Mike

Raf, I was able to do my checking out of PFAL in my KJV and other research materials in a relatively calm and supportive atmosphere, and NOT hindered by the ministry meltdown, by LCM’s tyranny, and in an atmosphere of angst and loathing towards the leadership. I also had the advantage of lots of (receive, retain, release) over a many-year span (including a WOW year) to increase my receiving of the deeper levels of what is taught in PFAL. My checkig was spread out over many years too; another advantage you didn't have. Instead of a motivational impetus of trying to figure out what went wrong, I was blessed to see the material working well, and sometimes spectacularly. This is why I’m not surprised at the differing results in our checking. This is why I mostly only expect OLGs to hear me.

templelady, I did that very thing long ago for myself. It seems very few here did likewise.

There's a ton of stuff to play with in the back pages.

dmiller, Yes. A badge of honor but ONLY among other critics who don't understand what they criticize. To honest students of PFAL they are getting a good idea where all the negativity comes from and it's not from within PFAL or from the True God. ******************************************************* ******************************************************* ******************************************************* ******************************************************* Hi oldiesman, haven't seen yo in a while. Have you been reading all the many pages that have transpired?

templelady, I’ve been proofreading. THAT’S one of the chores I had in mind when I said I had to go, for all you Mike-contradiction-pouncers out there. I forgot to mention another way to receive something from God other than claiming things from the “available list.” It’s grace, God’s unmerited favor. Sometimes, many times, God gives in spite of a lack of knowledge and a lack of believing. I mention this because in past dealings with grads with weak PFAL understanding (but strong PFAL hatred) that they often forget the aspect of God’s grace, and how Dr taught us that God can go above and beyond His promises. Remember that teaching in PFAL? I can quote it if you want.

That's ok, dmiller. Your extreme lack of knowledge of what’s inside PFAL, and your willingness to jump on the bandwagon criticizing it anyway, are both well displayed for all the world to see. doojable, There's a not to you included above what I addressed to templelady above, immediately below your post above, in case you didn't see it in the posting flurry.

