been used, since my involvement, for such projects as helping a woman who was widowed unexpectedly, helping a family who were hit with unexpected medical bills, and otherwise helping people who were feeling unexpected financial pressures. All of these uses I believe to be Biblical in nature and I have no problem with my money being used in this way. While I haven't demanded an accounting down to the penny, I'm sure if I did, one would be available to me, and I would be satisfied by it. In fact one of the things that attracted me to this group is the fact that I like the way they handle their finances.

T-Bone, is that the same Jay Adams that wrote the book 'Competent to Counsel' in 1970?

And the vp apologists try to argue that there really is a difference between the two, "well, you didn't get beat over the head with a lead pipe, he just conned you. It was your decision, your fault, you lose".

"get over it".

And like those who went to see P.T. Barnums "egress", they think it is funny to watch it happen to somebody else, or minimize it, as some kind of rite of passage.

Funny.. remarkable similarity here.. a lot of people paid to get in, and found themselves on the street..

While I would never recommend TWI to anyone in its current state and would never think it was funny to watch what happened to us happen to someone else, I still think that much of what I learned was of value at the time and still is of value today. As I have said before in other places, I received everything that I said I wanted when I signed the green card (a meaningful relationship with God, harmony in the home, etc., etc..) I agree that it eventually became a religion that was at least as legalistic as any of its predecessors.

TWI argues that bad things happened to Joseph (son of Israel) because of by his free will choice he made bad decisions that got himself into trouble.

They really make free will a bad thing. That's why you need leadership. To do the work of the holy spirit.

You could argue that Joseph got himself into trouble in Genesis 37:1-36 because of his indiscretion in revealing his dreams and the interpretations of them; but after that he seems to mostly have gotten into trouble through the evil designs of others (his brothers, to a certain extent; Potiphar's wife, which was no fault of his, etc.). But the end result was to put him in the position of second-in-command of Egypt at a crucial time in history, and he only got there by his habit of trusting God; and God came through for him repeatedly in making lemonade out of what must have seemed like very bitter lemons at times.

1. We can make decisions according to whatever pops in our head, how do we control what pops into our head? Beyond our control is probably where Faith and prayer is.

2. We put our trust in them, they lied, decisions we made were based on that trust.

3. if free will is something that cannot be infringed upon, then we were in situations of broken trust and backstabbing. Free will decision are not always based on good information, because this doesn't always seem to be available.

1. We control what pops into our head by renewing our minds to the Word (Bible, for those non-TWI members) as in Romans 12:1-3.

2. The Bible exhorts us to obey and be in subjection to those that have the rule over us; but it is based on the premise that they are ministers of God to us for good (Romans 13:1-7). In Romans 13:7 we are exhorted to render to all their dues, but I question what that means in any situation where the leaders are not fulfilling their obligation to us to be the ministers of God for good. I have known many men and women who were ministers of God to me for good (mostly in the early days of TWI); and I have known some who were anything but (mostly in the latter days of TWI). The last TC & BC we had held a meeting where John and I were grilled about our children's behavior both at fellowship and at home. We were asked various questions about our son's behavior at home (did he clean up his room, put away his clothes, help with chores, etc.) and when I assured the TC & BC that he did all of these things, the two gentlemen received 'revelation' that I was lying to protect him and that he must be possessed by at least one devil spirit, directly due to what a terrible mother I was, since he had no physical problems (as far as they knew, which wasn't very far). BTW our son was only four at the time. Two days later John was called and informed that, of our family, only he and our daughter were welcome at fellowship, and if he really wanted to serve God, and save his children from me, he should take the children and divorce me, totally ignoring the fact that I was pregnant with our third child at the time. At that point his free will re-emerged and he reminded them of what the letters FO usually stand for. God has continued to work in our lives since then and has never let us down, no matter badly men have. I guess my point in sharing the previous story is that we were under no obligation to obey leaders who were not looking out for our best interests (which is their part of the obligation). BTW both our younger children were later diagnosed with a physical illness that contributed to their behavior; an inborn error of metabolism similar to PKU that causes brain damage if not caught and treated in time. I sent a copy of the diagnosis to the aforementioned TC and BC; however they didn't care.

