Brushstroke

I agree, we're all sinners...just sinners trying to do the best we can, eh? As far as God's power goes, it's not for us.

You're right oldies, that's definitely a strong point of contention between she and I. I'm starting to think that maybe the difference is in the mindset. In Eastern Christianity, there is a strong emphasis on mystery. To say that we know what God wills for our lives, to us Orthodox, is like saying that I know God like the palm of my hand, which obviously isn't true. It's just prideful and it is not a very good example of humility. This is not to say that we can do nothing about our salvation, but the mindset of the Church is that Christianity is a spiritual struggle, it is a path in which we are to take up our cross daily and commit our lives to Christ, and submit to Him in humility, with all of our joy coming from God alone. It is a process, a spritual journey. In Orthodox and Catholic theology, salvation is not something that we already have as many Protestants believe. We are saved (Eph. 2:5-8), yes, but we are also being saved and are working out our salvation with fear and trembling (2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and we will be saved (Rom. 5:9-10), with hopeful confidence in what is to come (2 Tim. 2:11-13, James 5:7-12). I think an accurate statement would be that, for us, salvation is itself the life that we have in Christ. That wasn't my point oldies. My point was about the pride in the idea that we can understand God and have His power. Yes, we can know God as He reveals Himself to all humans and He is a personal being, He loves us. We have knowledge of Him according to what He has revealed about Himself, but other than that, we should never make a claim to have full knowledge of Him and His ways, nor should we ever make a bold claim about having His power [1 Cor. 2:9, Rom. 11:33-36, James 4:6-10, Matt. 5:1-12 (my note: only if we have humility will we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit i.e. God's power)]. We should acknowledge that He is working in our life, but the kind of thinking that the power that He gives us is then ours is a very harmful way of thinking. It leads to pride. ~Phil

I agree, Ham. And I'd like to add something. Sure, you may understand all the things in the world about the Bible, Christianity, Christian history, and other religions. And you may be able to cast out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead, increase your wealth, speak in tongues, etc. But if you want to be a Christian and have all this, but don't have a genuine love and humility, what good does any of it do you? (1 Cor. 12:27-13:13) Reminds me of an old story, very famous in Greece, that my priest mentioned in one of his homilies. There were two men on an island, off the coast of Cyprus. They knew nothing about Christ except what they had been told by their parents long ago, which wasn't much at all, but they kept these things they had been taught and believed in Him, and they really believed in Him. They prayed everyday, thanking God for what little they had on this small island. Now, a bishop on a ship along with a ton of other passengers passed by this island, and he saw them, and the two men desperately wanted to get on this ship and off the island. To his shock and astonishment, the two men were actually running on the water toward the ship. Many believe it was a product of their faith, some kind of spiritual gift. One doesn't need to have some sort of special knowledge or to understand complex theology, or to give their money to someone. Ultimately, all one needs to do is love God and love others. That was Christ's most important commandment. Oh, I can definitely see how that would be appealing to most people. Believing in God and receiving His power (that you have a right to!) protects you from Satan...hah, sure, why not? I'd love to be protected all my life. But wait, isn't the reason Satan was kicked out of heaven because he wanted God's power? The bolded portion, is what I think is most damaging. The mindset that God's power is ours...pride in thinking that they had attained some sort of special knowledge or in thinking that they're so great like the Gnostics, or like the Pharisees. And no, most problems in life are not so simple as "This person is right" and "That person is wrong." That kind of thinking is just naive. ~Phil