doojable, Like before, I was writing the following to templelady while you were posting and only now have glanced at your post above, not even skim reading it. Even though this is a window cleaner holiday, I have a ton of chores I save up for rainy days like this. Actually the rains haven’t arrived but they have in my customers’ expectations. Normally I wouldn’t have to explain this kind of normal thing, but the last time this kind of thing happened (only with templelady's post) Tom Strange took it upon himself to be the supervisor of my schedule priorities (and showed his true colors too if you paid attention) scolding and insulting me for not answering you in a timely fashion according to his TWI-2 like schedule scrutiny standards. I hope you noticed how he insulted me there in Post #63. He’s been hiding his venom lately waiting to pounce on me when I try to answer his paste-job questions HIS way and not my way. You stood up for him before, so I want you to see how well he fooled you. Anyway, I’ll be back. ************************************************************************** ************************************************************************** ************************************************************************** ************************************************************************** templelady, I went back to your Post #56 and following, but also glanced above it for context. Lest we all forget the grand context of this, dmiller had objected to my casual mention of the phrase “law of believing” with: “If believing equals receiving -- why don't you believe for World Peace...” I was shocked that such a question could be asked, and attributed it’s naiveté to sleep deprivation, noting the timestamp. I mentioned that his rendering of the law was an extreme abbreviation of what we were taught (which taken alone can and does cause lots of problems), and I mentioned that his question on world peace seemed to be trampling on concept of “available” that we were taught. Shortly after that you, templelady, stepped in. You wrote: “AVAILABLE __ obtainable or accessible and ready for use or service” WRONG! That’s the dictionary definition, not the PFAL definition we were taught IN RELATION to the law of believing and availability. It’s close, and it’s related, but it leaves out CRUCIAL data. *** You then wrote: “World peace is available. All that is required is that each individual not ...” You then went on to matters far from PFAL defined availability. Indicating, like dmiller, a complete unawareness of the matter I brought up. *** You then asked: “WHO came up with the "available" list __ Chapter and verse (scripture not VPW)” I later admitted the phrase “available list” was my terminology, describing a hypothetical list of the written promises of God addressed to us. Dr came up (by inspiration, dmiller, lest you launch into back flips again) with the word "available" to describe proximity to us of what these promises entail. *** You quoted something similar to “I can do all things through Christ” and then said: “There is no law of believing, there is prayer, there is fasting, there is scripture, there is planning, there is Working toward a goal, But just sitting around"exercising your brain cells and expecting "manna" to fall from the heavens NO.” This is all agreeable, but lacking specific mention of the promises of God and how special they are to us when addressed to us. You do mention scripture, and the promises are in there, but the context of availability rests so much on promises that I see this agreeable sentence as still lacking somewhat. *** You then wrote: “One of the most insidious thing I have had to clean from those Little gray cells in my head is the notion that we don't have to ask Heavenly Father for anything, just thank him for it because it is a done deal. NOT!!” Hey, I’m all for asking when that’s pertinent, and if some part of the latter day (just a pun) TVTs were to forbid asking, that’s nuts. But what bothers me about this sentence is the complete lack of awareness of God’s promises. If there is a promise that is pertinent, then a very good place to start would be to first THANK God for making that promise and bringing it to your attention. THEN asking about specifics is in order. So far you only asked for scriptures regarding the available list and there are none. From what you have said so far, I was disappointed to see this lack of awareness of promises (scripture) and availability (PFAL) last night when I first read this, and even more now as I focus on detail. *** You then launched into a hypothetical situation involving receiving a car from God and others not receiving a car, something very specific. Again, no mention (or awareness, I think) of a general promise of God, just people praying and needing and wanting a car, and how some don’t get it. You concluded this with: “That is devilish and insidious __ More VPW cut from whole cloth” So, you blame the injustices on VPW, even though you have little idea what he taught in Session One about these matters. That concluded that post. *** You came back in Post #58 with a non-sentence: “Written promises of GOD From Scripture” Are you asking me to list them here? Or is this a title outlining the items below? I’m unsure. *** Next you wrote: “SO what promises has GOD made that aren;t available to us?” This dealt with more in a later session, but I think Session One also briefly mentions that the promises of God that are ADDRESSED TO US are available. A PFAL grad should not have to ask this. You might not believe my answer is true to life, but you should know what the PFAL answer is, and thus my answer. It’s ALSO self evident how this question gets answered. If you have kids and you make a promise to one, that can ONLY be made to one, what would you say to another child who objects? You’d say that you made the promise to the first and that it did not apply to the second. To keep the peace you may compensate, but the PRINCIPLE of a promise only applying to whom it is addressed is universal. If a congressman makes a promise to his constituency and then fulfills it, who would think it sane if another district complains to him that he didn’t do the same for them? You see, templelady, you have fallen into the religious way of thinking that all the Bible is DIRECTLY addressed to all people. Religion IS saturated with that form of insanity, but we were taught different, MUCH different, in PFAL. Like availability and having no originals you seem to have forgotten this or never had absorbed it. THINK of how many other things await your coming back to PFAL to hear what it REALLY teaches! *** You wrote: “And since Praying for our needs/wants is stressed through out scripture , is the available list restricted to just the written promises specifically enumerated above?” The “available list” was defined by me to be just that, the written promises, but also including “addressed to us.” I assumed that this idea of “availability” and “addressed to” was well known and that my use of that phrase would be obvious. I was wrong. WOW was I wrong! Even WW completely missed this. *** You wrote: “So is it your position that the only things Available to us are the specific written promises of GOD” No. If a person receives a specific promise from God BY REVELATION then that too becomes available, but again, ONLY available to the person to whom God addressed that special revelation. Now here’s a tid-bit that most surely will go over the heads of those weak on their PFAL understanding, but this kind of special revelation THEN needs the operation of manifestation of faith/believing in order to finally receive the fruit of a SPECIAL promise like this given by the SPECIAL revelation. What gets REALLY interesting is if God gives a special revelation like this and then tells the recipient to write it down and give it to others. This is what written PFAL is. This is something I get excited about, and doojable twice stumbled upon for me to celebrate long ago. What is EVEN MORE interesting is how Dr handled this in Living Victoriously. Those tapes are stunning! Now to those of you (and there are many) who only read these posts of mind to look for things to jump on in ambush, I just mentioned tapes, not book or magazine form. I just want you to know that I see you crouched up there in the rocks and crevices in the canyon walls above me thinking this is your time to jump and catch me in another supposed contradiction. Dmiller, you are the prime suspect in this kind of activity lately, and I see you there. I dare you to pounce. The reason I dare you is because I am ready to use your attack on this LV citation to launch myself into LV and how Dr says (in muted and hinted form) in the session on hope that PFAL is God-breathed and that we are in a new administration. Go ahead, JUMP! JUMP! JUMP! *** Back to you templelady. You next wrote: “And is it further your position that not all the promises of God are available to us?” AGAIN you exhibit for all the world to see a profound lack of understanding of what was taught in PFAL. Not all of the promises of God are ADDRESSED to us. I’ve never heard in any PFAL teachings (or even TVTs) the association of promises being available. It’s the CONTENTS of the promises that are available to claim by believing, not the promises themselves. Many of your PFAL concepts are either jumbled up in confusion or missing altogether. YOU ARE NOT ALONE. *** You wrote: “IF this is the case what happens to ‘Ask and ye shall receive?’” Well what do YOU think happens? Can you ask to BE God. Will God honor such a request of yours for Him to move over and you assume His throne? No! Of course not. I know you know this too. I purposely used an extreme example of something God never promised anybody. It’s not on the... er... on MY “available list” to become God. How about asking for a billion bucks. These days, that would hardly be missed if it were to disappear from the Federal budget and suddenly appear in your bank account. How would YOU answer this one? This morning you suddenly added your request for scriptures, and I have one for this. Have you ever searched your KJV for more light on ‘Ask and ye shall receive?’ When I first took PFAL I searched all over for scriptures to either verify or negate what Dr taught. I was very systematic. Why weren’t you? There’s a verse that appears in the KJV and is cited in several PFAL locations that answers your question here. We were taught in PFAL that when we have a verse and we think we totally understand it, that we are still responsible for knowing all the other verses on the same subject before we can properly think we are in a position to rightly divide it, rightly understand it. It was called “scripture build-up” in the class, and the 4 crucified with Christ was used to illustrate it’s power and necessity. When I would see a hot idea I liked OR a scary idea I wasn’t sure of in Dr’s teachings I would make a file (then it files were paper folders) on that topic and search the scriptures to become more sure than just believing Dr on it. I had a file on “heaven bound” because that sounded too good to be true. I had a file on “Jesus Christ is not God” before the book came out and it had more scriptures in it that the book did! I was scared spitless that Dr could be wrong on that one so I searched. Did anyone else do this? I had (and still have it) a file on believing. In it was this one scripture that fully answers your question: I John 5:14, 15 And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us: And if we know that he hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of Him. There it is: according to his will. That means according to His written promises in His Word (The Word of God is the will of God) addressed to us, OR according to His special revelation to an individual like I described above, and special revelation mentioned in the "LV in Hope" tapes, and that dmiller is trying to decide whether to pounce on or not. This verse is not only in your KJV for you to have found in your study checking up on Dr's teaching of PFAL long ago, but is also quoted in PFAL p. 21, and PFAL p. 302, and TNDC p. 235. This verse is also in the film class, Session One, in the second half hour segment. I’ll quote it for you. ... and dmiller, this again is not “book and magazine form.” I’m going to quote from the film class here because that’s what is most familiar to most grads. I want to stimulate their memory, what’s left of it. Most grads heard the film class many times and have even memorized the flow, but barely cracked the books. You need not pounce here. Save it for when I have something juicy to counter your attack with, ok? PFAL film class, Segment 2: If your needs are up here and your wants here it will never be parallel. You'll never get it met. If your wants are up here and your needs are down here you'll never get an answer. We get answers to prayer when we believe if we get our need and our want parallel. Now this is foundational and very, very important. Because there are many people who never get an answer to prayer until in this class on Power For Abundant Living because they've never known the keys on what's available, how to receive, what to do with it, and got their need and want parallel. Look at Matthew, chapter 18. Take your Bibles and go to Matthew chapter 18. And in this eighteenth chapter of Matthew, in the nineteenth verse listen to this: Matthew 18:19: …. “if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.” If two agree, the word "agree" is symphonize. If two agree! Like this! Touching anything! You see, the two agree. They have their need and their want parallel. They are in agreement. In the Gospel of John, the Gospel of John, in the fourteenth chapter of the Gospel of John; here is another tremendous truth that I want to share with you. And I'm sure that it will just bless your heart. Listen to this: John 14:13: “And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” Whatsoever we shall ask in his name, getting our need and our want parallel, then whatsoever you ask he is going to do. That's right! In the fifteenth chapter of the Gospel of John is another one of these wonderful promises familiar to many people. Listen to this: John 15:16: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever [whatsoever] ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.” Whatsoever ye ask, if your need and want are parallel, then whatsoever you ask--if you know what's available, how to receive it, what to do with it, get your need and want parallel--whatsoever ye ask, it shall be what? Done unto you. Another promise in the Epistle of I John! Way in the back of your Bible! I John! The Epistle of I John! First! Second! Third John! I John 5:14: “And this is the confidence [this is the confidence] that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, [if we ask any thing according to his will] he heareth us:” Isn't that wonderful? If we have our need and our want parallel we ask anything according to His will; how can it be His Will if we don't know His Word? His Word is His Will that gets our need and our want parallel. If we know His Word we can parallel it off. And once we get our need and want parallel, whatsoever we ask, we get. For those grads who were to excited to listen in Session One to Segment 2 the same verse is handled in in Session Eight in the closing words of Segment 42: I want to challenge you on something. This Book and the Words in here have stood for centuries, right? But men whom I have known and men whom you have known have never stood for centuries. They come and they go. Men blow hot, they blow cold. I'd rather stake my eternal salvation on the accuracy of God's Word than to listen to men and especially men who have a derogatory attitude toward the Word. I'd rather stake my life upon the integrity and accuracy of God's Word and find out that I'm wrong than to stake it upon what some man says and then latter on find out he's wrong too. I'd be sure on this which God has given, that's right. Because if you believe God's Word you've got everything to win and nothing to lose. Like Rufus Mosley used to say, bless his heart, he'd say, "we're having such a good time going to heaven that if we got to heaven and heaven wasn't there we had the best time going." That's right. When you really believe God's Word and you walk in the greatness of it you're the best man to your fellow men. You don't cheat him. You don't even steal from him. You don't push them down. You don't try to climb up over the top of them. You're just having the greatest time going. If there wasn't any heaven hereafter you had the glorious time going there. Why you can't beat it! But let's turn it around the other way. Suppose the Bible is right. Suppose the accuracy of God's Word is true. That's right. And suppose that we do not believe it, we reject it. And there is a heaven we never quite make it. We've got everything to win believing the Word of God, that's right. And nothing to lose. And we've got everything to lose and nothing to win by believing what men say. That's right. Listen to this: I John 5:13-15: “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know [that ye may know, not question, not doubt but that ye may know that ye know that ye know, that ye may know] that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. And this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He heareth us: And if we know that He hear us whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we desired of Him.” Now, listen to verse 20: I John 5:20: And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding [he didn't mean for us to be stupid, he came and he gave us an understanding], that we may know Him [not question, not doubt but that we may know Him] That is true, and we are in Him That is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and [this is] eternal life. Isn't that tremendous! Simple as A-B-C. Plain as day. You've got to be stupider than stupid to miss it. That's right. Because God has set it out and it's just so easy and so perfect. Why is it so easy? Because it cost God everything. God had to give His only begotten Son. It cost God everything this is why it doesn't cost you a thing except to believe. And the man of body and soul can believe. This is that eternal life which is the greatest gift that God has ever given to any man any place at any time.

