waysider

Now consider this. Wierwille said that to receive ANYTHING from God we must know: 1.What is available. 2.How to receive 3.What to do with it after we have it. 4.Need and Want must be parallel. 5.God's ability equals His willingness. He went on to say that if we miss ANY ONE of these 5 points, we won't receive from God. (I posted this particular reference a few months ago.) So doesn't this make you wonder? Hows come you have to do all this stuff to receive something good when, in order to receive something bad, you simply have to fear it. (Remember---VPW said they are both "believing" and that "believing= receiving".)

And yet Wierwille asserted that it was fear in the heart of the mother that caused the little boy's death. Here's what VPW says on page 37 & 38 of Power For Abundant Living. Believing: Faith and Fear There are two types of believing: (1) positive and (2) negative. We either have faith or fear. We must recognize that believing has both a negative and positive side. We are what we are today because of our believing. We will be tomorrow where our believing takes us. No one ever rises beyond what he believes and no one can believe more than what he understands. We believe what we believe because of what we have been taught. We think the way we think because of the way we have been led. Believing is a law. As one believes, he receives. On the negative side, fear is believing in reverse; it produces ill results. There is basically only one thing that ever defeats the believer, and that is fear. Fear is the believer's only enemy. *Fear is sand in the machinery of life.* When we have fear, we cannot believe God and have faith. Fear has ruined more Christian lives than any other thing in the world. If a person is afraid of not being able to hold a job, do you know what will happen? He will lose it. If one is afraid of a disease, he will manifest that disease because the law is that what one believes (in this case, what one believes negatively.), he is going to receive. People have fear of the future; they have a fear of death. Fear always encases, fear always enslaves, fear always binds. This law of negative and positive believing works for both Christian and non-Christian. When we believe, we receive the results of our believing of regardless of who or what we are. (*Fear is sand in the machinery of life*--------E.S. Jones) ************************************************************** "In the case of the little boy, the only way her fear could have caused the boy to get hit, is that she spent so much time with the boy because she was afraid he would get hit that she failed to teach the boy the proper way to cross the street. Instead she met him, did the looking and decision making for him, so he really didn't know what he was looking for when it was time to cross the street on his own." Not only is that pure conjecture, it contradicts the section of PFAL that I posted.

So, then, how does this make any sense when applied to "negative" believing? According to the story in PFAL, the little boy died because of the fear (negative believing) in the heart of the mother. What promise is involved in this example?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Bullinger

And you read your Emily Dickinson, And I my Robert Frost, And we note our place with bookmarkers That measure what we've lost. Like a poem poorly written We are verses out of rhythm, Couplets out of rhyme, In syncopated time Lost in the dangling conversation And the superficial sighs, Are the borders of our lives. ----Simon and Garfunkle

It's funny. When I think of Wierwille trying to use Bullinger's material, it reminds me of a kid in 4th grade trying to retell an off-color joke he overheard his parents share at a cocktail party. He doesn't grasp the key elements that give it some semblance of coherency.

I'll just hit on a couple points of interest. It was from Bullinger that Wierwille got his concept of "administrations". In a nut shell, Wierwille promoted the Bullinger concept that, if it was not part of this administration, it didn't really apply to us. For example, Wierwillee said The Ten Commandments didn't apply to us directly because they were given to another "administration". (Bullinger used the term "dispensation" to mean the same thing.) This is the thinking VPW used to rationalize and excuse his sexual predation, chronic drunkenness, psychological abuse and misappropriation of ministry funds. Another doctrine VPW took from Bullinger was the concept of "soul sleep". According to this doctrine, the dead are in a sort of suspended animation, devoid of consciousness, until the second coming of Christ. Wierwille "borrowed" heavily from the work in THIS link. I believe he also got the idea for the "four crucified with Christ" teaching from Bullinger, as well. (This particular idea, incidently, has been shown to be academically incorrect.) Then, in order to obviate skeptics, he made it appear that he and Bullinger had arrived at the same conclusion, totally independent of each other. (Bullinger, by the way, died in 1913, long before Wierwille ever taught "4 crucified".) Wierwille "borrowed" a good many of Bullinger's ideas without fully comprehending them. The list goes on and on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Bullinger

I'm not sure what all is in there but it's been amazingly barren since my son left for college. :P

Teacher "Can anyone name the seasons? Johnny "Squirrel, deer, rabbit, turkey------"

For what it's worth, I don't think you are at fault for the unemployment situation. The economy is really just in shambles. Here where I am, in The States, the unemployment rate is in the double digits. Some of the people who CAN find jobs are having to work for wages that aren't even half of what they used to make. And, they've lost many of the benefits they once had. I don't imagine it's much different where you are. As for the anger and betrayal you feel toward TWI, I think I might know how you feel. I never wanted to leave my hometown. Thirty five years ago, I let TWI talk me into leaving to do this assignment or that. Next thing I know, I'm still not back home and all those years are gone forever. There is a line in a Little Walter tune ( ) that resonates with me. "You took me away from home. I was nothing but a child. Made me all kinds of promises. Man, it was a line of jive." You have every right to feel,angry about it. I think it's actually part of the healing process.

