Leaderboard

I knew someone who died trying to make it work. Then, the ministry blamed him for not having big enough believing. He left behind a wife and 2 young kids.

I think it was Himmler, kept a small book on his person, probably Mein Kampf. But he had to remind himself why he was doing what he was doing. (I'm searching for a source). I thought is was noteworthy he pushed that ideology into himself. It reminds me of collaterals or retemories . . . renewing one's mind . . . it's a continual practice to subdue oneself and actively participate in your own dissociation. With personality disorders, like antisocial personality disorder (sociopath), it's as if there is no self to subdue. The commands come from within, not from the outside. Hitler I've heard was likely a borderline.

God is not at all involved in the law of believing. As an occultic practice I would say it's antithetical to his nature. God didn't give everything in a cookie jar where only the tall can reach. God doesn't ever support or teach the strong survive...that's actually luciferian in nature as is the law of believing. The lob wassnt even popularized until the 1800s, before that it wasn't accepted in Christology. Phineas Parkhurst Quimby was the brainchild and he taught Mary Eddy Baker the founder of Christian science. The law of believing is Christian witchcraft.

I was born, I'm told, due to miracle healings after concerted prayer in TWI. I'm occasionally reminded about this, at times from people I don't know. What irritates me to no end is that one stupid moment is more important than the tens of thousands of moments since. What good is a miracle if that moment pauses life, ignoring everything else that goes on? You got blessed one time or ten times 30, 40, 50 years ago . . . What goes on every day since? This is the work of an anemic God. Only good for a few tricks, after which his followers stop living life, since they've hit their peak now. Remember that one time? Yeah, one time? Good for you. Loser. The witness of the lives of the followers of The Way speaks. A long time ago they got blessed. And then they stopped growing as people. What's to look forward to? What has been built? What sort of legacy is "I got really blessed and learned a lot"? How would anyone be in awe of THAT God?

With public domain, the public owns it. So, citing sources is still legally necessary. You can use it as much as you want- so long as sources are cited.

So, in other words, as instructed by vpw, twi, etc, to "operate the Law of Believing", is to engage in white magic, witchcraft? (The answer is yes. Shocking, isn't it?)