3. Good information is always available from God, no matter how flawed our human advisors may be. I think the biggest mistake we made was to assume our leaders always had our best interests at heart until it became more than abundantly clear that their advice was far more self-seeking than altruistic.

Amen Roy.

Exactly what emphasis God puts on the Bible I do not know now. I do believe its not so we can "one up" or fellow brothers. Nor do I believe God is limited to what's written.

"God has Magnified His Word above His Name" --where this come from and what it means I do not know.

It comes from Psalms 138:2- "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." The word 'magnify' means to make great. No, I don't believe God is limited to what is written in that I believe that He can always do more than what is written. I believe that He is limited to what is written in the sense that He cannot do less than what is written nor can He contradict what He has written.

T-bone: “Which hits me as the conscience being more of a law-observer – than a lawgiver.”

Yes. The conscience bears witness to but is not the source of law written in hearts by nature.

There is no consistency between one man’s conscience and another’s.

1Cr 10:29 Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another [man's] conscience?

Conscience bears witness to godly behavior.

2Cr 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

Conscience can be defiled by ungodly behavior and have dead works.

Tts 1:15 Unto the pure all things [are] pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving [is] nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

Hbr 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Finally, Paul instructs people to consider conscience with regard to decision making and motives:

1Cr 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you [to a feast], and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

________________________________________

1Cr 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

This is an example of something not being a problem from God’s perspective, but from mans’.

The law is God’s will which is perfect, and conscience is composed of man’s will, reasoning, thought processes and decisions, and may or may not reflect God’s will. Conscience is variable. Even so, God still thinks it’s important.

If conscience were perfect in the sense of law giver, then it would always reflect God’s will, and it couldn’t be weak or defiled. On that basis, the tree of knowledge of good and evil can be ruled out the source of conscience because of:

Gen. 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and

evil;

What would make more sense, is the tree of knowledge of good and evil was the source of the law written in hearts by nature, if it weren’t for this:

Hebrews 8:10: For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

V11: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

V 12: For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Sigh.

And finally. The Bible instructs us to trust God. It never instructs us to trust our conscience or use it for guidance. If conscience were perfect and unerring, we would not need God or the Bible. Or the new birth.

Great post, A. Spot. It seems to bear out what Eyes Open said about the conscience being a clean slate at birth that needs to be written on. When children are very young, the parents do most of the 'writing' i.e. don't play in the street, don't touch the stove when it's hot, don't play with matches, etc., etc., etc.. When they grow older, parents lead them into more moral types of choices; don't steal, don't lie, etc., etc.. The children internalize these points of reference into their conscience and use them as a 'moral' compass, but the points of reference come from without; they are not innate or inborn.

T-Bone; no sin and broken fellowship are not synonymous. Sin is sin and results in broken fellowship with God. Once again, in my life TWI's handling of the topics of sin, broken fellowship and how to obtain forgiveness for sins and restored fellowship with God were a great relief to me. I grew up in a very religious, legalistic, cold family and church. My family had very harsh rules and the church had very harsh ideas on what constituted SIN and every little deviation was considered SIN. It was a great relief to have their version of SIN reduced to sin being just a mistake for which an apology was necessary to God and sometimes to another person (when appropriate) and beyond that an attitude of learning from your mistakes was appropriate but condemnation was just more sin and resulted in just more broken fellowship with God. But it was a relief to me to learn that when I did make a mistake (and those occasions were and are more frequent than I like to admit) all I needed to do was apologise to God, learn from my mistake, and keep moving. Some of the scenarios you have described sound like people trying to rationalize their mistakes or split hairs i.e. I'm not stealing, I'm just 'borrowing indefinetly'; or keeping this money I found on the ground rather than turning it into lost and found isn't really stealing, it's just being thankful for a blessing from God, ETC., etc..

Jeaniam,

sorry if it's taking me 47 posts to get what your saying. I'm sure you're tired of repeating yourself.

I don't know about the "let your conscience be your guide" doctrine.

I just know twi has confused and angered the fudge out of me.

I don't know if TWI taught the doctrine of 'let your conscience be your guide or if I heard it somewhere else. I know that at the end TWI confused and angered the fudge out of a lot of us. Thanks for your response.

