Why PFAL sucks

[T-Bone]

26 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

You can mischaracterize other folks’ viewpoints as a mental rut - but noting your persistence in talking up PFAL and wierwille like they’re the greatest thing since the 1st century I think YOU ARE the ONE stuck in a rut for - what - some 20 years now. 

 

Here’s one quote on mental ruts from an expert.

“In technical terms, psychologist Lindsay Tulchin, PhD, describes a mental rut as “a negative spiral of thoughts about yourself and your future that leads to avoidance of either actions that you know will help you feel better or actions that will help steer you in the right direction.” 
 

Helpful links:

How to get out of a rut

10 signs you’re in a rut

Mental shifts you can make to get out of a rut

 

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

.Thanks for the link!
That is the kind of direction my free will research is heading in.

I see free will as being like a muscle.  It can be out of shape and weak. There are all kinds of tricks that we can do to strengthen it, and make it function again.

I have been picking up tips for my research from links like this, and in groups that specialize in quitting smoking or changing eating habits.

In addition to being LIKE a muscle, my research is indicating that free will is IDENTICAL to learning; just complicated, self-directed learning.

See what I mean

[Nathan_Jr]

Mike: neuroscience these days sees human consciousness as a bit of a confabulation.

A profoundly inaccurate assertion.

 

Neuroscientists today see consciousness as FUNDAMENTAL. And the mathematicians and physicists working with them see spacetime as doomed. Anyone interested in what they are working on can find out for themselves.

 

Confabulation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confabulation

Edited November 3, 2022 by Nathan_Jr

[Mike]

7 minutes ago, Nathan_Jr said:

Mike: neuroscience these days sees human consciousness as a bit of a confabulation.

A profoundly inaccurate assertion.

I used the words "a bit of" to mitigate my statement.

All forms of neuroscience see that there is lots of confabulating going on in both brain damage victims and in normal people.  

The older schools of thought look at the confabulation as incidental, while smaller but very vocal schools of thought are looking at the confabulation as fundamental.  I kid you not.  It is, again, neuroscience coming around to agree with the Bible on consciousness, and "all men are liars."

So, I may have been expressing a minority point of view, but it is one that is growing.

But one by one, the unique things of the human mind are turning up to not be so unique after all, and "man has no preeminence over the beasts." 

In the Bible man's mind is portrayed as egotistical and self boasting. and not possessing the great wisdom it likes to think.  Neuroscience is finding this to be the case in many ways.
 

[Nathan_Jr]

Mike: In the Bible man's mind is portrayed as egotistical and self boasting. and not possessing the great wisdom it likes to think.

 

Hence, the motivation to purchase credentials

[Twinky]

  I read this thread for its amusement value.

[Twinky]

40 minutes ago, Mike said:

In addition to being LIKE a muscle, my research is indicating that free will is IDENTICAL to learning; just complicated, self-directed learning.

What the F does this mean?

[Mike]

5 minutes ago, Twinky said:

What the F does this mean?

It means that free will is BIOLOGICAL.

(and not spiritual)

 

 

Edited November 4, 2022 by Mike

[Twinky]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

What I have learned to focus on are his printed writings that went through a bunch of filters (including holy spirit in many of his editors), and re-writings over the years.

...

I choose to look at what went most right in VPW's life: the collaterals.

Did your 20 years of deep study of these collaterals lead you to discover where they, or at least the better ones of them, were plagiarised from?  Or did that information get "filtered" out?

Not sure why something so perfect would need to be re-written, but that's by-the-by (=immaterial, Mike.  Don't bother "answering" this point).

[waysider]

confabulate

PSYCHIATRY

To fabricate imaginary experiences as compensation for loss of memory.

[T-Bone]

this thread has gone in so many directions - I think it would be helpful if we had one of those you are here maps 

[Mike]

Just now, Twinky said:

Did your 20 years of deep study of these collaterals lead you to discover where they, or at least the better ones of them, were plagiarised from?  Or did that information get "filtered" out?

Not sure why something so perfect would need to be re-written, but that's by-the-by (=immaterial, Mike.  Don't bother "answering" this point).

 

 

My library has all sorts of the teachers VPW had.  I have collected more than the ones that were easily available at the Way Bookstore.  I don't filter those things out at all.