oh here it comes…nap time zzzzZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz OldSkool, So_crates, WordWolf, Waysider, Chockfull, Nathan_Jr, and Charity touched on some interesting points. I’d like to add to this part of the discussion on faith / believing / manifestation of faith – some of this I’ve posted elsewhere – but that’s never stopped me from posting it again – bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha. And I’d like to lead with OldSkool starting a thoughtful thread in doctrinal, titled The Law of Believing and he began it with a link to a downloadable paper he wrote on “The Word of Faith”; the following excerpts from OldSkool’s paper were quite riveting: “For anyone unfamiliar with this doctrine, I am talking about The Law of Believing. This belief system is very formulaic and can be stated as “confession of belief yields receipt of confession” or in plain English – What you believe for or expect in this life you receive. The Law of Believing is supposed to be a universal law that works for saint and sinner alike; where positive thoughts bring positive results, and negative thoughts bring negative results… …It was E.W. Kenyon who first presented to the church the idea of 'now faith'; that faith 'is a confession'; that 'what I confess, I possess'; and that we create reality with the words of our mouths - 'Faith's confessions create realities'. Kenyon also taught the basic principles that make Positive Confession possible: that man is a little god 'in God's class and therefore can utilize the same universal forces that God does and which are available to Christian and non-Christian alike.” End of excerpts from OldSkool’s paper ~ ~ ~ ~ I've looked at life from both sides now, from win and lose and still somehow It's life's illu - - oops…sorry that’s the wrong misnomer or wrong plagiarism or something…What I meant to say is I’ve looked at faith / believing / manifestation of faith from both sides: my cultic-mindset viewpoint as a dedicated follower of TWI for 12 years and post-TWI some 37 years and counting of unpacking and reevaluating wierwille’s eclectic spellbinding pseudo-Christian theology. It’s been pointed out many times on Grease Spot Café that wierwille’s law of believing goes by another term for those who prefer not to dignify stubbornly holding onto nonsensical thoughts – it’s called magical thinking. One common definition of magical thinking is “the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them, particularly as a result of supernatural effects.” from: Wikipedia - magical thinking . The word “particularly” in that definition expresses a variable – in other words, magical thinking does not ALWAYS involve a belief in the supernatural. In the Power For Abundant Living foundational class the law of believing is described as a power that works for saint and sinner alike - which to me sounds like someone is describing The Force in "Star Wars". Basically, the concept takes God out of the picture. Sometimes people want to argue that God made the law of believing or they try to shoehorn Him into the equation by saying He’s actually the one doing the miracles - which implies God is our puppet. The essence of magical thinking is the disconnect from the real world of cause and effect – which is exactly the opposite of what the scientific method is all about – which is a lot of experimentation and observation - there isn't a whole lot of guesswork involved. ~ ~ ~ ~ TWI heavily promoted the law of believing - the idea that one can influence the outcome of specific events by doing something that has no bearing on the circumstances or similarly that personal thoughts can influence the external world without acting on them. This idea is also common in children…That brings to mind an old Saturday Night Live episode of Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey – if a kid asks where the rain comes from you could tell him or her “God is crying – probably because of something you did.” Referring to it as “the law of believing” is misleading in two ways: Deception # 1: calling it the “law of believing” as if it was an unvarying principle : a general or basic truth on which other truths or theories can be based – such as scientific principles …We speak of the laws of physics that are facts which have been deduced by empirical observations – these are principles – physical laws of matter, energy and the fundamental forces of nature that GOVERN matter and its motion through space and time, along with related concepts such as energy and force. To govern is to exercise continuous sovereign authority over something or someone…Basically, to say that you’re operating the law of believing makes YOU the governing authority. Even if you want to keep up supposedly biblical appearances by mentioning “God”, it still implies God is compelled to accommodate anyone who knows how to use that power. The concept reduces God to functioning like a genie in a lamp who is obligated to do our bidding. In other words, you have more power and authority than God Almighty! Deception #2: calling it the “law of believing” as if it was the ultimate rule: like a binding custom or practice that should be obeyed within a certain territory. This also assumes that anyone who uses the law of believing is deputized as a substitute for God’s authority – in effect you assume you have some of the power and authority of God. In Acts 8 there is an interesting anomaly during the early days of evangelism. Simon a sorcerer who had amazed the people of Samaria was revered as powerful and God-like but when the Gospel came to his city he also believed and was baptized. As we follow the story, it seems Simon was more interested in the great acts of power that accompanied the preaching of Philip, Peter, and John - rather than learning more about the Messiah or allowing Jesus Christ to truly reign as lord over his life. When he offered the apostles money for that power, Peter said to Simon “May your money be destroyed with you for thinking God’s gift can be bought!” Salvation, signs, miracles, and wonders are from God ! They're not something we can dole out - because they are not ours to give - or use as parlor tricks for entertainment or as sales promotions for the Gospel…It’s not something that is distributed to the masses through PFAL classes