templelady, Ok I read your post better now. Ok, that’s interesting. So you say you DO see how PFAL handles those questions, you just want to see how Dr got Session One’s material. Interesting. First thoughts: Why didn’t you seek such scripture backup long ago? I know I did. Did anyone else? How about you doojable? Got scriptures? I got to go back to re-read your questions, templelady.

templelady, the post below was being written as you posted above. I'll now read yours. doojable, You wrote: "I can answer these questions but I'm not sure I will." So, you can see that the class answers them, at least? I don't think the God-breathed issues enters in here. I'm just amazed that grads would even HAVE these questions or objections or issues or positions regarding this very elementary subject matter to THIS degree. It's one thing to not believe Session One, and I can even understand it after all we went through, but I can't understand how such complete ignorance of what was taught in Session One can occur in so many people. Add to this the fact that just weeks ago all this was covered in Round 1, and STILL the issues, questions, objections, and positions remain. I don't know if I should give up or start all over and re-teach the class. Maybe I should only discuss this with people who are familiar with the subject matter. Doojable, you say you think you can handle these things, but are not motivated. I wonder if anyone else here has any inkling of what's Session One. Tom Strange? You want to weigh in and handle these matters for templelady? WordWolf, you completely flunked this test. I may explain later. I’m sure you won’t learn from it though. You do NOT have the correct understanding of what Dr meant by available nor me, judging from the short post I cited last night, and even more from your more expanded post this morning. I’m seeing that the need to come back to PFAL and master it was much greater than I had previously thought. People here seem not to even be able to recall the most fundamental of ideas. Maybe I should go through the transcript here in a way that honors the fair use rules. Any suggestions?