 

*/*/*/*

 

So glad you asked about the re-writing.

 

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

First the revelation comes, and it is then spoken, and then later put into written form.  This last step can include finding better ways to say it, or include new research, new light on the topic.

 

It is only in the "divine dictation" model of revelation writing that your objection makes sense. VPW taught in the Thess. Univ of Life that generally the Word did not come by divine dictation.





 

[Nathan_Jr]

Mike: while smaller but very vocal schools of thought are looking at the confabulation as fundamental. 

Citation?

 

Cognitive neuroscience sees CONSCIOUSNESS as FUNDAMENTAL, and what we think we see is not reality. The analogy is icons in the interface of the computer desktop. The email icon is not what generates and executes the email, but the icon is exceedingly more useful and efficient than screwing with all the circuits and transistors. I posted a TedTalk from Donal Hoffman a while back. I'll look for it and repost while Mike looks for his citation.

 

[Mike]

4 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

this thread has gone in so many directions - I think it would be helpful if we had one of those you are here maps

It was going in many directions before I stepped in. 

 

[T-Bone]

7 minutes ago, Mike said:

So glad you asked about the re-writing.

 

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

First the revelation comes, and it is then spoken, and then later put into written form.  This last step can include finding better ways to say it, or include new research, new light on the topic.

 

It is only in the "divine dictation" model of revelation writing that your objection makes sense. VPW taught in the Thess. Univ of Life that generally the Word did not come by divine dictation.

Actually, you’ve misinterpreted Psalm 12: 6:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalm 12:6 KJV

That’s referring to the original message written in the Bible – it’s not talking about ways that cult-leaders can “re-write it”

~ ~ ~ ~

nice try on slipping that lie in

~ ~ ~ ~

it doesn't matter what theory of inspiration one subscribes to -

honesty in textual criticism and hermeneutics is a big deal out of respect for the pure words of the Lord

 

[T-Bone]

14 minutes ago, Mike said:

It was going in many directions before I stepped in. 

 

Now, now Mister CEO of Chaos Incorporated – you’ve already admitted earlier on this thread that’s your number 1 job.

“You’ve got one job – ONE JOB!” 

 

[Mike]

25 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Actually, you’ve misinterpreted Psalm 12: 6:

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psalm 12:6 KJV

That’s referring to the original message written in the Bible – it’s not talking about ways that cult-leaders can “re-write it”

I think you mean I misAPPLIED Psalm 12:6

But that is only if PFAL (collaterals) are not from God.
And, again, if PFAL is not from God, then I am in a rut.

Good thing I saved those 3 rut links, in case I'm wrong.

 

[T-Bone]

9 minutes ago, Mike said:

I think you mean I misAPPLIED Psalm 12:6

But that is only if PFAL (collaterals) are not from God.
And, again, if PFAL is not from God, then I am in a rut.

Good thing I saved those 3 rut links, in case I'm wrong.

 

no I meant  "misinterpreted" - YOU changed what the message meant  - which led to your misapplication 

what the message in Psalm 12:6 means is simply that the words of the Lord are pure...the words don't  need any filtering or re-writing from an incompetent plagiarizing, pathological liar, who steals and lies, and desperately grasps for money and glory, while he chain-smokes and guzzles Drambuie when he's on break from sexually molesting women.

 

[So_crates]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

I try my best to not consider what other people say what they think was on the mind of VPW. 

What I have learned to focus on are his printed writings that went through a bunch of filters (including holy spirit in many of his editors), and re-writings over the years.

His recorded teachings are a secondary focus for me, and after that I find it useful to not do very much considering about him.

It matters almost nothing to me what you think VPW's "obsessions" were.
It matters almost nothing to me what VPW's actual "obsessions" were.

It took me years to find that this way of thinking is best.

I choose to look at what went most right in VPW's life: the collaterals.
I offer this as an alternative to the mental rut many are stuck in here.

Odd, you can critique my "obsession" but you can't critique Saint Vic's "obsession".

It's your standard, babe. Once again you  negate PLAF. If Saint Vic was obsessed with academia, then PLAF is not truth because, according to you, people who worship the god of academia (as in applying they went to an ivy league school and insisting on a title they didn't earn (Saint Vic's lies were more important to him than the truth).) are NOT ALLOWED to have truth (as in his claims about PLAF) or to know it if it lands on their lap (if Saint Vic didn't know the truth, how could he write the truth?) Other than what's in the parentheses, that is what you wrote, right?

