Mike

5 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

victor paul wierwille, charlatan, said Eve's lesbian escapade with the snake was the original sin. He said he couldn't prove it, because it lacked textual evidence, he just had a feeling it was true.

He didn't sound embarrassed to spew such agonizing stupidity, he sounded gleeful in his kerchief and loudly plaid suit. (An ironic homo-erotic image.)

Victor was recorded on film saying this for the CF&S class. Anyone can view this record for themselves on archive.org.

 

I think you are merging two different teachings from two different teachers here.

13 minutes ago, waysider said:

Your impression is incorrect. End.

Your search will be in vain. This concept permeated the entire ministry, beyond VPW, himself, and transcended written material. Call them TVT's if it makes you happy. If written materials were all that was necessary, there would have never been a need for twig fellowships and endless reinforcement gatherings. No one I know or you know ever based their "walk" solely on the narrow constraints of the written materials.

Well, if it was part of the TVTs, we could still learn from it's origins that are in the record.  Even early SNS tapes could help.

I do remember thinking too many ministry people had the "can't trust feelings" popping up in their speech a little too much for my liking back then.   At the time I understood it to be the strict cultural German attitudes that surrounded New Knoxville.

I remember quite well having to stifle feelings of fear about not believing Jesus is God.  I knew where these false feelings came from, and I didn't let them influence my searching the Word on who Jesus really is.  I stifled my feelings in this one area of determining right doctrine. 

But feelings in general seemed fine to me as part of life.

3 hours ago, penworks said:

... we were not to trust our feelings because they change all the time. And because they change, Wierwille told us they were unreliable sources for truth about ourselves...

I could be wrong about this, but my impression is that it was ONLY in the area of rightly dividing the Word that our feelings should be ignored, because they too often were heavily based on wrong doctrine.

As far as feelings and knowing OURSELVES, this does not ring accurate to me.

I have not yet searched out all the places in the record where this was taught. I would like to see the context material in the record where he taught this.

My impressions are that in doing a check-up from the neck-up I'd want to consider my feelings to see it if is Christ's feelings behind my feelings that I am feeling.  We should OBVIOUSLY trust revelation from God if He uses feelings in the way He communicates something.

Jesus trusted his feelings that virtue had flowed out of him to heal the woman who touched the hem of his garment.

11 hours ago, cman said:

I can't seem to follow any of this from you mark

who said anything about "we have already had this with me"?

??

I think he was saying:

I do not think we have already had [the fulfillment of] this [prophecy  in Revelation 21:4 mentioning pain ending,] with me sometimes experiencing pain with my physical body.

2 hours ago, Rocky said:

Actually it makes ME think... the real question(s) for Mike have thus far been aiming at the wrong ideological target.

Mike may have just opened up what is/are the actual underlying reason(s) for his obstinance regarding twi/vpw/pflap.

No, it's not that way.

I'm happy with all the tools I learned in PFAL, and all the things that VPW found, and all the things I've found with the tools.

The best community would be one where everyone appreciated and worked those tools.  I am patiently waiting for that, and trying to make it happen (again) as much as possible.

Meanwhile, emotionally and socially, I am not Jones-ing for community at all.  I have an abundance of that; far more than I ever had in my life.  It's with the Grateful Dead community.

1 minute ago, Rocky said:

I might be mistaken, but the way you worded that thought sounds like you for a long time have longed for a sense of community. I relate to that sentiment. It's not unique to twi.

This book by the late M. Scott Peck (author of the Road Less Traveled), Different Drum: Community Making and Peace, might interest you. I read it before Peck passed. The book spoke to me (figuratively).

You sensed that right.  I do long for the family.   It was a wonderfully functioning family at one time, and it will be again when we see Christ.

I liked reading M. Scott Peck.  Thanks for the tip.

5 hours ago, So_crates said:

Yet, you said, you paid 100 skins for the so-called new, improved PLAF class.