You know I’ve been doing a lot of reading on the subject of conscience. I learned that theologians, sociologists, philosophers, and psychologists have been debating it for centuries.

That being said, the central issue is what is it (Biblically, not a dictionary), and it’d be nice to know how did we get it, and when. Unless we can answer that question definitively, we can’t really define the impact of twi (or anything else) on conscience, never mind relate it to other parts of the mind with any authority.

Beyond that, well I am not sure I still agree with my own posts…

The only thing I am sure about right now, is conscience Biblically is affected by decisions/actions ie, references to a pure conscience because of actions (guilt free) and seared conscience because of actions (beyond guilt) (Jeaniam, that was sharp!).

T-bone, I am not so sure Romans 1 is saying the witness within is conscience. After reading the chapter a gazillion times, the issue seems to be the witness of the power and righteousness of God (God’s qualities) within and without. I don’t see how the internal witness of God’s power and righteousness equals conscience, since conscience relates to right from wrong, not God’s qualities….and context is recognizing God vs idolatry. I’m not saying you’re not right, I just don’t see yet how you got from one to the other.

According to Young's Concordance the word for conscience (which is only translated conscience in the whole N.T.) is the word 'suneideesis', which appears to be related to the word suneisis, and is defined in Young's as a 'knowing with oneself'. Bullinger defines it as 'a knowing with oneself, consciousness; the being one's own witness; the testimony to one's own conduct borne by consciousness, especially the consciousness man has of himself in his relation to God, manifesting itself in the form of a self testimony. Consequently it is the effect and result of faith, for a man's conscience will never condemn that which he believes to be right, and vice versa: hence the only conscience worth having is that which springs from "a faith unfeigned", see 1 Timothy 1:5'. Tyndale doesn't say anything worthy of note that the others haven't already said. The word 'deesis' which appears to be one of the root words of 'suneideesis' is translated prayer or supplication. I don't know if that last bit helps to clarify things or not.

While in twi there were things that I "knew" were right that I now "know" are wrong. While in twi if I thought of going against a twi doctrine I would have a bad feeling. But now those inner feelings are completely opposite of what they were before for the same actions.

Sometimes doing the wrong things feel wrong, sometimes doing the right things feel wrong. Sometimes, who the heck knows what the right thing to do is? I don't know that I can always turn to my conscience and say "Hey, got any clear readings? Yes? No? Maybe? Ask again later?"

So that just leads me to believe something about the conscience or something around the conscience changes. If the conscience is a single entity in itself.

Well, to repeat, that is why I think the doctrine of 'let your conscience be your guide' is a dangerous doctrine. Let the written Word (Bible) be your guide with the addition of direct revelation from God. Neither God nor his Word changes, so they are a far more solid foundation for your feet, then your 'conscience' which, as you observed, changes as circumstances change.

Can't wait to read it JJ.

I'm wondering if "right" and "wrong" are not absolute terms. Eve could not have known she shouldn't eat the fruit if someone hadn't told not to prior. (hypothetically) If nobody(including God) had told her not to do it, and she did it, would it have been sin?

Perhaps the conscience has more to do with our desire to do what's right, and we learn what's right from external sources (i.e. God, the Word, experience etc.)?

Yes, in reference to your earlier post, I believe studying the Bible and receiving revelation would effect how your conscience works, since I don't agree with the person who said a person's conscience is what it is from birth and cannot be taught or learn. 1 Tim. 4:2- Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. This is a negative example of having one's conscience changed in a negative direction, but if it can be changed for the worse, I would assume it can also be changed for the better, as in iron sharpeneth iron.

In reference to your question in this post, I would assume that the answer is no, it would not have been sin. Romans 5:13- For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law. Also Romans 7:7-11-- What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. So, is it your conclusion that the 'conscience' is in and of itself neither moral nor immoral, but rather amoral depending upon what each person puts into it? Which would seem to me to bring us back to the conclusion that one's 'conscience' is simply their habit patterns and can be changed for the better by learning the Bible and direct revelation. Hebrews 5:14- But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercise to discen both good and evil.