I agree with you that it is God's will that we shall live, and not die. Death was vanquished through the Cross, Christ rose, having conquered death and giving life to those spirits in prison who died before He came into the world (1 Peter 3:18-22). But the question remains...if Christ is risen, having trampled down death by His own death, and has given life to those who were held captive, why is there still suffering? This gets into one of my least-favorite subjects: theodicy. I have much to say about it though. Surely a good God would not cause all this suffering that happens in the world. I mean, would God want 150,000 people around the world to die each day, or want those people in Africa to starve, or want the war in Darfur to continue? I don't think so. Christianity has traditionally defined evil and suffering and the horror of this mortal existence as a privation of the good, something entirely unnatural and foreign to God's good will for His creatures. He's the Source of life, not of death. So evil does not exist per se but it "exists" in that it is an absence of that which is good in the world. What most people find intolerable about Christianity, is that God even allows evil to happen. It appears to imply that God's providence and the coming of His kingdom include all the evil in the world, so even though His good will will come to pass, the suffering of this world has an indispensible part to play. The notion that suffering will prove to have been meaningful, to have had a purpose, to have been in some sense a good and necessary thing; for most, the suffering of children in broken homes, of the people in Africa who are starving to death, of the people in Darfur who are at war is an infinite scandal, and their consciences could never allow it to sink to the level of some provisional passage through darkness on the way to some radiant future. I think this mindset is actually quite Christian. The mindset of the ancient Church was always one of division from and rebellion against those principalities and powers -- death chief among them -- that enslave and torment creation. All that Christian scripture asserts is that death and evil and suffering will not thrwart the coming of His kingdom. Divine providence, will of course, always bring about God's good ends despite -- and in some sense through -- the evil of this world. This isn't the same thing as saying that evil has a necessary part to play in God's plans or that God requires evil to bring about His kingdom. The one thing most people ask in this question, is "Where is God?" My answer is that He is in and beyond all things, and nearer to the essence of each creature than that creature itself, and infinitely outside the grasp of all finite things. Even in the suffering of this world He is nearer to us than we will ever realize. In writing this, I find myself thinking about a photo I saw in an issue of National Geographic when my mom and I were taking our cat to the vet. The article was about an ancient tribe in Ethiopia, and they live in the most unimaginable poverty. In the background of the photo was a scattering of huts made from crates and shreds of canvas, and on all sides barren earth with no vegetation. But in the front of the photo was a little girl, extremely pretty, dressed in tatters, but with her arms outspread, a look of delight upon her face, dancing. To me that was a heartbreaking picture, of course, but it was also an image of something amazing and glorious: the sheer ecstasy of innocence, the happiness of a child who can dance amid despair and desolation because her joy came with her into the world and prompts her to dance as if she were in the midst of paradise. It's the small sparks of beauty that we see in all the horror of this world that show us God's presence here, the deep indwelling truth of creation, the divine image that resides in the very heart of the world, the stainless image of God. This is the nature of God's presence in creation, and He is in every fiber of His being willing and able to restore that which has fallen, and He will not suffer to see us fall into further corruption. So no, God didn't will for Peter and Paul to die, but if you have experienced any kind of hardship, then it should be apparent that He works through the evil of this world (that is caused by the devil and is also just an aspect of a fallen world) and despite whatever bad happens, His good will won't fail in the end. As you said, "by His stripes we are healed." Jesus' death on the Cross shows us the love of God. Not only that the Father loves us enough to send His Son down, but that God Himself, i.e. Jesus Christ, suffered our suffering and took it upon Himself to save us! This is a point where Wierwille went very wrong. The Incarnation of Christ is absolutely essential to Christianity. In the words of C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, "either Christ was a liar and He wasn't really God, or He was a lunatic on the level of the man who calls himself a poached egg." He died not to take our place, not necessarily so that we don't have to die; but His death opens a door, it gives us someone who understands our sufferings and someone who we can lean on, as He will give us rest for our souls and will in the end destroy all evil, all death, and all suffering. I don't have much to say about this now, except that it sounds very Gnostic...the idea that we are able receive some sort of special knowledge... Hmm...I'll have more to say on this later. ~Phil

Inconsistency after inconsistency after inconsistency...oy vey... This makes me wonder where I'm going to go with my ideas and what I want to say when the subject of our beliefs comes up when I'm there. It will, it's inevitable. Is there anything I should expect them (her parents and possibly her) to ask or say?

Okay...then what does Wierwille mean by calling it a "law," if it means neither a scientific nor legal law? In what way was the Law of Believing intended to work?

Is it not, in principle, essentially the same class?