No, I paid that to again experience the 3 weeks of synchronized thought of a group of believers.  All of my reviewing of the class was solo for the past 35+ years.   That minds could synchronize that way was a common occurrence before 1986 for me, and I missed it.  It was worth more than $100.

It also give me an inroad to help them with better classes in the future.

20 minutes ago, Rocky said:

It took me years to minimize twi's role in my life.

What I did in 1986 was wait, and I gave the Board of Trustees 2 years to "splain" themselves, all the Geer hoopla, Schoenheit Paper, and stuff. 

I watched the Way Mag and SNS tapes diligently for any clues or announcements, but there was nothing. The BOT left us non-Corps to struggle alone with the rumor mills, and the unfortunate facts. 

After 2 years of abandonment I got a quickie Mexican divorce, and took the kids with me...   the PFAL videos that is.  But I left with thankfulness for the past, and an eye to when they would calm down at HQ. 

16 minutes ago, socks said:

I haven't been following this, so I just saw it while browsing notifications.  If you're asking - can I see a change happening here (at GSC) toward constructive criticism, I wouldn't know, I'm not active enough on the current GSC platform to have a valid opinion. If you're asking could it (actually) be possible for (a) change toward constructive criticism to happen on GSC - well, "all things are possible" with God so I'd suggest starting there. 

I see the value of what I learned in PFAL. Specific to PFAL, over the last 50 plus years I've learned a great deal about the world of VPW's time and life and the theological soup he ladled from, if you will. I've learned a great deal in addition to that too. Call PFAL a very big data point in my timeline but it's one of many. I don't mean to diminish anyone's contribution to me from that era, but the contributions he did make to me are not going to be obvious to most and could even lack significance to others. I can always say I do appreciate that we were able to work together, for a time, on Way Productions and the outreach of the gospel through music. 

I'd offer this - in a very broad way I think that GSC as a whole (historically, across all membership and activity levels) has always had a flow of constructive criticism. Not all of the contributions are equally constructive or in the same ways of course but it would be arguable that at some baseline the purpose of the running dialogue is, has been, constructive for those involved or observing. Put another way, if it was important and meaningful to them, it was important and meaningful and that could be useful, constructive, helpful to someone, regardless of what it added to anyone else purposes - or if it added anything at all. So while you or I have our own purposes, they may not be the same purposes as others and if it's not, that won't mean that others aren't accomplishing or at least trying to do their own work. 

 

Thank you, socks.  I miss your presence here, and am glad to see you check in some.

Memory degradation is what I fight.

"Forget not all His benefits" is a command we should learn from and implement in our lives systematically. If we don't obey it, then all the memory of His benefits will erode.

Circumstances and false evidence, discouraging evidence pile up all the time, and at the same time the memory of all the benefits of God erodes unless refreshed.  All the original reasons to believe can be slowly forgotten if the natural memory degradation is not fought.

54 minutes ago, Raf said:

Yes, it's out of context, but I want it noted that I finally agree with Mike on something.

The funny thing to me is, the REASON you keep having to fight off this pattern of thinking is really simple:

The evidence leads to this conclusion.

And if you're really following the evidence, you will keep ending up on the same road.

Maybe we can discuss this a little more on the new thread Twinky set up.

Read with understanding... that is.

17 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Mike, Twinky moved your topic to Doctrinal. Please respect her request to continue your discussion there

Please take the time to read my latest post here, and you'll see that in this thread I am tracking with Twinky's vote on the Greatest Secret being love, except I am voting it the second greatest secret.

My vote, as I mentioned earlier, is that the greatest secret is exactly as PFAL taught us.  Then I gave an example of why I vote this way.   It appears to me that it was MY EXAMPLE (Bible interpreting self) that Twinky started that new thread for me to continue discussing my offered example.

I may take her up on that, but I'm in no rush. There's hardly any more I can say on it, other than that the short paragraph I already gave here in this thread. I'll wait and see what others say on that other thread, and that may give me more ideas.

Meanwhile, as I mentioned above, this love angle Twinky brought up is CERTAINLY a great secret to most people, and it is a rich angle, as I tried to indicate, starting with John's First Epistle. Even the idiom of permission gets involved in there, as well as the revelation that the god that controls this world is the devil, temporarily.