on DVDs , streaming on YouTube, delivered by Door Dash or carrier pigeon. ~ ~ ~ ~ A concise definition of magical thinking is given in an article by James R. Beck, Ph.D., a licensed clinical psychologist and a professor and the chair of the counseling department at Denver Seminary – in the book Baker Encyclopedia of Psychology and Counseling, 2nd Edition published by Baker Academic , on page 708: "Magical thinking is present when a person views an internal thought as having external significance and power. A thought, although private and unobservable, becomes a substitute for action. The logic of magical thinking says that thoughts are powerful, and therefore thinking certain thoughts will cause various consequences to occur in the outside world. Magical thinking is not confined by normal barriers between thought and actions, between private thinking and public knowledge, between what is internal and what is external. Nor is it limited by the logical connections that normal thinking posits between ideas. The best-known example of magical thinking is the young child who, when angry, will close his or her eyes with the thought of making the disciplining parent disappear. The logic in this childish behavior is: If I can’t see, I can’t be seen. Magical thinking is common and considered normal in young children…Magical thinking is considered pathological when it persists beyond the age of its normal occurrence…Primary process thought patterns, including magical thinking, are thought to dominate the unconscious thought of neurotics…Obsessive-compulsives also indulge in magical thinking when they feel their thoughts can cause harm to others. The defense mechanism of undoing is predicated on magical thoughts, since wishing something makes it so…For example, the child who first hits an adult and then kisses the same person is convinced that the second behavior will undo the first; hence it is magical thinking." End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ Edwin Wallace, IV, M.D. is Professor of Psychiatry and Research Professor of Bioethics and Vice Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Health Behavior at the Medical College of Georgia. On page 984 of Dictionary of Pastoral Care and Counseling , Wallace’s article titled PSYCHOANALYSIS AND RELIGION , makes a correlation with magical thinking: The omnipotence of thoughts, a mechanism particularly favored by obsessive-compulsives…is the unconscious presupposition that the wish is equivalent to the deed and therefore that wishing alone can effect changes in one’s environment independently of any realistic or practical action. Freud believed that in the animistic-magical stage of cultural history, human beings ascribed omnipotence to themselves, while in the religious stage they transferred it to a deity and yet retained the idea that they could influence the god, through prayer and ritual, according to their wishes... End of excerpts ~ ~ ~ ~ Magical thinking is a misplaced faith – I’ve heard it said many times in TWI that we have to believe in our believing. I have no problem with the simple faith mentioned in the Bible – a faith that has complete trust in God. And God should be the object of our faith - rather than whatever it is that you’re “believing for” . I think true faith is a trust in God – that He is sovereign and hears our prayers – and answers them as He sees fit – and maybe not always as we expect. Ephesians 3:20 should relieve us of any concerns that God is limited by our believing – for He is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we could ask or think! The sovereignty of God is a staggering concept to try and fathom. There is no other being that can overpower God – and yet He created beings like angels and humans with the power of self-determination. Even though God is superior He does not cling to His right to exert absolute control over His created beings but gives them room to flourish. Maybe in some ways it is like a divine/human partnership. I think that is what faith is about – a divine/human collaboration. We trust in God, we rely on Him to orchestrate how things play out - according to His purpose. 26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for God’s people in accordance with the will of God. 28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who i have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters…Romans 8:26 - 29 It says God orchestrates all things for the good of those who love Him. It doesn’t say God works everything thing out for the convenience of those who love Him. It doesn't say God always gives us what we want or ask for - but God always answers our prayers in regarding what's best for us. This is looking at the bigger picture of your life. God orchestrates – He arranges or directs all the elements of a situation to produce a desired effect – which is to be conformed to the image of his Son (verse 29). There’s going to be ups and downs…successes and failures…the Christian lifestyle is just like any other lifelong endeavor – there’s a learning curve . While in TWI I was misled to think this section was talking about speaking in tongues, and I could ‘operate’ that manifestation being confident that it was perfect intercession always in harmony with God’s wishes, and thus making God work for me. That is all wrong. The first thing to notice is the Spirit himself intercedes for us (verse 26). wierwille taught a misconception of God is spirit and can only give what He is, which is spirit – thus you have your own little spirit – like a car battery to power all nine manifestations. Wrong! That is flat out interpolation on wierwille’s part – and shame on me for ignoring The Holy Spirit as the one who intercedes for me…furthermore it can’t be about speaking in tongues - Verse 26 also says wordless groans. Tain’t no words in thare, pawdna…don’t balk at what I’m saying! Take off the PFAL-filter and reread verse 26 again...It's not talking about your words or your little old 'spirit' (FYI "spirit" and "soul" are often used interchangeably in the Bible) - it's The Holy Spirit! ~ ~ ~ ~ The fact that “the law of believing” caught on so easily in TWI as well as some other health and wealth “ministries” makes me think the idea wasn’t totally foreign to our minds…There are some similarities between commonplace believing