WordWolf

Brian Doyle Murray Wayne's World Rob Lowe

Those who still rubberstamp vpw's books and classes as if they descended from heaven insist that the imaginary woman in Session One were somehow unique in that she worried about her young child when he was out of her sight. Thus, her unusual worry produced the unusual result of her imaginary son being killed as the direct result of her imaginary worry. So, let's answer directly. Every day, millions of mothers (not to mention the fathers) see their children off to a babysitter, a preschool, a school, a playgroup. Every day, millions of mothers meet up with their children later in the day, whether by picking them up, or by their delivery. Between those two events (happening millions of times a day across the planet), the children are out of the sight of their mothers. So, the question: Do mothers worry about their children when they are not in sight?

Lest we forget, yet ANOTHER category of people exists. They are people who found out-had wives, sisters, sisters-in-law, daughters, cousins, etc who were raped or molested- yet faced that situation by deciding their perfect worldview of twi was MORE important than truth, loved ones, Biblical application, and so on. So, they made the voluntary decision to withdraw from REAL VICTIMS who were their "loved ones" (what a misnomer!) in order to avoid charging FELONS with a FELONY, saying it was "that the ministry be not blamed!" (No, that means that the minister does not commit a FELONY, not that you aid and abet a FELON.) So, there are victims out there who were blamed by family, called liars by family, shoved aside by family, for that reason. I find it almost beyond belief that such people exist, but they do. These are often people who have the most difficulty dealing with posts like "vpw raped and molested young women" without blaming the victims of the FELONIES without A) calling them liars B) saying the numbers of FELONY victims at his hands are exaggerated C) he molested them for their own good -to toughen them up spiritually D) saying all God's ministers commit felonies-so what E) God's criminal ministers confess to God once, then there's no other consequence to their crime-to the FELON, the victim is still in therapy F) why focus on a felon's felonies? and so on. Yes, each of those stratagems I mentioned were ALL from posts at the GSC. (Including the "toughen them up" stuff.)

CORRECT! According to local legend, the original song (which doesn't have the line I used-it's a different line) was based on a house of ill-repute run by madam Marianne LeSoleil Levant (Marianne the Rising Sun), and its door was marked only with the rising sun. Local tours will show you the location, I hear. I like songs with trivia. Sue me.

And if it had been any one else's kids, the yelling and spittle directed at the parents would have torn off the roof. They would have been blamed for not leading their family, and exhorted to cut off communications with the kids, maybe put them in foster care..... (That advice WAS given to some parents.)

Since I'm sure about my answer (I can sing the whole song), I'll post the next song.... I think someone can get this one with just one line. "In God, I know I'm one."

The only "Crash Test Dummies" song most people know (if any) has no vowels in the title. This song, however, I know. "What I am", by Edie Brickell, aka Mrs Paul Simon. (Unless they divorced and I missed it.) Technically, Edie Brickell and the New Bohemians.

That's true only when one completely forgets what we've learned to date from Mike's posts. The time Mike spent transcribing audiotapes of vpw, he likened to the transcription of Paul's letters. He's also made mention of time supposedly spent with him and so on.... This from the same man who said I suppose he was keeping quite a distance while asking all those questions and talking heart stuff. Mike's sure been around. When he wants to claim he was an insider, he spent lots of time around vpw. When he wants to claim he was "one of us", vpw was unable to pick him out of a lineup. Mike is very versatile. He is much like the famous "tall, fat, skinny little man." Based on the mutability of the printed page and his history, is this a credible account? Up to you to decide that, but I think a proven track record of questionable authenticity has been demonstrated... ...for which I hold blameless the man who chose them out for training, and designed and oversaw their training for four years. All of them were poor performers, but it had nothing to do with a common education being deficient.... Since it's in print this way, it MUST have been the same way in practice. There couldn't possibly be a discrepancy between doctrine and practice, could there? This doctrine failed EVERYONE except me so far (and up to 7 other people.) However, if we try it again and try harder, it will work this time! My definition of healing, of course, includes "holds vpw as the greatest man of God since the apostle Paul, who received revelation at least the equal to that which Paul received, and superior to all other Christians of the past 2 millenia, worldwide." It also includes "holds vpw's books as a new Bible." My definition of "healing" is a non-standard definition.

