T-Bone

I'll be darned! Your "law of believing" IS in the Bible – also known as the system of works: Romans 4:1-10 NIV 1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7"Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him." 9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

It's a shame I can't "Quantum Leap" back to the 1970s and respond to the propaganda Dear Doctor Wierwille vp, Greetings and emancipation from you in the wonderful name of the only thing that can save me from the ineffable greatness of mind-numbing cult-speak, raising Cain. Just wanted to let you know, I was kinda with you until the part about "the knowledge of God which you have known by experience". To be honest with you I have yet to experience any of the benefits listed on the back of the PFAL signup card. Oh, and another thing, truth may not need a defense but plagiarists & sex offenders do. The courts aren't too keen on a defendant answering a question with a question. Thought you might appreciate the heads-up. out of your service Thelonious Hyphen Bone ps – tripped out, Trinitarian and lovin' it

Never said I don't believe in divine healing or miracles. I merely disagree with your interpretation/application of I Peter 2:24. As far as your reference to Gloria & Kenneth Copeland's health & wealth doctrine – I am familiar with their Fundamentalist approach to Scripture and treating passages like Mark 11 as a blank check for whatever one wishes to have – much like TWI interpreted it when I was in. But I now find a couple of issues with that interpretation: 1, it ignores the figure of speech of a proverb that focuses on GOD's ability to answer prayer even with seemingly impossible situations. Matter of fact Bullinger notes this in the Companion Bible – saying Jesus' statement is from a well-known saying of His day [that's what makes it a figure of speech: proverb] and noting that one who taught how to handle impossible situations was respectfully referred to as a rooter of mountains. 2, such a wooden interpretation as exemplified by a Fundamentalist's viewpoint typically ignores other relevant passages that may qualify the application of a verse they cite. The context of Mark 11 addresses prayer: Mark 11:20-25 NIV 20In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!" 22"Have faith in God," Jesus answered. 23"I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 24Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. 25And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." It looks to me like He's not tipping us off to some secret power hitherto unknown - but merely conveying what our attitude should be in PRAYER TOWARD GOD - since He is the one who actually "moves the mountain" - [noting verse 22 "have faith IN GOD"]. Another relevant passage on prayer is I John 5:14 NIV This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. I would venture to say – the terrible batting average of "the law of believing" folks is due to asking for a whole lot of stuff that is NOT even according to God's will.

Not to take away from your unique personal experience – I just don't think it makes a strong case for specific biblical promises and the believing & receiving principle you mentioned earlier. The passages you alluded to and even the specific reference I Peter 2:24 "by whose stripes you were healed", depend on one's interpretation - and thus as to whether or not there has been a correct application - or for that matter if said experience even bears any correlation to the passage. I understand the I Peter 2 passage in the context of the spiritual healing we've already received [noting it's in the past tense] by Jesus' bearing our sins in His body and being wounded as the price to pay for that act. I think you have a faulty assumption that this passage justifies your argument. As far as your story of the African water-walkers – which I find incredulous by the way – it appears to harbor the same assumption [of the existence of a believing principle] you talked about in your post # 68 citing the Satanic Bible as promoting the believing equals receiving principle. And really all three of your points do not in any way, shape or form prove that the BIBLE says what you believe you will receive. But just for the record – in this discussion I will say you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt what YOU believe about the Bible and believing & receiving. And with your repeated mentioning of the hit-and-miss nature of this alleged principle - it actually further weakens your argument of this being any kind of essential tool or hidden process of SCRIPTURE - which is what this DOCTRINAL discussion has been about. As far as my personal experiences and observations go, I have to echo Oakspear's sentiment in his post # 45

Roy, some good advice by all here and it's good you're talking about it too - not keeping it in or ignoring a problem. Most doctor's do want to help - but sometimes you have to be your own advocate and give them some feedback - even be persistent - tell them if some medication ain't working or has bad side effects. Awhile back my insurance changed and didn't want to pay for an antidepressant that has been working so well for me. Going with their approved meds - I started complaining about the bad side effects - which bugged me so much that it made me even more depressed. But my doctor worked with me to document the issues I was having and eventually they approved the meds I was originally taking. Hang in there Roy - we're all pulling for ya here!