Maybe that is why God places such an emphasis on "intent" in the Bible.

Maybe. Good point, Eyes.

Bolshevik – I'm think it worked that way – Adam and Eve intellectually KNEW right from wrong before they sinned – they knew what God said about the one tree. But after they sinned they knew it experientially. Before they sinned, the conscience was exercised to refrain from eating of the fruit of a certain tree - they knew it was wrong to do. After they sinned, their conscience was struck with shame and guilt – they knew what they did was wrong.

They knew it was wrong to do, but only because God told them it was wrong to do; their 'conscience' (in the way I think you mean it) had nothing to do with it. If God had never told them not to eat of that tree, they would never have known it was wrong; they obviously had no innate knowledge that it was wrong or why did God have to tell them? They would have just known because their 'conscience' would have told them. That's why I think the doctrine of 'let your conscience be your guide' is a very dangerous doctrine. Let the written Bible be your guide, along with the added benefit that we as born-again believers have the ability to receive direct revelation from God if necessary.

But weren't they created in the image of God? They had His spirit within them at the time of the sin. Since it was built in to them at the point of their Genesis, wouldn't that be considered internal?

Just a question.

Thanks!

What we were taught in TWI (which may or may not be what you want to hear) is that the spirit within that they had gave them the ability to communicate with God without God having to come into concretion, and that is what they lost by committing the original sin. They were still relying on what God had told them, which to me implies an external source.

BTW, thanks for your post, JavaJane, it had a number of very good points in it. We certainly each have plenty of things to work on our own lives, and do not need to judge or condescend to anyone who doesn't agree with us.

Before going into details of our role with the two great commandments – I thought it would be appropriate to mention a dictionary definition of "conscience" that repeats the two views that came up on this thread - something innate or something that is learned. From The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology by Arthur Reber & Emily Reber, third edition 2001, page 147:

"Conscience. A reasonably coherent set of internalized moral principles that provides evaluations of right and wrong with regard to acts either performed or contemplated. Historically, theistic views aligned conscience with the voice of God and hence regarded it as innate. The contemporary view is that the prohibitions and obligations of conscience are learned; indeed, Freud's characterization of the superego was an attempt to provide an account of its origins, development and manner of functioning."

It seems to me that by that definition a 'conscience' is not an internal or inborn or innate warning system but rather a set of moral principles that a person has, by the freedom of their will, internalized. It would seem to suggest the prohibitions and obligations of conscience are learned and come from an external source.

I find myself much in agreement with the posts that JavaJane and Free Soul made. If I have come across as jumping on someone who disagrees with me, you have my apologies.

your right, God told Adam

but Eve says in Gen 3:3 "God hath said" Indicating she had heard what God said, directly or indirectly. (of course she also misquotes him)

Perhaps I just don't see a difference between previously received external knowledge and a conscience.

The point I was trying to make was that Adam and Eve's original ability to discern between good and evil was based on an external commandment of God's, not on an internal, inbred warning system. It doesn't seem to me that they had some internal moral compass (or conscience) but had to depend on the direction of God. I'm not so sure either that they were that much different than believers nowadays (with the possible exception of Christ within that we have). We also have to depend om the written direction of God for much of our knowledge of good and evil.

OK guys.. next song.

Remember this one? Then when did you leave?? Click <a href=http://sudo2u.com/littlegirl.mp3><B><font color=red>HERE!</font></B></a>

<center>sudo</center>

It's Brian Bliss. We left in 1994 (or were booted out), but Brian recently released a C.D. called 'Sons Of God and Electrified' that has some really great music on it. And BTW, Good Seed has re-released their music on C.D.s for those of us who remember the 70's.

didn't eve clearly recall that God told her not to do something? She knew what God would allow and wouldn't.

so in her mind she would be saying "God said don't do this"

Yes, but she was still relying on an external source for the recognition of what constituted good and evil. And as dmiller pointed out, Eve didn't receive instruction from God, but God told Adam, and Adam told Eve. Thanks, dmiller.