He had NO choice in the matter. Someone dragged him to the pc and held a gun on him until he typed the messages. his family was held hostage unless he kept typing. --> And yet, outside the political forum, he seems to be in the middle of most of them. Coincidence? Offensive content? Offensive style? All of the above? That will last until she either agrees pfal is the new Bible (agreeing with Mike), or until Mike insults her too (if she doesn't agree pfal is the new Bible.) It WAS... Mike had already posted there some time ago. His famous "last lost" subject was up there. Of course, that's academic now, since twi sent their attack dogs after the board. And has "thanked him" by disregarding the rules of conduct he's asked to follow, like not posting his Doctrine outside the Doctrine forum. About fricking time. Or, as we've been saying for years, he can make his OWN website and board and post whatever he wants on it.... General rule: don't mention one BOARD on another without permission, don't mention someone who doesn't post on your board without specific explicit permission, and make a link to another board if you're even THINKING about discussing it, so people can see it and form their OWN opinions. That's common courtesy all over cyberspace.

Bravo, CM! That settles that question. David never completely lived it down, either. Even Matthew 1 makes a passing reference to Uriah when it gets to David.

I find it useful to think before opening the window, then thinking before I type, and thinking as I compose the post. Few cheapshots make it past that stage. Sometimes I do a quick glance for major errors as well, before hitting "save". All of this helps prevent rash posting, which also lowers the hostility level of posts.

No, I thought you were talking about a different article, because you now were making blind references to an article without posting the article. I overestimated your ability. Usually, the name "Schoenheit" around here is used in conjunction with the Adultery paper. I didnt jump to the conclusion that you meant that either-I ASKED. You bemoaned it, but I do read your posts for content, such as they are. Otherwise, I'd never comment on the substance of your claims. That's your main CLAIM. Your sole support to that claim-offered only when I insisted- is that Schoenheit supposedly said so in an article. Having seen what you do to the Blue Book and the others, I trust you LESS than the average person on such a claim, and I'd demand the exact quote from the AVERAGE person. (I do that all the time when I'm not on this website, in fact.) So, are you going to reproduce this article here, continue to say "it agrees with me" but not produce it, or change the subject and pronounce victory? I'd prefer the first option, but I'm expecting one or both of the others, based on past performance.

Oh-you changed your post after I read it. Hang on.... I'll skip commenting on what I already commented on.... I find the overt stupidity attributed to Bathsheba running to tell her friends here insupportable. You believe plenty of people knew. He notified the locals "I'm back and I'm not sleeping with my wife?" I expect a few people noticed, but-unless they followed him around-they had no way of knowing if he went home for an hour here or there. It IS possible to arrive surreptitiously to a residence, have conjugal relations with someone, and leave quietly as well. That's not a new activity. Did some people SUSPECT? I'd expect so. Did they have PROOF? That's a whole other matter. You suspect they knew. Some of them SUSPECTED David.Suspicion is not PROOF. Jumping to conclusions IS a human custom-I agree. Nathan made an announcement in the Town Square? David made an announcement in the Town Square? I missed that verse... You STILL haven't supported your statement. *** I know no good man sinks to knocking up a best friend's wife and then murdering him without first having scalded his conscience with many dastardly deeds. Many people either saw these things, or even worse were victims. I know no man, even one who repents, totally eradicates the remnants of such a seared conscience. I know David sinned again, even though it's not recorded. I'll bet my life on it, and not loose a wink of sleep. I also know that David's bad example was kept alive by the adversary (like Dr's sins here) Now we get to the REAL reason for this post. It's NOT about David, it's about vpw and his sins. Was that supposed to be surreptitious? Nathan's reproof-which is in the Bible-mentions something alongthese lines. David had to go an awful long way to restore his good graces and redeem his own reputation and that of the nation. Gee, if they got that far, they could follow the logic all the way. "The King tried it and got NAILED-his son died and everything. If HE couldn't get away with it, what chance would I have?" Looks like you're saying Solomon's sins are specifically the consequence of finding out David committed adultery and murder. Since he wasn't born yet, I find this very difficult to support. Again, got a Bible verse, or is this something you find indisputable about human nature as well?