Nope - nowadays I'm just looking for the remote.. . and better not catch one of my dogs chewing on it.. .again.

Our discussion does lack specificity. It might help if you give a specific example of promise or some believing & receiving teaching and elaborate on the point you've been making. You've brought up a good point here. I don't buy into the fear rap anymore. My little pop-psychology on fear is as follows: there's two kinds of fear: normal self-preservation type fears & imagined fears; TWI really got these two mixed up in teachings and applications: Normal self-preservation type fears - in the face of legitimate health, safety & security concerns TWI encouraged acts of bravado, throwing caution to the wind, being reckless in our faith – maybe even tempting the Lord ["renewed mind recklessness" was a well-known phrase] - perhaps best exemplified in having Corps hitch to/from LEAD. Imagined or groundless type fears – vp had a knack for generating fear in even his most devoted followers. It was a great tool for manipulating & intimidating folks. fear of devil spirits, afraid our believing could fail, or even afraid of fear itself. Bah! The only thing there ever was to fear was giving vp a microphone. Actually I think there's an underlying issue with a believing & receiving doctrine that is supposed to keep God in the picture – in that there's an assumption of other things that may not even belong in the picture. Maybe the more the sovereignty of God fills up this mental picture - instead of how we think things should work - we'd probably enjoy life a lot more and be content with what we do have. The picture analogy is indeed apropos for analyzing this "doctrine" – it seems to me that there's always a subtle shift of focus from God to OUR faith. Whereby God is neither the basis nor object of our faith – but all that one has developed thus far in their walk seems to be the grounds for their confidence and the object of their faith is the thing they want. Seems like such a game of fooling ourselves - talk about how much God is in the picture - but in practice there's a lot more attention given to "believing", positive confessions, SITing, or whatever the latest "spiritual" gimmick is. You'd think after experiencing enough failures some folks might re-think this supposed biblical process. The believing & receiving doctrine relies heavily on assumptions, sheer speculation, & dubious theories imho. Maybe the waters are muddied by superimposing a complex process - all the dos & don'ts of the believing & receiving system of thought. People can prove just about anything from the Bible. Why do the "believing & receiving" ministries assume there's all these "promises" in the Bible just waiting to be cashed in – and their secret to cashing in on them is a process that one comes to understand by "Scripture build up" and reading between the lines. The Bible isn't laid out like a textbook - everything on one topic is in just one chapter. And there's no God-breathed index, graphs or pie charts. However, it does seem like the simple Christian truths are in plain sight - and locked in by context to boot! Jesus is Lord, Jesus is resurrected, adultery is sin, God is love, love my neighbor as myself. You can't miss it and it doesn't take a lot of brain power or scriptural acrobatics to grasp the basic idea of those passages. On page 79, in one of my favorite books on systematic theology, "Christian Theology" by Millard Erickson - is something I feel is important for students of the Bible to keep in mind - the degrees of authority of theological statements. The first category - a direct statement of Scripture - like my examples above - are to be accorded the greatest weight. But as we move away from direct statements to things garnered through an intellectual process - the weight of authority becomes less and less. Direct implications to probable implications to inductive conclusions to inferences from the general revelation to outright speculation - all involve an additional step - our logic - which carries with it the possibility of interpretation error, faulty assumption, etc. The typical mindset of PFAL grads is to lump everything vp said into the first category - like it was all direct statements of Scripture and give it the highest weight of authority as well - when probably a lot of the points he makes on believing alone fall mostly into outright speculation category. Who says fear is the opposite of believing? Let's say a guy is brandishing a firearm in a crowded bar. Do I follow my self-preservation instinct [which is basically a FEAR of injury or death] and do something smart like leave that place. Or should I keep that fear in check by my believing - throw caution to the wind - I'll show this guy & crowd I'm not afraid of anything.