So going by what you just said...PFAL tells you to entirely miss the Bible's message and keep your head in the air concerned with semantics of language and with how an impersonal law can affect your immediate life and material prosperity? Can you say legalism? I find that ironic, since TWI followers are apparently encouraged that they are entirely forgiven and have no need to repent, therefore they are able to lead a very antinomian lifestyle. Well then...I'm glad I didn't take PFAL. :)

Hah, I don't mind. :)

Oh of course I'll listen to them. :) But will they listen to me? :(

We watched parts of this documentary in my Sociology class a couple weeks ago. I've seen the whole thing before, and it's pretty strange stuff. I definitely think this is an example of brainwashing. What better age to teach a child than age 4 or 5, when the mind is still malleable and absorbs things like a sponge? When it's things like this that are being taught...ohhhh boy...it's things like this that make me wonder what the face of modern Christianity is going to look like in about 50 years. *shudders* Evangelical Christianity scares the hell out of me. :blink:

If the subject of our beliefs comes up and they ask if I'd like to join or there's some sort of subtle pressure, I'll tell them that -- that sincerity is no guarantee for truth. I have no problem telling them how I feel. I'll just say "Thanks, but no thanks." She and I really like each other...a lot haha...but I'm not going to sacrifice what I have discovered as truth for something that might not last.

It sounds like this is just an attempt by Wierwille to account for probability and chance in life, which really can't be determined or controlled, or even speculated upon. What is Available -- How does one determine what is available in their life, or what one needs and wants? First of all, I want to say that you took that verse out of its context. The passage, Matthew 18:15-20, is talking about discipline in the Church, and Christ giving authority to the apostles in dealing with disputes among members; not about two people believing and receiving what they wish from God. It is speaking of God clearing up disputes in the Church, of a sinner finding his way back to repentance and humility, of a lost sheep finding its way, with God's help, back to the rest of them. It is telling us that the Body of Christ should be in unity of the faith. The promise to us is this: That God will save our life, if we lose our life (Matt. 16:24-28). God is very willing to save us, He wants us to be with Him. The truth of Christ's message isn't about getting what you want/need in the here-and-now (see Matt. 19:23, Luke 12:13-34), it is about striving to be with God, storing up our treasure in heaven by our faith in God alone and doing His commandments, having faith that He will provide what He wishes us to have, not what we think we need or want, and humbly submitting ourselves to Him and giving up everything for the one thing that matters in life over all other things: His will. It's not to say that He doesn't wish us to be happy, He does, but we shouldn't ever think we know His will or that we know what we need or want in our life. St. Isaiah the Prophet rightly asked "Who knows the Lord's mind...?" (Isaiah 40:13) If it is His will for this to work, then so be it. I believe that things between she and I will work and so does she, but just because we believe it will work doesn't mean God doesn't have something else planned. Exactly, we don't know when this law will work and when it won't. Why bother mingling with this Law of Believing when you can just pray the Lord's Prayer, ask that His will be done, and leave it to Him to reveal to us what He wants while following Him in humility? St. Silouan of Athos once said, "When by the Holy Spirit I came to know our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, my soul submitted to God and now I accept every affliction that befalls me, and say to myself, 'The Lord looks down on me, what is there to fear?'" They died having faith. Period. It doesn't matter if they knew they would die or not, they kept their faith even through death and that is what matters. ~Phil

My parents never became Orthodox. I chose it on my own. Yes, I was originally a member of the Southern Baptist Church, but my parents have not been/are not affiliated with any religion or denomination. I was delved heavily in Islam (through a friend...its a long story and I don't want to talk about it) for awhile before I became a Christian about 6 years ago. I was a member of the Southern Baptist Church, but my views have always been much closer to those of John Wesley and the Methodist movement, and some much closer to Catholicism. After awhile I started doing more study into church history and the writings of the early church fathers, and joined the Orthodox Church in May of 2006. So I know where I stand and I don't believe I'll be sucked into TWI. Converting to Orthodoxy isn't just something my parents did and I blindly followed with them.