Which-the one on Adultery, or some other? Won't know until I know what article you mention. That's a few people running errands, bringing food and BarryWhite albums. David was careful in this business-I would expect him to be smart enough to use people who could keep a secret. (vpw certainly did- and he got away with serial rape and molestation.) The order to kill Uriah was sealed and known to one commanding officer. Do I think word got around his staff? No, and there's no evidence to make any comment OTHERWISE to be anything beyond SPECULATION and GUESSWORK. Let's see.... I might be killed if I tell someone, if I tell someone, THEY might get killed, a deliberate attempt to make my child look like my husband's child is in play, the penalty for adultery is STONING... I would expect Bathsheba to keep her mouth SHUT. The PROPER thing was never to commit adultery in the first place, but having sinned, I expect she wasnt stupid. To put two and two together, you need two and two. To know two, you must first know one. There is no evidence-beyond your speculation-that anyone knew who was willing to talk. If anyone other than God and Nathan knew, the Word of God remains SILENT on that issue. "Where the Word of God remains silent, he who speaks is a fool." (vpw) I believe I made a STRONGER argument AGAINST than you made FOR. It didn't require deep scholarship, either. That means there was an IMPLICATION, but you posted a SPECULATION. They're 2 different things that are not interchangeable. If it's so "clear", there would be a "smoking gun" verse. I don't claim to know the mind of a murderer that well. However, there have been things called "crimes of passion" where a moment's "hot blood" is heeded and a felony is committed, assault, battery, destruction of property, or murder. I'm not a criminologist nor criminal psychologist. NEITHER ARE YOU. Please don't consider yourself an "expert on everything"- we had our fill of that in twi. Are we talking "committed adultery in his heart" sins, "fibbed to his wife" sins- which are one thing, or "he committed adultery again and killed ANOTHER man to cover it" sins? Big difference. I expect he did the first- the second, I'd insist on seeing it line by line. Maybe. I'd buy that some people found the timing suspicious, and would SUSPECT-especially after Nathan had an "executive session" with David whose minutes were sealed, but they wouldn't KNOW. Well, we have different thresholds for accuracy, but that hardlyqualifies as news. It's in the Bible. I'm aware of it. I dont need a class, tape or textbook to learn EVERYTHING. Schoenheit's picking a fight with me? I didn't see him post. IF, IF, IF, Schoenheit made the claim you did-that David's entire staff knew and that Uriah's family KNEW (not suspected), then I'd respectfully disagree with him on the grounds I posted. I still wouldn't "argue", and I suspect he's classier than that himself. However, I'd prefer Schoenheit make such a claim himself before I said I disagreed with him. I do not believe ANY teacher short of Jesus Christ HIMSELF is incapable of error, nor would I expect them to be, nor would I expect them to think THEY are. (If they do, there's the FIRST error right there.)

Life on the Moebius strip, let's see.... Mike, 6/18/05, 10:56pm Mike, 6/18/05, 11:01pm Mike, 6/18/05, 11:02pm. We discussed this subject before. Mike has misunderstood the Uriah account, we corrected him, and he's STILL making the SAME mistake months later. It's a mistake most Christians wouldn't make, because most Christians wouldnt try to justify rape and murder. ========== Mike, if you ever sit down, open a Bible, and read the account, you'll see that David engaged in a governmental coverup. First, he hid that he was committing adultery with Mrs Uriah. Then, when she became pregnant, he attempted to make it look like Uriah's kid by bringing Uriah home from the war, and sending food and a Barry White album to his house so he'd have sex with his wife and think her kid would be the result of that sex, since he trusted her and didn't suspect her of cheating. When that failed to work, he arranged to have Uriah killed, and to make it look like an accident. That succeeded. It looked like David got away with it, but then God sent Nathan to confront David over this. Other than Nathan-who was informed by God Almighty-there is no evidence that anyone not directly involved knew something was up. This detour into "Uriah's family forgave David for knocking up his wife and killing him" is wild speculation unsupported by any Scripture. However, Mike keeps relying on this as actually happening. That's because Mike is adamant on saying there were no real consequences for this, and using that as an analogy and saying there were no real consequences for the rapes and molestations committed by vpw. That's not unique to Mike, either. The seeds of this idolatry is in the pfal class itself, when vpw declares that "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the King", in clear and blatant violation of the Old Testament Law-which applied to beggar and king. This helped him pave the way for his later rapes and molestations. A separate question is: Are they the same? Is the one-time adultery and scramble to conspire to conceal it, even unto death, by David, followed by his repentance, functionally equivalent to serial premeditated rape and molestation by a "man of God", with possible repentance as he approached the end of his days? That's answered here. How many months before Mike makes this claim again? I'm guessing 6 months.