Your Saint Vic worship is obvious, as your rules seem to hold for everybody but him.

 

 

[Mike]

30 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

Now, now Mister CEO of Chaos Incorporated – you’ve already admitted earlier on this thread that’s your number 1 job.

“You’ve got one job – ONE JOB!” 

 

I'm not understanding what you mean here.

But let me ask something of you, and the rest. 
What can I do to calm things down?

I see how things degenerate into food fights about me, and that is not what I want. I try to post what I honestly think people need and have a right to hear, and then I get many responses, to which I try to answer a lot of, and the cycle starts, and soon becomes chaos.

So what should I do now?

I was cooperative and stayed in the Absent Christ thread, then followed it into Doctrinal, then a special thread is made for me in the NT Canon, and then another one made for me in About the Way, and I finally I answer a long standing challenge to respond to penworks so I do in this thread.

You folks seem to have a anti-idol being constantly manufactured that is very fragile, and all it takes is one thankful PFAL grad to post a few key ideas about the value of PFAL, and all chaos breaks loose.

Instead of silencing me or shuffling me off to a closet, why not look at your own house and see if you are throwing out the PFAL baby with the bathwater. 

You once got all caught up and zealous for a movement that turned from mindful to mindless.

So ask yourselves, how immune are you to getting mindlessly caught up in something, today, that turns from mindful to mindless?

If you were building a mindful model of what went wrong at TWI, it would not collapse at my mere posting.

 

 

[So_crates]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

It means that free will is BIOLOGICAL.

(and not spiritual)

 

 

Wrong again!

If free will is biological, how could one third of the angels join Satan? Apparently, angels have free will, too. This is further reenforced by Paul's statement that believers will judge angels. You can't judge the actions of someone who hasn't the freedom of choice, freedom of will.

[So_crates]

2 minutes ago, Mike said:

I'm not understanding what you mean here.

But let me ask something of you, and the rest. 
What can I do to calm things down?

I see how things degenerate into food fights about me, and that is not what I want. I try to post what I honestly think people need and have a right to hear, and then I get many responses, to which I try to answer a lot of, and the cycle starts, and soon becomes chaos.

So what should I do now?

I was cooperative and stayed in the Absent Christ thread, then followed it into Doctrinal, then a special thread is made for me in the NT Canon, and then another one made for me in About the Way, and I finally I answer a long standing challenge to respond to penworks so I do in this thread.

You folks seem to have a anti-idol being constantly manufactured that is very fragile, and all it takes is one thankful PFAL grad to post a few key ideas about the value of PFAL, and all chaos breaks loose.

Instead of silencing me or shuffling me off to a closet, why not look at your own house and see if you are throwing out the PFAL baby with the bathwater. 

You once got all caught up and zealous for a movement that turned from mindful to mindless.

So ask yourselves, how immune are you to getting mindlessly caught up in something, today, that turns from mindful to mindless?

If you were building a mindful model of what went wrong at TWI, it would not collapse at my mere posting.

 

 

You see collapse, we see setting the record straight.

[Rocky]

3 hours ago, chockfull said:

Interestingly enough there are very similar doctrines and functioning surrounding leaving the Mormon church, the Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientology.

All of them engineered to plant a seed of doubt, sow confusion, hinder communication, and isolate a person with respect to their faith.

Obvious signs of cults, indeed.

[Mike]

3 minutes ago, So_crates said:

Wrong again!

If free will is biological, how could one third of the angels join Satan? Apparently, angels have free will, too. This is further reenforced by Paul's statement that believers will judge angels. You can't judge the actions of someone who hasn't the freedom of choice, freedom of will.

I am talking about free will of human beings, and more specifically, the free will of natural men, having no spirit. 

Because a natural man has free will, I say free will is therefore Biological.

[Mike]

I know nothing about free will in angels.

[Rocky]

1 hour ago, Twinky said:

Not sure why something so perfect would need to be re-written, but that's by-the-by (=immaterial, Mike.  Don't bother "answering" this point).

Kinda like a rhetorical question... answers itself.