and religious faith. Please excuse my clunky terms to differentiate between the two – just using those terms to clarify the distinction. Commonplace believing is something familiar to many – probably since the beginning of the human race. To accomplish something, one must believe in themselves that they can do it. In a similar vein is that “can-do attitude” - a belief that one can tackle whatever comes their way – and a willingness to do it. Think of all the times in your life that you had a conviction that something could be done once you’ve set your mind to it. I think it’s more than just mere optimism. It’s a belief combined with a motivation to work on accomplishing the goal or completing the task. It doesn’t mean we will accomplish it immediately. We usually assume that if we stay committed to a REALISTIC goal – by giving it the appropriate time, energy, and effort – we should attain it. Think about what it takes to learn to ride a bike, learn to play a musical instrument, learn another language, or learn a skill set for a totally new job. Believing is a normal everyday function of our minds – if it wasn’t, we would accomplish very little. In the PFAL class the law of believing is stated as an equation - believing equals receiving. It is presented as a mathematical or logical sounding statement – that seems to hold promise…some may see it as an effective equivalency formula for success. But the more I thought about it - it seems like an incomplete formula. It speaks of a relationship between believing and receiving – but it does not specify HOW the two are connected or WHY they have the same value. It seems like there’s something missing. I find myself asking “believing WHAT equals receiving WHAT?” Many people are familiar with Einstein's formula E=mc2 which describes the relationship between mass and energy. It expresses the fact that mass and energy have enough commonality that it gives them a transposable feature. Energy and matter are two sides of the same coin. E=mc2 means that, from the standpoint of physics, energy and mass are interchangeable. It follows that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing. In the equation E is equal to mc2, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. One cannot leave out or alter any of the parameters and still have a viable formula. For simple examples of matter and energy being interchangeable, think about what happens when one starts an internal combustion engine like in a 1964 Dodge Coupe. Turning the ignition key completes a small circuit to the car battery, the material (matter) in the car battery uses a chemical reaction to release electrical energy to the starter solenoid. The solenoid ramps up the power to activate the small starter motor to engage the flywheel and rotates the crankshaft which moves the pistons at enough speed in the cylinders so that it sucks fuel and air (matter) into the cylinders and compresses it. Inside the cylinders the expansion of the high-temperature and high-pressure gases are timed to combust by sparkplugs – the energy released applies direct force to the pistons, which move the crankshaft to propel the vehicle. Again, take note of the conversion of matter into energy - gasoline and oxygen are transformed into thermal energy in the cylinders which in turn becomes mechanical energy – moving the pistons and ultimately moving the car. All these operations require specific parameters - measurable factors that set the condition for proper operation. One doesn’t need to be a physicist and understand E=mc2 or even an ace mechanic to drive a car. But to ensure continued use of the 1964 Dodge Coupe one must consider the specific requirements listed by the manufacturer. What if I thought “fuel is fuel” and decide to put diesel fuel in this gasoline powered car? Though they are both derived from crude oil - gasoline and diesel have different physical properties. Gasoline is much thinner. Diesel fuel has a thicker state of fluidity, almost like a lightweight oil. These physical differences come into play when diesel fuel attempts to make its way through a gasoline vehicle's fuel system and engine components. Since diesel fuel is thicker and denser than gasoline, the fuel pump will struggle to move the diesel mixture through the system. Also, diesel fuel will not be able to easily pass through the fuel filter. Instead, it will clog up the fuel filter. And whatever amount of diesel that makes its way to the engine will clog the fuel injectors, making them inoperable. This will result in the engine gumming up and seizing. The point is if you deviate from the specifications of an internal combustion engine, you may risk losing functionality. Believing diesel fuel is just as good as gasoline for powering a 1964 Dodge Coupe does NOT make it so. Believing does NOT equal receiving. Another thing that bugs me about the diminutive formula of believing equals receiving is that “receiving” sounds so passive. I get the idea all I need to do is be prepared to catch whatever it is that should come my way. How about we revise it to - “believing equals achieving”. Now it doesn’t sound like I’m so lazy or have a sense of entitlement – but rather conveys the idea that if one is armed with the right attitude one can successfully accomplish something…notice also the catchy phrase is starting to sound like an abbreviated version of the success formula attributed to Napoleon Hill: what the mind of man can conceive and believe he can achieve. I wouldn’t be surprised if wierwille got it from Napoleon Hill. But regardless of that – I think there is something to Hill’s formula – even though it still seems to lack a certain specificity for a reality check…Reality check – what’s that? That’s something which clarifies or serves as a reminder to correct misconceptions and check tangible reference points…it never hurts to remind ourselves of how things actually work in the real world. It’s not like Hill invented commonplace believing any more than Einstein invented the flexibility of matter and energy. They’ve just articulated how certain things work. If I imagine I could fly (unaided by anything) – just like the comic book character Superman – and act on that belief, by jumping from the top of a 102-story building – do you think I will achieve flight just like Superman? Of