Ya know Waysider, I'm with you - I bet vp stole stuff from Bristol too. Makes me think of EW Kenyon's stuff also. vp "borrowed" a lot of his stuff too - I bought some of Kenyon's books at Way bookstores and some at a Christian bookstore years ago. http://en.wikipedia....ki/E._W._Kenyon Not long after I left TWI I came upon an interesting book by Dave Hunt - "Beyond Seduction: A return to Biblical Christianity" http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/0890815585 Imho Hunt's book is a nice little springboard to help one break out of the TWI mindset. He gets into a lot more than just the health & wealth gospel/power of believing/positive confession BS. Anyway, good find Waysider - I didn't mean to make a detour of your thread on Bristol & the m@gic of believing.. . was just thinking maybe vp was "inspired" to give Bristol's stuff a biblical flavor by Kenyon's twisting of Scripture. Then ya got Norman Vincent Peale, Dale Carnegie, Houdini .. . man oh man, the abra cadabra plot thickens don't it!

scanner is down - this is the "best" I could do in a pinch

Great post Jim! Well said. You reminded me that though we have the freedom to make choices we should give them some thought as we may become bound to them for awhile. I believe our ability to think and make choices may be one of our most important freedoms and worthy of our utmost protection. Check out my sig too.

I disagree - the only way it makes sense to me is if I accept the same assumptions you present. I happen to hold an assumption that is contrary to yours. I tend to think there is a harmony of science & Scripture – with one being His works and the other His words. And a parallel thought to that is I think contradictions between science & Scripture may be due to misinterpretations of data or Scripture. I feel the more I learn about science the stronger my faith grows and the stronger my faith grows the more I enjoy learning about science. It figures – vp plagiarized from Anton Levay too. Know what would be funny? A class coordinator announcing during a break: "Tonight we've got The Way Bookstore set up in the back of the class. Feel free to look over the books by other people too. They saw just bits and pieces of the whole enchilada you're now receiving through this class. There's Bullinger's "How to Enjoy the Bible" and of course Levay's Satanic Bible.. .We'll take a 10 minute break, there's stretched coffee on the snack table next to the Bookstore – and I'm believing for someone to bless me with a cigarette." Maybe it's just me but what you've just said pretty much nixes everything you've said previously about the necessity of believing. And for what it's worth I think you and I have more in common with what you're saying here about God's preeminent, transcendent & benevolent role. And if indeed God often does supersede our faith – maybe folks should take the "law" out of their "law of believing" rhetoric. Oakspear's post got me thinking - vp's list of receiving anything from God is a subtle attack on His sovereignty, omnipotence & omniscience. Buyer beware - vp's God isn't the all-powerful, all-knowing God of the Bible – just a construct, a reduction of a supreme being down to manageable proportions. And that pretty much sums up religion in my book. Part of the appeal with many religions is the sense of control & power it gives the follower – maybe even to the extreme sometimes when in practice followers act like they can manipulate anyone - even the higher power. I quoted the NLT of Ephesians 3:20 in my post # 48, and will do so again since it still is relevant - "Now all glory to God, who is able, through his mighty power at work within us, to accomplish infinitely more than we might ask or think." in regards to vp's list, I think this passage contradicts vp's theology of receiving anything from God - it looks to me like the Bible puts the onus back on God.

Have a good one Paw and thanks a million for a place called Grease Spot!

Tremendous catch Waysider! That's why I keep coming to Grease Spot! Doggonit - the darnedest thing too. It's easier to believe for stuff I DON"T WANT than for the things I do want. Man what a screwed up deal! Now if someone has a fear of the unknown I guess that's the carte blanche of what's available. Hmmmm.. .you’ve given me a whole new PFALish outlook on life. Yup - I now have a tremendous fear of winning the Lotto. I bet God would have to change all the laws of the universe for the state of Texas not to accommodate me. Wow – speaking of bet – I ought to head to the racetrack for some revelation-betting. “Whawho! Come on Seabiscuit.. . ahem, I mean oh no Seabiscuit you can’t win on me now, daddy needs a new set of PFAL books!”