Mike seems trapped on a Moebius strip. I'll get back to that in a bit. First, how Mike fails to read his own posts. 6/18/05, 10:46pm, Catcup. 6/18/05 10:40pm, Catcup. 6/18/05 10:50pm, Mike. 6/18/05, 10:51pm, Catcup. 6/18/05, 10:55pm, Catcup. 6/18/05, 11:01pm, Mike. Actually, Mike, your post 6/18/05 10:50pm sure SOUNDS like that's what you SAID AND what you THOUGHT. Their rapes were sort of "collateral damage" while God brought Teh Tr00th to us. A handful of rapes is a small price to pay for that-and they would have been worse off without vpw, his Tr00th, and his rapes. Seems nobody else on the planet was teaching about the True God and NOT raping....

The same man with "GREAT respect for the traditional canon" has been quoted as referring to it as "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants". His definition of "GREAT respect" is not one most people use. But, he feels free to redefine the REST of the English language, so is this news?

Literal translation according to usage, Ebonics version: "Catcup, yo' mama!" ==== Literal translation according to usage, Elizabethan Pharisee version: "Catcup, you are a Samaritan, and hath a devil!"

You haven't read my full answer. You declared-by divine fiat or other unquestionable authority- that the 2 terms were identical, and gave no basis for anyone to conclude they ARE. They are NOT identical, and the differences are more substantial than, say, the modern meanings of "throughly" and "thoroughly". I pointed out they're NOT equivalent the other day, and you're continuing as if everyone agreed they ARE. I understand what you're saying FAR more than you claim, and FAR more than you understand what I say. Disagreeing is not misrepresenting, and insulting is not rebutting. You might want to consider that-they're 2 differences between our posting styles.

This, I take it, is the Mikean version of "literary criticism." Fewer than skip over yours, from what I hear. See, I can go on all day and make a lot of points in plain English. People can spend an hour and come away saying "That made sense." People can spend an hour on your posts and see little beyond sycophantic worship of a man and the books he cut-and-pasted from others, and insults to anyone who disagrees with you, and what most come away with is a sense or idolatry and insults. Of course, those who have the same worship and level the same insults will be unable to detect the difference. HCW has written some lengthy posts with much material as well. People read them and come away having gotten considerable substance. That's what's supposed to happen when you write that much.

You mean that long harangue where you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel? The one where YOU came off as the anal retentive chef even before you accused WW of it? Yeah, I read it. I just don't think it justifies an answer. BUT I DID-so I did. *snicker*

So, is Mike really convinced that "crude approximation of a law" is synonymous with "simply stated"? He appears to.