5 hours ago, Twinky said:

Your answer isn't quite clear.  Are you saying that "God loves YOU" is a close second?  Or that "God is light and light ONLY" is a close second?  The latter is a hard concept to be able to explain, since...

Twinky, my vote for second greatest secret is the whole topic of love that you mentioned.  That topic includes (in my categorization) the big question of why a loving God seems to be running an evil world.  God being all love and no hate, not yin and yang, all light and no darkness at all is a major revelation in 1 John, and the terms light and dark are defined there.  Another part of this Number Two Secret is that God loves me, you, the Samaritans, the opposite political party members, and all body&soul sinners.

7 hours ago, Twinky said:

Instead, I'd venture to suggest that it's simply "God loves YOU."   ...  God loves each and every one of us. May not love what we do, but loves us nonetheless. ... What would you say is the greatest secret in the world today? 

I think this is a close second.  It's like the NEW revelation at the beginning of John's First Epistle, that God is light and light ONLY.

This is a huge secret still today.

Related to this, when I was heavily witnessing on the streets and trains of NYC in the 1970s, the BIGGEST QUESTION people had was why is there so much suffering and evil in the world that God created.  This is very related to your vote, Twinky, that they just don't get it that God is love in spite of the world being the opposite.

8 hours ago, Twinky said:

...Probably is NOT "the Bible is the revealed word and will of God"....

The Bible, as the revealed word and will of God, is always DECLINING, moving away from what we were taught with an unchecked evolution of thought, in both individuals and institutions.

I've seen this evolution from time to time, both in myself over the past 5 decades,  and here in some posters in the past 2 decades.  I fight it off the best I can, but find myself fighting it off over and over. 

Here is one example of this evolving road down here at GSC:  the recent belief that the Bible does not interpret itself that has grown up here in some in fairly recent years.

This is a very equivalent to the belief that the Bible is of un-coordinated origins, and lacking authority in lives today.   It's not the work of an accurate God, nor an authoritative God who is powerfully in charge.  It follows that the Bible is not the revealed Word and will of God in this thinking path.

13 hours ago, Rocky said:

I picked up a copy of Churchland's book on Conscience at my local public library today. My heart fluttered when I opened it up.

How so?  Was ti the Table of Contents?

13 hours ago, Twinky said:

Oh my.  We appear to be in a slightly cynical morning today.  Maybe due to lack of sleep from a sore shoulder.

I must exercise my free will, to be cheerful, and try not to pi$$ off my clients today.

I did not pick up anything cynical.  Your comments are very understandable, seeing the confusion that has developed around free will for about a thousand years.  Free will was over spiritualized long ago, and that notion seeped into the Western collective consciousness.  The more carefully classical free will is looked at, the more it shows itself to be a man-made ball of confusion.

I think we ALL start serious thinking about free will with cynical perspectives, because it made so very little sense to us all our lives.

33 minutes ago, Charity said:

Thanks Mike for your post.

My pleasure, ma'am. 

35 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Bravo!

This reminds me only to believe something until there is no good reason to continue believing. It goes to why I don't believe in belief. Or, spelled with literal accuracy according to usage, beleeef.

Curiosity, a seemingly rare and beautiful thing.

Does one have freedom to be curious? Freedom to inquire? Freedom to question? Freedom to explore and follow the evidence wherever it leads? Freedom to find out? Are these not the freedoms required for learning?

Or must one hold questions in abeyance?

 

Eve considered some bunk info and paid dearly for it, but she also had access to God to ask and didn't.  We don't have that advantage, and often we see through a glass darkly, so we need to do some considering and investigations. In the AC we were taught 16 keys and one of them was that "what we can know by the 5 senses God expects us to know."

We were taught in a few different places that "complaining to management" is a proper route to go.   In the foundational class we were taught that the good servant Ananias initially objected to God's command to heal Paul's blindness.  We were also taught that the angels were curious about the mystery gap between the Lord's sufferings and glory, and that they looked into it.

