waysider

Mmmmmm! Looks delicious. If you're not going to drink that, I'll take it off your hands. Oh, and welcome aboard.

I was taught specifically that believers can not read minds. However, it was strongly implied, though not taught, that leaders could get revelation to tell them what you were thinking. So, in essence, they could know what you were thinking but not by way of mind reading. This would have been in the early 1970's, (maybe '73, '74) It's rather embarrassing now to think I bought into this nonsense.

There is no need to purposely stir up a hornet's nest.

My comment is purely anecdotal. I have known people who have tried, unsuccessfully, to use is it for weight loss. The results are extremely short lived. It requires constant, costly re-fortification sessions. In my opinion, this is to insure that a state of self delusion endures, albeit, temporarily. If you really, really want it to work, of course, it may work. Not because of the method but, rather, because of self-determination. I have never personally tried it, however, my observation of other peoples' experiences leads me to believe it is yet another scam, designed to bring financial gain to the purveyor. And, no, I don't think there is anything "spiritual" about it.

Now I'm devastated, devastated, I tell you. How awful to discover my hero and champion of spiritual insight was enamored of Weltweisheit.

I'm waiting for the Biblical parallels to begin. (ie: "Jesus didn't have a degree.") :B)

"Hey, gang! We have a new class and it's D.O.A.!" Heh. How much more appropriate can it get?

People get cancer sometimes through no fault of their own. You don't have to do something "bad" to get cancer. Cancer is a genetic malfunction. It is a result of cell replication gone amok. It's not caused by some evil spiritual entity. There is a lot of evidence showing how it physiologically takes place.

VP was a walking poster child for a multitude of the Advanced Class definitions of devil spirits. Either we were following a guy who was bursting with devil spirits or the whole thing was a bunch of nonsense. Either way, it doesn't look too good. Kinda funny that no one seemed to get revelation regarding the matter. But, back to cancer. Cancer is a natural process that takes place when cells that are repairing and replacing themselves go haywire.Who knows how many thousands of times a day the average person gets (potential) "cancer"? Fortunately, most healthy bodies are able to counteract the process before it turns into full-fledged cancer.

I thought I smelled familia.

What a surprise. :o

"Because what was/is so prominently thought and taught as believing doesn't appear to me to always square up with what pistis means biblically." Then start a thread in the doctrinal forum.

"I could care less whether you are or aren't moved in any way to investigate the matter further, or what you think of it." In other words, you don't really have anything to offer in this regard. "Look it up yourself." doesn't really cut it. "If you can't define pistis, faith, or believing (which doesn't seem to have been done here, that I can see), then how the heck do you know what criteria is or isn't consistent, and does or doesn't indicate it's a law? That's not a fact, Jack. It's just plain Sally silly." It doesn't matter one bit whether I or anyone else can give a definition of pistis that will suit you. It's not necessary for the purposes of defining a law. Believing is supposed to be a law, remember? ("God would have to change the laws of the universe"/"Works for saint and sinner, alike."....VPW) Since you're a fan of the internet, here is something pretty basic that might help you as you search it out yourself: WIKI "A physical law or scientific law is a theoretical statement "inferred from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."

Sounds like a bunch of fluff, TLC. You said it "might seem to disagree". O.K....In what way does it "seem" to disagree? Saying "It's on the internet." is a total cop-out. It reminds me of how people in The Way used to say "It's spiritual" when they really didn't have an answer. Do I have any facts to support my statement? How about this. If it's a law, it should fulfill the criteria of anything being declared a law. It doesn't. That's a fact, Jack. If you want to look at it realistically, you could exclude any mention of the Bible, altogether. Wasn't it Wierwille who declared it to work for saint and sinner alike?

waysider: You can't cause something to happen merely by thinking about it. Nor can you prevent something from happening merely by thinking about it. Thoughts do not change anything in the physical world. TLC: I dunno, wayside. Quantum physics is weird, and at times might seem to somewhat disagree with that. Please enlighten me how quantum physics disagrees with my statement. waysider: The so-called law of believing is, in fact, not a law at all. TLC: Do you have proof and/or facts to support that? Do you have proof or facts to support its reality? If it was a law, it would have a consistent, predictable outcome when applied. Mix 2 parts hydrogen with 1 part oxygen or drop something off a building. We know what will happen in both cases. It's consistent and predictable. You can't change the outcome of either event by virtue of your thoughts.

Let's boil the cabbage down, shall we? You can't cause something to happen merely by thinking about it. Nor can you prevent something from happening merely by thinking about it. Thoughts do not change anything in the physical world. The so-called law of believing is, in fact, not a law at all. It's not mystical, magical, spiritual or supernatural and it surely doesn't work for saint or sinner alike. The human mind is a fragile mechanism. It doesn't like discord and the uneasiness of uncertainty. So, it tries to find logic and reason that will explain the discrepancies frustrating it. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It helps us give what appears to be meaning to aspects of life that would otherwise be meaningless and frustrating. This new age sort of thinking didn't originate with Wierwille. It was quite popular in various forms in the 1950's and 1960's. Some of those forms were theological while others were completely secular. The fearful mother cited in PFAL did not kill her little boy by worrying about his safety. If a mother's fears for the safety of her children could actually kill them, the human race would be teetering on extinction.

TLC: "Let's change the subject." T-Bone: "No, thanks." TLC: "Well then, that was a short path to nowhere."

Hey, ya know, 50 of us came together in one place, each believing we would receive specialized Bible/ministerial training. (Specifically, it was supposed to focus on Acts.) But, it never happened. No wonder we got our butts chewed so much. Even with 50 of us believing, we were too weak to bring it to pass.

I didn't have any inside track as to what was going on at the corporate level, especially about anything that ventured into the realm of academia. As I've noted before, one of my biggest disappointments with the FellowLaborer program was the virtual nonexistence of anything resembling scholastic study. I think people out on the field were under the impression we were privy to all sorts of proprietary information. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We lived in a commune, worked a small garden plot, hashed, rehashed and re-rehashed collaterals and SNS teachings, and had endless, mind numbing organizational meetings, butt chewings and more believer's meetings than any one person should ever be subjected to in a lifetime. But, did we do any in-depth study of "The Word" or gain special insight on nuances of the Bible? Nope. Never happened. Oh, I can tell you how to sprout your own Mung Beans, make mayonnaise from scratch or throw together enough familia to feed 50 people for a month, sure. Greek words and Biblical intricacies? Nah, not so much...OK, not at all.

There used to be a guy who posted here (His name rhymes with psych.) who would carry on for a page and a half about how he didn't have time to post.

Thanks for making that so clear.

Well, OK, here's the first part: "Perhaps the mere indication (from what I had posted previously) that I might not have been as "clueless as the rest of [some of you] back then" is part of the reason (having pondered it from very early on) I have a bit different take and understand of what believing/faith is, biblically speaking." So, maybe you could elaborate on that?

"But then again, perhaps there are other, more significant reasons for it." It might help us to understand if you would elaborate on those "more significant reasons".