Actually, Catcup acknowledges that words have commonly-understood meanings. YOU'RE the one who's installed himself as the man with the power to alter them as you see fit. Liar. vpw's usage of "LAW" was consistent with what Catcup said. We've discussed this for YEARS now. Orange Book, page 44. "What one fears will surely come to pass. It is a law. Have you ever heard about people who set the time of their death? When somebody says 'Well, this time next year I will not be here', if you are a betting man, bet your money, you are going to win. If a person makes up his mind that this time next year he is going to be dead, God would have to change the laws of the universe for the person not to be accomodated." You are disinterested in what vpw meant by "law" because we demonstrated (and continue to do so) that believing is not a "LAW". Since you are enslaved to the letter of his work and committed to defending it in the face of overwhelming evidence, you're required by your own obsession to alter the meaning of the text in order to make it defensible. Believing is NOT a law. Believing God is a good thing. Confidence and trust in truth is a good thing. Believing is NOT a law. We had discussions a few years ago where you admitted you STILL didn't understand this "law of believing" after over 5 years of study. Amazing how you STILL haven't gotten there yet-this is SESSION 1 material. I'll die of old age before you make it to Session 6 at this rate. Nice try hiding one of your OWN weaknesses here. Catcup was physically present and learned face-to-face from vpw. Your revisionist view is constructed from fragments of books and tapes. (Not the WHOLE book, just the parts that match your opinion.) Hearing vpw and seeing him teach face-to-face skips the editing process of other people (like you) deciding what vpw meant. vpw NEVER said believing was "A CRUDE APPROXIMATION". That phrase was INVENTED by MIKE, and used to try to defend the false doctrine that "believing is a law". Go ahead, Mike, what's the book and page# where vpw said it? I'd LOOOOOOOOVVVVVEEEE to read it for myself. Where did vpw make this statement that you made up? Hm-they're focused on the failure of believing to be a "LAW"-I'd better CHANGE THE SUBJECT COMPLETELY.... No, that had nothing to do with anything. Your OWN failure to distinguish between the written pfal and the Mikean doctrine is demonstrated here. You can't tell that "CRUDE APPROXIMATION" does NOT appear in the pfal class nor its collaterals, but only in the Mikean doctrine. That is YOUR failure. Go on, prove me wrong-cite the book and page#, many of us still have all our books.... Or, try to dodge the issue by attacking Catcup directly. Guess which direction Mike goes? He never said that! Prove me wrong by citing the book and page where he said it was a "crude approximation of a law!" GET OUT! You're REALLY going to show us where switch from calling believing a "law" to a "crude approximation of a law"? I won't believe it until I see it! I expect to see you throw up misdirection and end up NEVER showing even ONE place, LET ALONE TWO. But, hey-let's see-I may be wrong. Show us, Mike, where vpw calls believing a "crude approximation of a law." Just show us you have some steak, Mike, THEN maybe the sizzle will mean something. Where does vpw use the words "crude approximation of a law"? We've demonstrated our skills. You've claimed to demonstrate yours. But you have a golden opportunity here-where did vpw use the words "crude approximation of a law" when speaking of his false "law of believing"? We've demonstrated an understanding of the meanings, not just the terms. Stop insulting us and show us where vpw called believing a "crude approximation of a law". We were disinterested in your "challenges" and have seen nothing to qualify you as our instructor. Furthermore, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the person making the claim of the existence of something. If Mike claims green monkeys fly out of his posterior, it is not up to me to prove they do NOT-it is for Mike to prove they DO. You've misapprehended all this and are now claiming we looked and were unable to find something. We just said "get to the point." Speaking of "get to the point", where does vpw use the words "crude approximation of a law" when referring to his disproven "law of believing"? No, we said "just get to the point." Until you show that he used the term "crude approximation of a law", Catcup's point still stands. I answered this already. Piling on insults and puffing up your own knowledge may impress YOU, but we're mostly adults here and you just look like that's all you have to offer. Now, about this "crude approximation of a law" thing you claim vpw said... We yawned and said "get to the point." You missed that there like you missso much else. SO YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID YOU'D SHOW US "TWO PLACES WHERE HE PUT IT IN WRITING"! And you're admitting it! I'm more surprised that you admitted it than that you lied. Am I misreprsenting Mike, people? Scroll up this same post. What did he say? "I'm going to show you two places where he put it in writing." Then "Dr never did use the exact phrase 'crude approximation'..." Now he's going to try to convince us an entirely different