templelady, I am troubled. Your questions are readily answerable. I had to work hard today in anticipation of rains for the next two days, so I must be brief. I'm very tired, typing slow, and missing many keys, needing to constantly correct. I’d love to answer all your questions, most of which I can. However, what troubles me is the same thing that bothered me so much about dmiller and his question on world peace. Tomorrow, if the rains come, I’ll have the time and energy to answer, but I’ll still be troubled. I’ll be essentially repeating the class for you. Please don't be offended. There's no soft way I can say this, other than warn you to brace yourself a little. I can only speak what I see and I'm too tired to figure out a diplomatic way to say this. Your questions here indicate to me that you have virtually no retention of the main ideas of the first half of Session One. I can understand you dozing off in segment 16 and completely missing that material about us having no manuscripts, but what about Session One? Why are these questions to you? I’m troubled. Dmiller’s question was also a no-brainer. What HAPPENED to you guys?! Why do you not know these things? You’re not the only ones. I just posted to allan about something that he should have known was in PFAL, that we cannot just ask for whatever we feel like. He should have known that Session One would have satisfied his objection if he had remembered it. Even WordWolf, who has repeatedly bragged about his mastering PFAL and acing the AC test, indicated a profound lack of understanding of what “available” was all about when he posted: “...red drapes are on the ‘available list.’ Oddly enough, so is killing your kid.” Neither are. What is going on here? I remember JAL having nearly the same beef as allan, and when I showed JAL about ten places in the class where Dr taught what they both thought was missing he just stared off into space and couldn’t see it. Templelady, that same segment 16 that you missed crucial details from, I saw in 1988 that a Region Leader was severely lacking awareness of too. I’m troubled. How am I ever going to get into advanced, advanced class stuff like seeing Jesus when so many people here seem to be totally lacking any understanding of Session One, even though some of them were here for Round 1 where all this was dealt with, or so I thought. Tom Strange, can YOU answer templelady’s questions? I know I can. How about you, doojable? You said you worked the books to a kind of mastery that satisfied you. Can YOU answer templelady’s questions? Templelady, think hard. Even if you don’t agree with Session One, can you remember at all how Dr answered them? How about if I PM you the transcript to Session One? Would you read it and report if there is an answer there? Even if you don’t believe it, there most certainly is, and that will be the answer I will be giving you. How about it? Will you accept that kind of answer? Otherwise it will just be me paraphrasing it. I’m troubled. Is there anyone who can answer templelady who took the class?