I've spoken with her mother, and her parents/my parents have talked about me coming over. Her mom's a nice woman, very unassuming, and she says that these things (online/long-distance relationships) are hard to make work and that she's here to support us in any way she can. Her mom and I actually talked very briefly about what we believe a few months back, and she was very courteous and respectful as we exchanged viewpoints. I got the impression that despite what I had studied and known about TWI at the time, and what I know now from here, that Steph's family is very devout in their faith and they don't really seem the type of people to try to subtly convince me to convert as you guys make it seem. Maybe they're a bit more...liberal...not in the political sense, but in the sense that they maybe show a bit more impartiality than most TWI followers of the past. But of course, I'll be careful. So yes, they're quite aware that she's conversing with someone she met online, and they're quite aware of my personal beliefs and my beliefs about The Way. If they weren't aware of it, then I wouldn't be coming over. LOL! You know, that hymn started playing in my head when Steph read the title of the book over the phone one night, before she sent it. I was like, "Hey, I remember that hymn! We used to sing that in the Baptist church I went to before I converted to Orthodoxy!" And then I thought "What a stupid title!"

How To Win Friends and Influence People? What is this?! I know what the book is, I am asking why they need to resort to tactics like this in order to gain converts. It's sickening to me that TWI can't just say what they believe without resorting to these underhanded tactics of persuasion.

And if I refuse their offer and simply say something like, "I'm sorry. Don't get me wrong, you're very sincere and nice and all, but I don't agree with you." ...?

What might these unspoken consequences be...? :blink:

Her mother knows my religious views and affiliation, and is aware that I disagree with them on a lot of points. Steph has told her because her mother probably asked. And Steph told me her parents will probably just throw the offer out there to accept or reject, it's my choice. That's it. No pressure involved. Even if there is no pressure to join, all claims have a basis in truth and reality, something that actually happened or in what was perceived to be real. So if the experience I have as an outsider isn't quite as extreme as the experiences of you guys when you were in TWI, I'll just remember to balance what I see here with what I see when I get there and what I disagree on with what I agree on, and stay true to what I have discovered as truth. I'll be fine.

We consider ourselves to be together...but...not really. It's complicated. I mean, since she and I technically haven't really met yet since we originally started talking online, it's kind of sketchy as to what we should consider ourselves. But if this is all something to get me into TWI...well...I just don't think she would do that.

Wow...never really realized how closely the "law of believing" resembles the philosophy of the New Thought and Religious Science movements. I saw similarities, but when you posted this...heh, wow.

She and I are both 18.

I've actually noticed this with Steph. We had a discussion regarding the deity of Christ a few months back, and I was pointing out passages that quite explicitly deem Him to be God, explaining the context and quoting some first-century church fathers and asking why they thought of Him as God when Wierwille does not, asking her to explain why these passages say this and why Wierwille thinks differently, or why he went to the trouble of translating the Greek scriptures in a new way when scribes in monasteries who spoke the original languages had been writing copies of the scriptures for years. And, I hate to say this but this was what it appeared as...all she did was either not answer my question (avoid it) and go to another passage to support her position, or just say something that I've read by Wierwille. It troubles me. We can talk about our beliefs and why we believe what we believe just fine, but the way she inadvertently avoids my questions deeply concerns me. But yes lindyhopper, we should avoid the debates. We've agreed that maybe when I go to see her in May, that we'll go to a church of my affliation, and then attend a fellowship of hers (would you recommend this?). Just to get an idea of where each other is coming from (I will clarify to her that this is the only reason I want to attend). But yeah...should be interesting. Que sera sera, I suppose. ~Phil

Yeah...umm...that's not going to happen.

I was talking with Steph last night, we were discussing our beliefs, my concerns, etc. And yes, I was gentle about it. We had a good talk about what I think about TWI and its doctrines/beliefs/history/practices, as well as the beliefs of the church to which I belong, the Orthodox Church. But neither of us really broke any ground with each other, we didn't really gain any understanding, and at this point I didn't really make much of an impact on her. But something she said kind of bothered me... Her mom apparently knew Dr. Wierwille very well and was a good friend of his for years until his death. So she is probably very knowledgeable in what TWI teaches, perhaps almost too knowledgeable (or better yet, too brainwashed) to say anything that would mean something to her. I think this presents a very interesting new dilemma... Your thoughts? ~Phil