I have no problem with what you said – and I really appreciate your post! Because I have realize another dynamic that is at play when I analyze TWI doctrine. Part of the delivery system is the way they model "The Word." This is a big deal according to Jesus. The following passages show that even IF the teacher has "The Word", "the rightly-divided Word"…or for those Christians that speak English "The Bible" – and he does not practice what he preaches - [or for you TWI folks "walk the talk"] there is a big problem with that teacher – and I don't think they should be teaching!

Matthew 23:1-3 NASB

1^(A)Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,

2 saying: "^(B)The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;

3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

Matthew 5:17-20 NASB

17"Do not think that I came to abolish the ^(V)Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

18"For truly I say to you, ^(W)until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

19"Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least ^(X)in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20"For I say to you that unless your ^(Y)righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

That is my whole point in post # 1 and 16. We don't have to get into the myriad of erroneous "textbook" doctrines of TWI. And really - even if PFAL was 100 % "rightly-divided Word" [or 100 % Bible truth for you English speaking Christians out there] the REAL harm comes in how it is applied [as Jesus pointed out]. VPW does not model the Bible in PFAL – he "teaches" from it. When you get to see him "backstage" [like Way Corps or Staff] you get to see him model "the Word" – as I related with the pajama party/porn video incident.

Your experience is valid – so is mine. From what you said I take it you had some leadership that modeled more of the true Christian lifestyle than my favorite leader at the time, VPW. His influence – the way he modeled Christian living – that is what dulled the conscience of those that revered him.

I had some very good leadership in the early days of my involvement with TWI; men and women who talked the walk and walked the talk. Unfortunately, as time went on, men and women of integrity became harder and harder to find, and the few that were there left in disgust at what TWI was turning into. But as I have said in other places, I always thought the point of the gift of holy spirit was to enable me to become more myself and to magnify the good things about my personality, not to become a VPW or anyone else clone, which I guess is the difference between respect for the Word (Bible) he taught and revering him personally. Thanks for your post. Your experience is valid also, just different than mine.

With that one very notable exception, the other themes, according to vpw and Bullinger both,

are all written in the stars.

The idea that the stars were placed by God precisely where He wanted them

(and I dare you to say He did otherwise),

and then later He ascribed meaning to the constellations already in place,

or reshuffled the stars into new constellations,

to me smacks of trying very hard to defend odd theologies while trying to justify verses that

contradict it. (That includes theologies that limit God's knowledge.)

Which changes the design HOW?

God designed for what He thought would be good, including what He thought would be needed.

Since He's All-Knowing, I trust Him to design for things that didn't exist yet.

This idea that the only 2 possible positions are

1) trust your conscience 100% and ignore logic

and

2) ignore your conscience and trust only logic

is a False Dilemma.

The truth of the matter is that the conscience is a warning indicator, to point out dangers and pitfalls.

Can the conscience mis-identify? Sure. That's why you add THINKING to the system.

Not adding thinking is just plain silly.

DISMISSING the conscience and only going by logic- and, to be honest, external arguments-

is to deny one warning system that alerts even when a threat hasn't been fully articulated.

Without it, you're prey to any convincing-sounding argument.

Obviously, according to Genesis, Adam and Eve had no 'conscience', no internal indicator of good and evil. At the time they were created, they knew only good. Where they blew it was because they failed to rely on the external instructions that Adam had been given by God, and Eve had been given by Adam. They had no internal 'warning system that alerts even when a threat hasn't been fully articulated'. That was the 'convincing-sounding argument' that the serpent used to deceive Eve; that by tasting the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil man would become as God and know the difference between good and evil, thus probably acquiring the 'conscience' everyone keeps talking about.

As far as what was written in the stars, and when God wrote it; I think it is entirely possible that God foresaw the need for a redeemer before man ever fell or was expelled from Eden, and wrote that in the stars at the time of Creation, because I believe that the way God sees time and history is entirely different than the way we human beings see it.

I think "It's Hot" was released in early to middle 1985, if my memory is correct. I vaguely recall hearing it shortly before I took the Advanced Class. We left (or were booted out) in 1994. And I sure agree with you, Rainbows Girl, a lot of the early music really still blesses my socks off no matter how accurate it may or may not be. We sing songs every Sunday morning that are not 100% accurate, and I am sure that God can manage to overlook whatever errors are there and accept the praise that is meant in everyone's heart. I am reminded of the song "Rock and Roll Heaven". Maybe that can be paraphrased to include some of the believer musicians in the 'one he!! of a band".