Ok, then I'll apologize. I'm sorry I thought you were dodging. What are your answers to my questions on availability today and late last night? Let's take the latest one first: Do you object to the mere label "law of believing" or to the ideas behind it, most specifically the idea of availability.

Tom, Time.

dmiller, You seemed to dodge my question by changing the subject, and with ANOTHER misunderstanding. Fortunately, this one is easy to clear up. I wrote: “It's just a label Dr gave it: the law of believing.” Here the word “just” can be replaced with “merely.” It's merely a label Dr gave it: the law of believing. Looks the same, doesn’t it. You can latch onto the same misunderstanding with this sentence too. But not so fast. What does the word “merely” refer to (or “just” if you object to this swap)? Does it refer to “label” or to “Dr gave” ? If you WANT to find a contradiction in my post (and it seems you do) then you will answer “It refers to “Dr gave.” But that’s not what I meant it to refer to. Pardon me if my grammar is wrong here, but I think it’s not. “Merely” refers to “label.” The phrase “the law of believing” is a mere label Dr, by God’s inspiration, gave to it. Mere relative to what? The ideas behind it. Compared to the ideas behind it, the phrase “law of believing” is merely a label. I asked you if you objected to the mere label or to the ideas behind it, most specifically the idea of availability. Do you want to dodge this question again? Do you have ANY understanding of the idea of availability Dr taught in Session One?

dmiller, Is it merely the phrasing that you object to? It's just a label Dr gave it: the law of believing. What about the ideas behind it? The idea of availability as Dr taught seems to be missing in you as well as many others here, and if so, then I have my answer. You can't object to what you are unaware of. So what is it? Are you aware of the ideas, and specifically for this moment the idea of availability? Or are you aware, but object to it. If so, then why? I'm a bit baffled here. Were you just tired last night when you brought up world peace and believing? I'm having a hard time understanding what you and several others here understood from Session One. It seems the idea of availability never registered. Which is it?

templelady, I use the phrase "Available List" to refer to the written promises of God addressed to us. When God promises something to us then we can claim it by believing. This is the first half of Session One, that seems is still needing to be mastered.

I don't know of any. But I don't know any of Abraham doing it either. Might we ask: Did Abraham ever prophesy the future as in foretelling? Remember the two types of prophesy: fore-telling and forth-telling? Actually the "I'll teach you My Word as it has not been known since the first century..." seems to have come to pass.

Tom, Honest! I’m innocent! :( First of all, it wasn’t a trick or dishonest in any way. I didn’t misrepresent anyone or any issue. All I did was make the thread readable for someone starting out here. Look at the first post, and imagine the confusion of a reader one year from now who didn’t know about Round 1. I provided all the necessary documentation for a seamless backtracking. Also, you might notice, I actually pasted in your paste-job against me for continuity. What do you think of THAT?! I thought you’d want to pay me money for that one. :B) Maybe you should re-think saying, “adding that part to make it look like the ‘unorthodox translation’ had something to do with me! ha... pretty funny dude..” after looking at THIS line in Post #5 by dmiller: “Tom Strange -- you Thread Killer -- you!! ” He’s your man to blame, not me. I said THIS about the thread’s geek orthodox translation in my RECAP in Post #6: “...Round One thread of this PFAL series ... reached such a large size that it was locked down (probably to prevent slowing down the server’s hard drive from the weight...” I must admit I was thrown to see that your name appears as the thread starter. I’m going to hit the “REPORT” button right now and protest. I should get equal billing! But thanks for saying I was funny.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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???