I don't really see the point in ascribing polarity to a belief – I think that will tend to confuse the matter. It sort of hits me as a way to disconnect from reality. Besides being a way to compound the problem – for it may give one a false sense of security – in that if I'm thinking that my attitude, my positive or negative believing has some kind of governing influence on anything outside my head – I'm just setting myself up for failure & frustration. Rather than focusing on positive or negative thinking - imho, a smart approach to a problem is realistic thinking. I think Proverbs 22:3 in NIV offers some good advice along theses lines – being vigilant & aware as we plan, make decisions, and act - "A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it." I think if we tend to "spiritualize" reality we'll tend to fall short on giving something our best shot – simply because we're spinning our wheels instead of engaging life head on. I do think a positive or negative attitude bears some importance in terms of how it can influence one's productivity or even affect others close by [whether a spouse, colleagues or friends]. But even so – depending on how "mission critical" the situation is maybe some serious self-examination is in order and perhaps talking to others involved about it may reveal a cognitive distortion that one has been operating under.. . or simply give one a better handle on reality with the feedback from others. And certainly things like determination, persistence, and courage are helpful for success but these are merely resources that fuel whatever effective skills we apply. I think that's where some TWI folks got lost – putting form over substance, just going through the motions, expecting to get something for nothing. The "law of believing" was like a magic shortcut – whereby one could bypass the time, discipline & work it takes to accomplish something.. . Imho critical & creative thinking are both necessary in problem solving - I think the wise person is one who knows when to zero in on the details of reality and when to think outside the box. But whether the process is critical or creative thinking - the person is actually thinking. Bottom line – what I think is important is NOT a positive or negative view - but an accurate or realistic view. From that standpoint I think one is in a better position to take stock of a situation and then plan & act accordingly.

I will always remember that day from the unusual way of announcement at my grammar school. The teacher was called out of our class and after being gone for a little bit she came back and with heavy sobs told us the president had been shot. I don't remember much else except for feeling absolutely stunned - and a little afraid. Perhaps kids can sort of process natural or accidental deaths - but a murder.. .an assassination of the president even! My little world just became a whole lot scarier. ~~ Couple of side notes on the assassination itself - I've visited the 6 floor museum twice - the second time was to take my brother-in-law who was into all the conspiracy theories stuff. Very interesting museum and well worth the trip. http://www.jfk.org/ and a few months ago I caught part of a special - think it was by these guys in Australia maybe ? - not sure - anyway - they went through all the technical details of JFK's assassination. They used the same model bolt action rifle - even had ammo from the same lot number/brand allegedly found on the sixth floor - and using boom lift for the shooter, specially made ballistic gel with pig bone upper body figures mounted on moving track, duplicated the shots of the sixth floor shooter. I've never gotten into all the theories or anything - but it sure was a fascinating show.

Good points Keith! And if I may express my opinion a little further – I've come to look at "needs" as a relative thing – besides the wonder-how-God-thinks-I-should-handle-this-factor ala Paul's thorn in the flesh dilemma. The "resolution" that God expressed to him was probably a whole lot different than what Paul had in mind. "You mean you're not going to do anything about that thorn in the flesh – you're just gonna give me enough strength so I can handle it?" It's just my opinion but I think the Lord's prayer in Matthew 6 was intended to be a model of what we have a "right" to pray for – yup, it's rather sparse but maybe covers what the Lord thinks we "need" – sustenance for today, forgiveness and a forgiving attitude, moral guidance, etc. I think a modest attitude in prayer & lifestyle and a contentment with having God as our most treasured possession is alluded to by Paul in I Timothy 6:6-8. Something to think about – if all Christianity ever offered was Jesus – how many ministries would be interested in working for the cause?