So, you don't believe the doctrines of vpw and Bullinger that God wrote His Word in

the stars?

If so, all the themes were already written,

whether or not Man had been TOLD their contents.

I also missed the complete relevance of Adam and Eve to this thread, please clarify.

Yes, I believe that God wrote His Word in the stars, but it seems to me that at what point He did so is open to question. There is logical backing for both points of view IMHO, because at that point in time man had the option of not sinning, which would have made Christ's first coming unmecessary; on the other hand God probably knew that man was going to blow it, so could have foretold Christ's first coming in the stars. However ALL the themes had not been written in the stars; the mystery, which was kept secret from the beginning of time, was not written in the stars ever.

Someone said that the mind of man was designed to love God and his neighbor, and I was pointing out that at the time the mind of man was designed, he had no neighbor to love (not even Eve, if you read carefully. Sorry, T-Bone).

My research staff [which is just me re-reading this thread and having Belle's post knock me over like a ton of bricks] has recommended I revise my response to Johniam's statement. I think Jesus already addressed this issue - our minds were designed to love God and neighbor. Thank you, Belle.

Well, at the time that God designed the mind of man the whole Word of God consisted of Genesis 1:28-30 and Genesis 2:16-18.

Gen. 1:28-30- And God blessed them; and God said unto them, "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." And God said "Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air,l and every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat", and it was so.

Gen. 2:16-18- And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden, thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." And the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make him a help meet for him."

Loving God was probably pretty automatic and man didn't have any neighbors to love at that time.

True. But I think if we saw what the finished product was going to look like, few of of us would have chosen to submit.

Personally, I didn't need change, I needed help.

Honestlly, I didn't get the kind of "help" I really needed until I was out of der ministry.

I needed both change and help and I was fortunate enough to have a BC who supplied me with both. I am sorry that the only things that you received from PFAL were some minor head-knowledge things about figures of speech, etc; but what that indicates to me is that you really missed the point of PFAL because I really believe that taking PFAL saved my life on at least two separate occasions (the first time I took it and another time when my life was falling apart). As I have said before in other places I think there were a lot of people who took PFAL only for the knowledge involved instead of from any heart-felt desire to know God, and knowing God was the real point of PFAL.

I don't believe the doctrine of no condemnation or exposure to the Word dulled my 'conscience', in my experience it sharpened it. I became more and more aware of mistakes that I was making over the years but I learned to deal with them in a Godly manner by apologising to God (and other people if appropriate) immediately and then moving on without obsessing about the mistake (whatever it was) but also making every effort to avoid making the same mistake in the future. I never bought into (or was taught by my leadership) the attitude that anything I did was okay because I was righteous and therefore I didn't really commit sin or do anything wrong. However, condemning my self was just adding another sin to the one I had already committed. But, as I have said before, I was privileged to be around some very good men and women of integrity whose only interest was in doing the Word and loving people. I regret that not all of you shared my experience.

In the back of my mind there still that annoying voice saying "You've walked out of the Household and therefore God's protection, your prayers are worthless, how dare you"

I look forward to that little thought going away.

Though I still value much of what I learned in TWI and PFAL, and I found that TWI taught me a lot about how to pray effectively

(reference my first post on this thread), I think that one thing that some people really emphasized was a gross error i.e. that people in churches didn't get prayers answered because they didn't have as much knowledge as we did. John and I went to a church for a while after we left TWI and there were people there that had a pefectly good (in fact GREAT) prayer life, and even people that (choke, gasp) received revelation. I think that there were some people in TWI that missed the point of PFAL and began to worship knowledge instead of seeing that the point was to know God. And it does seem to me that prayer is just a conversation between the individual believer and his heavenly Father and that therefore there is no real RIGHT way to pray but rather just as many right ways to pray as there are individual believers, and that God is capable of hearing, understanding perfectly, and responding to all of them. You should dare because Jesus Christ died to give you access to God's throne of grace, and that hasn't ended because anyone left any particular ministry.