course not! But there have been some who imagined flying was possible with some technical assistance – like the Wright Brothers. They did some exploring to find out the state of aeronautical knowledge of their time. They read about the works of others and corresponded with some concerning their own ideas. They recognized that control of the flying aircraft would be the most crucial problem to solve. The Wright Brothers spent a great deal of time observing birds in flight. They noticed that birds soared into the wind and that the air flowing over the curved surface of their wings created lift. Birds change the shape of their wings to turn and maneuver. They conducted parametric studies with nearly 200 different miniature metal wing foils in their wind tunnel. Based on this data they determined the most efficient shape or configuration to create the most lift with the least drag. Compiling their efforts and revisiting Napoleon Hill’s “success formula” by plugging in and expanding upon what the Wright Brothers did we find that: 1. The Wright Brothers conceived…imagined…planned…they developed and kept revising an action plan designed to guide their way to accomplishing their goals. 2. and believed…they acted on their plan …through research, observation, and experimentation (the scientific method). 3. they achieved - in 1903 the Wright brothers achieved the first powered, sustained, and controlled airplane flight; they surpassed their own milestone two years later when they built and flew the first fully practical airplane. ~ ~ ~ ~ What is the difference between commonplace believing and religious faith? While there are similarities, I think the biggest distinction is that faith is about transcending the self – in other words, moving beyond a fixation of the self and becoming preoccupied with another person – God! In the previous example - the “believing” of the Wright Brothers was a state of mind through which their aims, desires, plans, and purposes were translated into their physical equivalence – giving birth to something others could see and use – a flying machine. All those “self” things were their greatest assets – self-control, self-reliance, self-determination, self-confidence, etc. - for that embraces everything that they control: mind and body. It is self-empowered. In religious faith we become God-oriented – concerns revolve around the character of God, what He does, His strength, His love, and what pleases Him. It relies on God’s power. An exhaustive biblical definition of faith is beyond the scope of my post – but I will touch briefly on the variety of usages in the Bible: there are simple acts of faith, the abiding disposition or habit of faith that distinguishes one as a believer, the subjective stance – the faith by which one believes, the content or object of faith which is the faith that is believed, and in I Corinthians 12:9 there’s a special faith which my Biblical Theology Study Bible says is “trusting God with an inexplicable confidence in a specific situation for a specific outcome for which there is no divine promise.” When in faith we commit ourselves to trust in God, we are basically putting everything in God’s hands. Earlier I got into the commonplace believing of the Wright Brothers – they did all the work to achieve controlled flight. When we exercise our faith – we trust that someone else – God - will do the work for us – like a passenger on a modern-day commercial airline we can kick back and just enjoy the flight. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology says of “faith” that it’s the Greek verb pisteuo and “…is a key word in the New Testament being the term regularly used to denote the many-sided religious relationship into which the gospel calls men and women – that of trust in God through Christ…the most common, characteristic, and original NT usage…conveying the thought of a movement of trust going out to, and laying hold of, the object of confidence…The nature of faith, according to the NT, is to live by the truth it receives… …The frequency with which the epistles depict faith as knowing, believing, and obeying “the truth” (Titus 1:1; II Thess. 2:13; I Pet. 1:22, etc.) show that the authors regarded orthodoxy as faith’s fundamental ingredient (cf. Gal. 1:8-9)…The NT regards the self-despairing hope, world-renouncing obedience, and heroic tenacity by which OT believers manifested their faith as a pattern which Christians must reproduce (Rom. 4:11-25; Heb. 10:39 – 12:2)…The Reformers restored biblical perspectives by insisting that faith is more than orthodoxy – not fides merely, but fiducia, personal trust and confidence in God’s mercy through Christ… …that it is not a meritorious work, one facet of human righteousness, nut rather an appropriating instrument, an empty hand outstretched to receive the free gift of God’s righteousness in Christ…that faith is God-given, and is itself the animating principle from which love and good works spontaneously spring; and that communion with God means, not an exotic rapture of mystical ecstasy, but just faith’s everyday commerce with the Savior.” ~ ~ ~ ~ Here’s a few other eye-opening books and articles if you’re interested in understanding the relationship of faith and reason: Beyond Seduction: A Return to Biblical Christianity by Dave Hunt The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller Intellectuals Don't Need God and Other Modern Myths by Alister McGrath Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul by JP Moreland Smart Faith: Loving Your God with All Your Mind by JP Moreland & Mark Matlock The Trivialization of God: The Dangerous Illusion of a Manageable Deity by Donald McCullough Faith & reason: Searching for a rational faith by Ronald Nash Faith And Rationality: Reason and Belief in God, editors Alvin Plantinga & Nicholas Wolterstorff Knowledge and Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga Psychology Today: Faith and Reason - Is faith a virtue? By Massimo Pigliucci Psychology Today: Faith and Reason: They Don't Need to Conflict by Thomas G. Plante Psychology Today: Why Faith Is Important by Arthur Dobrin Psychology Today: Faith: What Is It and Who Has It? By Jeremy E. Sherman Faith and Reason – Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy That’s all for now, folks I'm all through...nap time is over