Specifically what passages are promises is a matter of opinion. That's another issue I have with TWI's doctrine while we're on "the law of believing" topic – it's their tendency to deem just about every other verse as a blank check – all one need do is fill in what they want and via the wondrous check-cashing system of believing rake in more of God's abundance. Before I continue, let me say I do agree with your realistic outlook of the Christian life – I'm not attacking you in any way – I just want to bring up a dubious little assumption that often accompanies the health & wealth ministries. Besides giving little heed to the context surrounding many of their pet health & wealth verses – there's usually a strong Fundamentalist undercurrent that ignores figures of speech. In PFAL vp says there's over 900 promises in the Bible as a way to inspire students to search for what's available. In a somewhat similar vein TWI's assumption of the ironclad nature of Scripture is exemplified by the way they handled the book of Proverbs. Back in my TWI days it was commonly accepted to view the passages as promises or something absolutely guaranteed if certain conditions are met – instead of them being simply general observations on the practical side of life.. . Nowadays I try to have a better grasp of reality when searching the wisdom of Proverbs so I'm not caught off guard when life throws me a curve. And it will happen to all of us. That's the nature of life. And I think one can bounce back a lot quicker when problems do arise - if they're not caught up in the frustrating & pointless search for a hole in their hedge of believing.

I posted this on another thread and thought a "revised version" would fit here as well. It's the sum & substance of that which I've spoken in another thread. <_< I would highly recommend you check out that thread started by Pawtucket – I feel it delves into our topic more thoroughly – or should that be "throughly"?:unsure: Anyway it's "New front page article: Nostalgia for TWI Research Raises Questions" and make sure you read Penworks' incisive article referenced by Paw in the first post: http://www.greasespo...post__p__479991 And of particular note on that thread is a great observation by Tzaia – the contradiction about research in TWI's handout sheet: http://www.greasespo...post__p__481086 Hey while we're into thread hopping – let me throw another one atcha – which is also relevant to our discussion. Penworks was on TWI's research team and assisted in drafting those literal translations according to usage http://www.greasespo...post__p__480769 So we've taken a bit of a trip around Grease Spot – please don't be discouraged – you've made it this far. To quote from the old "Martin Luther" movie I watched in-residence: "The journey itself is an act of faith." ~~ Ok – back on track.. .now what was I talking about? Oh, yeah After I read Penwork's article I was struck with two major differences between what I had absorbed in The Way and a decent systematic theology – it's the lack of honesty & humility in TWI's theology. humility - Besides analyzing the biblical data, a good systematic theology will explore historical and philosophical resources. What did Luther say about this or that – or what did others say - Calvin, Augustine, the early church fathers, Aquinas, Kant, Kierkegaard, Barth, etc. – how did they interpret the passage or view the subject? Humility is what enables us to learn from others. I think it was Sir Isaac Newton who said something like "if I've seen farther than others it's because I've stood on the shoulders of giants." honesty - Being upfront about the process of developing a theology is a big deal in my book. vp had this dubious "the Bible interprets itself" thing going on [a premise I find absolutely absurd now] partnered up with the desire to pronounce "thus saith the Lord" on everything. Whereas, the systematic theologies I like are straightforward in their approach of a subject – after detailing the technical data [original languages, grammar, syntax, etc.] they usually convey to the reader in one way or another when they're stepping off into a more cerebral territory – getting into deductions, inferences, implications, extrapolations & speculations. I've already made the point about vp suggesting what he wrote was God-breathed - distinguishing himself above theologians folks are familiar with - a double whammy lacking honesty & humility for sure. Imho I think the intellect is the number one research tool in any field – the mind being the navigator in charting out the explorer's map. The way I see it now, I joined TWI and they handed me a theological map – it had one little island with the capitol being New Knoxville – surrounded by a large body of water with "here be dragons" written everywhere. Currently my theological map has me on a peninsula – and there's lots of places with interesting names "I don't know", "Not sure", "Maybe", "Probably", "Could be Related", "I don't believe that", "This may have something to do with God", etc., these names are penciled in and I may never commit some to ink. I don't worship the Bible anymore either – but view it as a means to an end – knowing God. love & peace T-Bone

Yup – the passage you alluded to seems to take the "law of believing" out of the picture - Ephesians 3:20 in New Living Translation "Now all glory to God, who is able, through his mighty power at work within us, to accomplish infinitely more than we might ask or think." I believe the difference comes down to the locus of power. The law of believing proponents assumes things happen because of something they think or do. Whereas Ephesians 3:20 speaks of an omnipotent God whose unseen activity is immeasurably above and beyond us - certainly not bound by any limitations that we could imagine. The guy who wrote the chapter "Are You Limiting God?" in the Blue Book also said the believer's fear binds the omnipotence of God in "Lifelines". Seems contradictory to me.