term is identical to "crude approximation of a law". Note that this is the same guy who claimed we were unqualified to understand the meanings of words. (Top of this post.) And these words "this is only a very abbreviated portion of one aspect" where "Dr said so".... what BOOK and PAGE did he say so? Or is this another incident that Mike invented and put in vpw's mouth like the "crude approximations" we discussed so recently? Ok, this has the phrase "very abbreviated portion of one aspect" in it? Or was that a fabrication of Mike's, attributed falsely to vpw? Just get to where he uses the phrase "very abbreviated portion of one aspect",please, and stop insulting us. Hm. Again, the phrase "very abbreviated portion of one aspect" was missing. Can this be another example of something Mike made up and attributed to vpw? Is Mike really unable to tell the difference between what is written in vpw and what his own inventions are? Or is he aware and deliberately deceiving us, hoping we can't read the difference? actually, any scientist should tell you that is a FALSE version of the law of gravity based on a misunderstanding of how gravity works. It was believed true once when scientists were still learning, just as it was believed the earth was the center of the universe. Neither was true, but both were believed true. No real scientist would say "everything falls" is a "simple, abbreviated" form because it is WRONG. If it was NOT wrong, then it would be technically true that "everything falls". Please take this up with the scientists on board. You'd STILL be wrong because your explanation is dependent upon the EARTH. Gravity on Jupiter is greater than gravity on Earth, and Earth is insignificant in its discussion. Gravity on Mercury has nothing to do with the Earth, also. Gravity in the Andromeda Galaxy has NOTHING to do with Earth. Therefore, your "crude approximation" is ALSO incorrect. Since you're not a physicist, this is not a big deal-unless you're trying to rely on your misstatement to say something else, as you do here. And here's where Mike switched the words "crude approximation" in his vocabulary with the words "simply stated" in vpw's vocabulary. He then concluded the terms were equivalent, and went on his way. Is he intentionally deceiving us in this, or has he convinced himself these terms are the same without ever discussing their differences? (Not to mention where he lied in saying he'd show us where vpw used the term...) Blue Book, page 43-44. "You may believe rightly or wrongly. Believing works both ways, and you bring to yourself whatever you believe." Nothing about "you must believe a promise of God" there. page 44. "Fear, worry and anxiety are types of believing. If you worry, have fear and are anxious you will receive the fruit of your negative believing which is defeat." There's a promise of God that fear, worry and anxiety brings to pass? What Mike said above is NOT what the Blue Book says. Mike has added to the Blue Book. That is "private interpretation." Mike needed to add to it to try to salvage its erroneous contents. The "law of believing" fails to stand on its own merits, so Mike must "prop it up" by adding content NOT in the Blue Book or class. In doing so, he takes from our CRITICISMS of the Blue Book's failures, then lies and claims they are mentioned there somehow. Page 44. "The law of believing works equally effectively for both the sinner and the saint..." Mike is contradicting the Blue Book. So, the supposedly God-breathed Blue Book lacks any mention of a promise of God in that chapter on "what you believe, you get" because it looks stupid on a bumper-sticker???? The pfal class-both the tapes AND the books-miserably fail to include it, but found room for imaginary mothers to kill their kids by worrying, and to include corny jokes. Apparently, they were more critical to include. Since God supposedly directed the contents, God decided to omit references to BELIEVING HIMSELF when discussing BELIEVING. Here we go again. Mike, if these TEN PLACES supposedly EXIST, in the actual class and books, not just in Mike's mind, then tell us where they are. TEN PLACES where they are INCLUDED and EMPHASIZED, you said. The Burden of Proof is on you. Otherwise, it looks like another thing you manufactured, like the "crude approximations" that vpw mentioned "twice" and still fail to actually produce- in fact, you admitted it was a lie. We'll both answer to God. I may "brush off" spurious claims of information that vpw supposedly wrote that he never wrote- like you did here. I have no proof you didnt make up the accounts to JAL, earning a "brush-off". Your track record is unimpressive in this regard. Instead of pronouncing God's Judgement on us for ignoring the word of Mike, how about giving us some SUBSTANCE? See? vpw said sinners ignorant of God's Word (and therefore, God's promises) operate his 'law of believing'. You said otherwise. But, as he states it, they were capable of operating it without that knowledge. You contradicted vpw again. You'll never get it by contradicting what's written, and changing words and phrases..... You can insult our understanding all you want, but taking the jar of pickles, and labelling it "apple-butter" in no way changes the pickles on the inside of the jar.

