waysider

And then there was this handy devise with a few stale bread crumbs for bait.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlhBcKYvCP0&feature=related

I never said you aren't a critical thinker. I simply said that what you displayed in your post is "cherry picking". It can degrade the value of any genuine discussion. That's why it's important to be able to recognize it. I have no desire to change your opinions regarding the Bible or your spiritual experiences. If you want to engage in any sort of civil discussion, Biblical or non-Biblical, where opinions can and often differ, though, it is helpful to understand the basic guidelines that govern debate and discussion. Here is an example of what I'm talking about. You said: "Sorry if I just made you think of VPW again it must be rough for you." Nowhere in my post did I ever say anything to that affect. It ignores the statement I presented in order to introduce one that you would prefer to debate instead. From the link I posted, see if you can identify the logical fallacy that most closely describes this practice.

Sure, VP cherry picked, I cherry pick, you cherry pick, we all cherry pick. It's basic human nature. We tend to latch onto the evidence that agrees with our position and ignore that which doesn't. The point is simply this: if you want to improve your critical thinking skills, it becomes necessary to recognize when cherry picking is in progress. That's a skill that extends beyond Biblical discussions, and into all areas of life. Here is a link I have found to be helpful in that respect. CLICK

That's what is known as "cherry picking". CHERRY PICKING

It was posted on youtube about a year ago.

Ya see, there ya go again, John, completely ignoring changing the point that was being addressed. (ie:I have hope of a life beyond this life. You? ) How did this become about eternal life or anyone's particular opinion on the subject? You stated your position as being that hard work and determination are all that is needed to succeed in this life, that if someone should find themself incarcerated, it's their own fault. That is the position I refuted.

Does he ever say he taught this exact same stuff, himself, as if it were the Gospel truth, for decades, and then apologize? Nope. Not even a mention of such. Then, he uses the fig tree incident to imply that Jesus was using a verbal shell game to make it just SEEM like he commanded the tree to death. So, then he's saying that Jesus wasn't above a bit of verbal sleight of hand?? He actually got revelation the tree was going to die and concealed that fact to promote another agenda?? Sounds like a bit of creative interpretation, to me. What he is doing here is saying that VP was wrong about "the law of believing" in the foundational class but right about "the manifestation of believing" in the advanced class. Sort of. Here is the definition of "manifestation of believing" from the advanced class: The manifestation of Believing is your operation of the God-given ability whereby you may believe to bring to pass the impossible at your command according to what God has revealed to you by Word of Knowledge, Word of Wisdom and Discerning of Spirits. It also imparts believing (law of believing variety) in others. So, I guess the message here is that you can only really "believe' for something if it's already been revealed to you by revelation. But, in order to receive revelation, it is absolutely imperative that you speak in tongues "much" on a daily basis. Did Jesus speak in tongues? (Key #3 of the 16 Keys To Walking In The Spirit) Then, it will help others to operate "the law of believing" which, ironically, he just debunked. Too much mumbo and not enough jumbo, if you were to ask me.

Discerning of Plaster The manifestation of Discerning of Plaster is your operation of the God-given ability whereby you may receive from God, by His revealing it to you, certain truths or facts concerning any plaster about which it is humanly impossible to know by your five senses to know anything.......

Well, that's all relative to whether you're asking "us" or "them". :P Musical Interlude

What does he hope to do? Appeal to posters here by agreeing with what we already know? Reminds me of this old tune.

Up is down...down is up... Why on earth does anyone continue to take these guys seriously? Seat or no seat... I think they flushed any reason or credibility they may have had down the ol' crapper a long, long time ago.

Any recommendations? Not just the youtube type stuff. Something interactive like using Skype or something.

These cats will say virtually anything that keeps their pipe dream alive. First, the law of believing was the holy grail of spirituality. Now, it's as phony as a cult leader wanna-be. Next thing you know, they'll be insisting that VP wasn't really a "DR." Say it isn't so!!

I'm not sure where to begin to comment on this. :o

And then we have that issue that never fails to make everyone's hackles rise...speaking in tongues. "Oh, but I must be born again, Dr. said speaking in tongues is proof beyond the shadow of a doubt." Well, guess what?, people have been "speaking in tongues", in the PFAL sense, for thousands of years, even before the days when Jesus walked the planet. It's glossolalia. Lot's of non-Christian people do the same thing. So,how could it possibly be any kind of reliable proof? Oh, I concede, maybe there really is such a thing as speaking in tongues (Biblical variety). I highly doubt that it would be synonymous with the variety we learned about in PFAL.

Are you sure that's really what the Bible says? Or is it what VP "says" the Bible says? Do you see why I brought VP into this? It's because you are interpreting that section of the Bible according to what you learned in PFAL (from VP). But, is what you learned about it in PFAL really accurate? That's the essence of what I'm asking with my response. In one place, it talks about the way being narrow, how few will enter, how it's like a camel passing through the eye of the needle ....and here, in PFAL, we have VP telling us how incredibly simple it all is. So, is the process selective, like Jesus said, or, a "piece of cake" (to paraphrase what VP said)?

If I should happen to win the lotto, you can count me in. I hope you have a delightful and relaxing time.

If you're not a Charlie Parker fan, you may not want to click .

Could it really be that easy? Just do what VP (You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?) Wierwille said in PFAL and **POOF** you're Heaven bound and all Hell can't stop you? That's kinda scary. I could be spending eternity next to Hannibal Lecter or Charlie Manson..

We should call the phone number and "check-in" like the sowers did on that LEAD link. "I'm checking in from a stretch limo 'cause my believing was so big, yada, yada...."

Have you ever known anyone who's done hard time, John? It doesn't sound like you have. You come across as being very naive about how the penal system actually works. I don't mean that as a personal affront. It's simply an observation. Many years ago, I worked for a very large company that had a cooperative agreement with one of the local prisons. They gave jobs to felons being released after incarceration. These were real jobs as welders, electricians, machinery mechanics and such. These were their first jobs as they made their way back into the mainstream workforce. I worked beside them. I got to know some of them quite well. I found that many of the stereotypes being promoted by the news and entertainment industry have very little foundation in reality. If you think hard work and determination are all that is needed to succeed, I suggest you may have succumbed to some of the falsehoods of propaganda.

I'm not sure about how or why. I think Abigail gave a good encapsulated summary, though. We see it here quite frequently and shake our heads in puzzlement. How can people discover the truth about Wierwille and continue to vaunt his image? In recognizing Wierwille was a fraud, we subsequently have to acknowledge we were duped. That can be both embarrassing and painful, especially if it resulted in great personal loss. The alternative is to ignore the obvious.