Could we say more clearly, simply: The writer/author/storyteller limits God to fit into the plot of the story.

For someone who pontificates on helping people, Mike seems more concerned with being right.

Nice! Yes, I resort to my dead weight to assert my dominance here, too

The Word = Jesus Christ So Jesus Christ takes the place of Jesus Christ? Quite the switcharoo

Very insightful Bolshevik! The ultimate Egocentrism experience.

Champions of the Lost Cause

How about a reality check! The only reason magic is extremely effective against Superman is because the writers at DC comics allow it.

That's what's commonly referred to as "The Great Principle"

"empties floating by."

"As far as I'm concerned this is all a hot mess anyway - since there is no law of believing " Now, now, that's unfair to all the witchcraft and magic practitioners out there. They're entitled to try to alter reality with their thoughts. We've had readers and posters for whom that would apply.

first let’s review what Mike said: Mike said: Do you forget him saying that the law of believing SHOULD work much better for a saint who knows and rightly divides God's Word and promises? ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike posits there ought to be improved functioning of the law of believing for a saint who understands and correctly interprets the Bible. However – I disagreed because I remembered what wierwille said in the blue book The Bible Tells Me So, chapter five, The Law of Believing, on page 44, wierwille says: The law of believing works equally effectively for both the sinner and the saint; however, the believer, because of the spirit from God within him, may bring forth more abundantly. ~ ~ ~ ~ There is NOTHING in wierwille’s statement that suggests “the law of believing SHOULD work much better for a saint who knows and rightly divides God's Word and promises”. Also noteworthy is the fact that neither wierwille nor Mike cite Scripture to back up those speculations…However, strictly from a salesperson’s point of view, Mike’s theory might sucker some young and naïve person into PFAL to reap all the alleged ‘benefits’ from the mind of a plagiarizing pathological liar and deluded person like wierwille. As far as I'm concerned this is all a hot mess anyway - since there is no law of believing

Anyone who cares enough can go among a lot of Christian groups, and find stories among many of them, stories of deliverance, of blessings, of miracles, of healings. What does that tell us about blessings and the Christian groups? Someone desperate to find some label, some group, some brand, might say that ALL of those are endorsed by God. I think most would conclude that the blessings of God in the lives of people are completely unrelated to whatever groups they are in, or are NOT in. twi, and vpw and lcm especially, used to be very vocal with its adherents about how the blessings of God would abandon them if they left twi, and He would not protect them, and so on. They would be "a greasespot by midnight." Well, midnight has come and gone, and we're still moving on with our lives, generally better-off than when twi was a part of our lives.

As stated in pfal, the so-called "Law of believing", when practiced, is a means by which a person, using only the force of their will, causes things to happen, in accord with what that person wills to happen. "Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with the Will."- Aleister Crowley. So, does that mean the "Law of Believing" as taught in pfal is witchcraft and magic? Yes. It could have come straight out of the writings of Aleister Crowley.

The end result of the law of believing is God is relegated to being a passive observer who has given all his blessings, health, and wealth to anyone who is focused enough on their own ability to claim it. It’s really an atheistic system that nullifies God’s relationship with those born again of his spirit and puts God’s favor to the one who has the strongest believing.

YES or NO three times That's an isolated line, with no context. Any particular reason for leaving out the other things he said on that? Do you forget him saying that the law of believing SHOULD work much better for a saint who knows and rightly divides God's Word and promises? If you DO remember it, why did you leave out that info?

vpw didn't give them "FREE ADVERTISING." vpw plagiarized their efforts and didn't say so. Every once in a while he'd quote something- that lulled people who trusted him into thinking he really cited his sources (he did it a LITTLE, but most of the time, he did NOT.) twi tapes have twi information and twi labels on them. It's easy to see where they are from. Most, IIRC, have a MAILING ADDRESS on them. You can get a catalog or order some. Plagiarizing is the OPPOSITE of that. Kenyon wasn't mentioned much, and Stiles wasn't mentioned AT ALL. In fact, vpw referred to him ANONYMOUSLY in one place, and later erased the mention of anyone else (the White Book.) So, that's the opposite of advertising. All of this is known. "Has anyone done any research on this?" Are you kidding? You don't know by now? http://empirenet.com/~messiah7/tw_founder.htm We've discussed this a lot.