In a controlled cult, like the Way Corps became, any extra thinking is discouraged. 

5 hours ago, Twinky said:

Of course, you're assuming that "free will" is a good thing.  (Aren't you?)

Is it?

We have some amount of free will within parameters.  Those parameters are important.  Perhaps you should be exploring the parameters.  Which are partly cultural norms, partly because of our genetic makeup, partly inbuilt fight-or-flight and other autonomic responses, partly - well, who knows what.  Perhaps you are exploring the parameters.  But you can't escape them.

And does it matter?  To whom?  And why?

Actually, one of the things I discovered while working my little free will theory is that too much freedom could be a bad thing.  One of the good things about a good habit is that it is hard to lose.  It can hang in there for us and nag at us to perform it like an obedient robot.

The parameters that bind us in good ways and in bad ways are the brain's synapse connections and their strengths. These synapses are plastic and can change with our efforts, if those efforts are smart enough and strong enough.

In austere and dangerous circumstances, however, slow and careful free will decisions are usually not called for,  and emergency responses (all very robotic) must kick in sometimes, saving our lives.

The whole purpose of free will is to make it possible for us to respond to the Word even when our synapses are dead set against it. This takes just the right words and usually some repetition.

I see free will as a special case of advanced, self-directed learning.  It is what makes it possible for us to learn a new response or a new habit.  When free will is seen as a LEARNING MECHANISM then the question of why we have free will is answered:  it's so we can  make better decisions NEXT time by learning from our mistakes and persisting to try to get it better.

I see free will being depicted in this following song. It seems to depict both the robotic and the ability of going further, steering toward the better.  The wheel here represents determinism, and is like a giant grain grinding machine, that cranks out most of life. The "try harder" is the emergence of free will in spite of the robot wheel's dictates.  Notice the reference to God in there.

"The Wheel"
Songwriters: Jerry Garcia, Robert Hunter, Bill Kreutzmann


The wheel is turning
and you can’t slow down.
You can’t let go and you can’t hold on.
You can’t go back and you can’t stand still.
If the thunder don’t get you
then the lightning will.

Won’t you try just a little bit harder?
Couldn’t you try just a little bit more?
Won’t you try just a little bit harder?
Couldn’t you try just a little bit more?

Round, round robin run round,
got to get back to where you belong.
Little bit harder, just a little bit more.
A little bit further than you gone before.

The wheel is turning
and you can’t slow down.
You can’t let go and you can’t hold on.
You can’t go back and you can’t stand still.
If the thunder don’t get you
then the lightning will.

Small wheel turn by the fire and rod.
Big wheel turn by the grace of God.
Every time that wheel turn ‘round
bound to cover just a little more ground.

The wheel is turning
and you can’t slow down
You can’t let go and you can’t hold on
You can’t go back and you can’t stand still
If the thunder don’t get you
then the lightning will

Won’t you try just a little bit harder
Couldn’t you try just a little bit more?
Won’t you try just a little bit harder
Couldn’t you try just a little bit more?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzawDpF72eg

Neurophilosophy can be read at Internet Archive:
https://archive.org/details/neurophilosophyt0000chur

17 minutes ago, Rocky said:

Well, I don't find Neurophilosophy in my local public libraries. And a new copy on Amazon is either $75 or more than $100.

However, I do find a more recent book by this author in the public libraries. Conscience: the origins of moral intuition. That looks pretty interesting.

That "Conscience" is an excellent book! 
And I saw that Amazon has used copies of Neurophilosophy for under $10

Was that a free will "Mmmph" or by accident?

BTW, here is a super short summary of my stand on free will:

Yes, we have free will but it is much weaker than we imagine or want it to be, and it is not immediate like we want it to be.

This delay in it, and its weakness means it is prone to failure, at first. 

BUT with practice and persistence it can grow in strength, like a muscle.

We can't control everything about our brain, but with a few things in it, we can learn to control better tomorrow than we could yesterday.