How about this one from the AC: "When "ministering", never lay your hands on someone unless God tells you to. If the person has a devil spirit, it could jump out and smack you right between the eyes." So, now, let me get this straight. If a devil spirit wants to smack you between the eyes, it has to wait for you to make physical contact with its host? Seems like a spirit ought to be able to go wherever it felt like. You know, pass through brick walls and stuff. Hey! Casper The Ghost could do it! I know 'cause I saw it myself in those old cartoons.

Yeah, I remember that. Then, once back home, people would go to the mall and practice trying to see what kind of "heart" passers-by had. It's another one of those things that simply can't be proven true or false. There's no way to know what he "saw". Was he making that stuff up, did he borrow it from someone else, was he delusional or all of the above? 'nuff fer now. Just thought that would tickle your earballs.

One of the problems I used to see was the practice of finding a "promise" that covered whatever you had decided to "believe" for. Take, for example, the problem of domestic violence and abusive behavior that found its way into TWI. Not only could people find scriptures to rationalize it, they could find blanket promises that justified using "believing" to remedy the problem. I don't care what promises you can find in the Word that would seem to cover it, simple "believing" and speaking in tongues is not going to fix the problem. In the original PFAL class, the "law of believing" was actually called the "magic of believing". I think that's really more accurate. It's the practice of using some magical power to change something in the physical realm by simply thinking about it. Here's something from page 25 of "The Orange Book". "In every Scriptural account in the Word of God where a miracle took place or where God did a mighty work, the principles pointed out in the previous chapter were present. The persons involved knew what was available, how to receive what they needed, and what to do with it after they received, and they had their needs and wants coordinated knowing that God's ability equals His willingness to keep his promises. When keys are understood, we can read any place from Genesis to Revelation and see this pattern." Purely philosophical rubbish, IMO. People suffered; some literally died, trying to "believe" for things that were supposedly covered by blanket promises. Take, for example, the people who were raped and killed trying to use "believing" to guarantee safe passage to L.E.A.D. And when it didn't work, leadership simply turned the blame back on the victims and claimed it proved the validity of believing from a negative vantage. It's dangerous stuff, playing with fire, lost mojo, bad chicken any way you slice it.

FREE POST!!!

Mask the stench.

Kinda reminds me of the old Hee Haw show. Hey Gran-paw, whats fer supper? Polk Sallet N cornbread, sweet to the bite, Home grown Arsh taters, mashed up just right, Ham-hock n pintos piled up high, an' fer desert, some sweet apple pie! YU-UM,, YUM!! (quote borrowed from THIS site) But seriously, if you need help finding something here, don't be shy.

But, how can anyone re-search PFAL when they've put it in mothballs?

In all fairness, the expression "meeting needs" has become rather commonplace in current vernacular. I do understand, though, why hearing a phrase that associates with TWI can elicit an undesirable reaction. Well, I "just" wanted to "share" that.

Doesn't sound all that different from Fellow Laborers. (Except for the dismal lack of academic activity in Fellow Laborers.)

Greetings, soul searcher Welcome to the cafe. Will you be needing a menu?

I wonder if they'll sing "Let's All Go To The Lobby" (and sign a green card) like they used to at public exes.

---but i don't think it's anybody's "freedom" to be able get into people's faces, to bully people, to tell people how to live their lives, to be condescending and arrogant. and i don't think it's anybody's "freedom" to try to keep people from speaking their minds so long as when they're doing that speaking it doesn't fall in those last things i mentioned. Nor do I. That's where "The Golden Rule" trumps all the other rules. IMO, it's possible to disagree with someone and still be cordial about it. Not that I always succeed at that, but it is possible. so just what is this "freedom" stuff anyway? Within the context of this website, I think people use the term "freedom" to mean they are no longer subject to the whims, dictates and oppression of The Way.

I have no idea. I didn't have any reservations, though, about being in front of an audience. I'm sure it must have been something fairly basic.

I think TWI probably secretly enjoys the existence of GSC. It "validates" to them that they must be doing something important. "Wow, we must be really moving the word. Look at how the adversary is firing darts at us."