Yup it do – guess we're "likeminded". Yeah and that reminds me – since you brought up a "Welcome Back Kotter" episode on a couple of other threads recently – I can just imagine a mall episode with the Sweathogs, fresh out of the Advanced Class: Arnold Horshack: Hey Epstein quit staring at that lady's breasts – her husband's gonna catch you and come over here and kick your a$ $. Juan Epstein: I'm just waiting on some Big Daddy rev – whether she's got a white heart or a black heart. Vinnie Barbarino: Yeah Epstein, you say you're reaching up into Daddy's cookie jar – but I can tell when you're thinking about the laying on of hands.

It really doesn't matter what position someone has in the Way Tree hierarchy - all of TWI's teachings have the highest rank on the PU scale!

I took 4 years of French in high school and never used it since. Every once and awhile something will trigger a memory of a word or phrase from one of our French dialog booklets.. .But you know what's great about this thread? Youse guys have a lot of "TWILanguage" [has a nice ring to it - dontcha think] all in one spot – now I don't have to wait on random triggers! Lordy Pete – I'm just blessed beyond belief. Speaking of "Bless your heart" a whole bunch of heartisms just flooded my heart – as vp would say "it blew my heart out" Tonto shared this on another thread a long time ago – her and our WOW coordinator came up with a great poster for – I believe it was a big meeting for the America Awakes tour. Well, we couldn't use the poster because of the "little twist" it had – but there it hung like a diamond in our sparsely furnished WOW home: "Bless your frig gin' heart" – to this day I will often recall that poster when I think of the sappy "Bless your heart" phrase. . . Also from the America Awakes tour - Joyful Noise had a song about "opening your heart". There's the humble "share my heart with you".. . Whether you're making decisions or doing a self-check on things you're "cognizant of" [oh yeah another favorite phrase of vp] – it all happens in your "heart of hearts". I remember in my first Advanced Class vp "sharing his heart" on how God taught him discerning of spirits – claiming God would show him a black heart or a white heart inside the person. Which reminds me of another "electrifying" parlor trick - amaze your friends and confuse the offended party - please note, the "best" application of this trick is when it's used in defense of someone's wrong deed or bad behavior – "yeah, but he's got a good heart". Aw people, ya gotta have heart! ~~ Out of all the TWI euphemisms, I think this one is my "favorite". The "wanna get blessed" got to be such a joke in our coffee house band we'd push it to the sarcastic & ridiculous level among ourselves. Jack the drummer trying to get me to pack up his drum set for him would ask "wanna get blessed". I'd say "you're too late – already blessed Ephesians 1:3". We'd even work up novel ways of mooching off each other. Wanting to bum a cigarette off Jack, I'd say "Hey, if you want I'll let you offer me a cigarette." ~~ If you want, I'll let you get real blessed by allowing me to share my heart of hearts on TWI's abuse of hearts ["I trust" you are "cognizant of" the twofold meaning in the latter part of my statement]. <_<

A few suggestions on tweaking your questions.. .Have several questions to determine use of biblical language references for Aramaic, Hebrew & Greek. Another series of questions to find out Grease Spotters' opinion of how important is an understanding of the biblical languages to their study life and practical/spiritual life. To answer your questions now - my approach to Bible study has changed significantly over the years since leaving TWI in 86. Early on I got more into the Hebrew & Greek and targeting certain topics in my quest to re-examine everything I absorbed in TWI. As I branched off into reading commentaries & systematic theologies, an understanding of the biblical languages remained important to me so I could apply critical thinking skills to that material as well. No sense in getting hoodwinked twice. Currently, I don't get into them as much – except for doctrinal discussions here and at another website that is a Christian forum. My personal study pursues a more general understanding of a passage with a goal of abstracting something practical out of it – basically asking the questions: what was the author's purpose in writing this & what difference should this make in the way I think or act?

Wonder if that had anything to do with you picking a penguin as your avatar.

eeewww, the PFAsmeLL .. . yuk, guess I forgot how pungent that old stinking thinking was.