This 'believing in percentages' and 'fearing in percentages', this 'close-second' to either, is made-up to excuse the instances where the supposed 'law' fails-which is the vast majority of the time. It relies on continually redefining words like 'believing' and 'fear' so that times when either is in effect, it is not REALLY in effect, allowing both terms to dodge and evade actual meanings. If extended worrying brings events closer to happening, then momentary worrying does as well, just not as far. If the worrying is different in degree, and believing is some "LAW", then the result is only different in degree as well. Therefore, in DEGREE, there's a difference between the imaginary woman in pfal who killed her imaginary son and the billions of mothers every day who worry about their kids, but in PRINCIPAL, it is the same. Theft of 25 cents is wrong just as theft of millions of dollars is wrong-it's only a question of DEGREE. So, if pfal is to be believed, billions of mothers a day are responsible for setting the stage for horrible things to happen to their children, and these kids miraculously escape injury because the worry-level in effect is crappy. If the mothers were able to "negatively-believe" to the same degree as the imaginary woman, then their kids would suffer the same death as the imaginary son. It is considered obvious to mothers that they will worry about their children when the children are out of sight. It doesn't take being a mother to know this. (I did ask one just to make sure it was "considered obvious".) If "you worry a lot over extended periods of time and your young child dies" is a LAW like pfal claimed, then Raf died as a small child. He detailed BEFORE how his own mother worried over him as the imaginary mother worried over her imaginary child. So, here we have 2 examples. === Imaginary mother operates the "law of negative believing". Her imaginary son dies an imaginary death. Real mother operates the "law of negative believing." Her real son survives to adulthood without significant injury. ==== So, the "empirical evidence" demonstrates this theory is a FAILURE. Hypothesis formed, experiment done, results contradict hypothesis. Any good scientist either says "the theory is error", or says "the theory is probably error-let's repeat the experiment" and does so. Meanwhile, other kids suffer horrible accidents and events, and their mothers worry a lot LESS than Raf's mother. Whether or not a child is struck by a car is NOT dependent upon the relative worrying of his or her parent. It is dependent upon the drivers of cars, and the inability of the child to avoid ever crossing a street (or in a few cases, an inability to stay off the sidewalk or away from the curb). MOST people have no difficulty understanding this. However, under the failed "law" of believing, a parent whose child had been struck by a car is to be blamed as RESPONSIBLE, since their worrying ENABLED this horrible event to happen. One may FORGIVE the parent, one may refrain from commentary, but this would not change the truth of the matter: the parent caused the child to be struck by a car. ========= There's no percentage where believing works, then a threshold whereit suddenly begins working. Any physics student should be able to just apply high school physics and understanding of vectors to show that. Either force is being exerted or it is not. If you're unable, with all your might, to shove a humvee down the street, that doesn't mean you didn't throw your back out trying-you exerted much effort, and the humvee actually DID move, just not far. But, according to pfal, "believing works for sinner and saint alike." If believing is a LAW, AS STATED IN PFAL, then the CONTENT of what is believed is INSIGNIFICANT as a factor as to whether you get results or not. Otherwise, the OTHER imaginary woman wouldnt have gotten her imaginary red drapes. To say otherwise is to add to pfal. That is "private interpretation." Since you asked, I went to an authoritative source rather than speculated. "Why is Abraham lauded as the 'Father of Believing'?" I'll skip that he is called that, since we agree the Bible calls him that. Galatians 3:6 "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Galatians 3:9 "So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." Galatians 3:18 "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise." Galatians 3:26 "For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:29 "And if ye be Christ's, then ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Romans 4:3 "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Romans 4:11-12 "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that beliee, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised." Romans 4:20-22 "He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what He had promised, He was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness." You can see the covenant itself in Genesis 17. So, to explain Abraham's deal simply (in deference to you, Mike), A) God made promises to Abraham. B) Abraham gave the situation due deliberation. C) Abraham concluded that God's promises were trustworthy, and Abraham believed God. Abraham trusted that what God said was true. D) Abraham did NOT do the critical functions-he was convinced that God promised him, and that God would do what was necessary to carry out that promise. E) God told Abraham to demonstrate his confidence with the symbol of circumcision, demonstrating his confidence in God was greater than his confidence in the flesh. Abraham did so. So, to put it even SIMPLER, (in deference to you, Mike), Abraham was NOT called "the Father of Believing" because he had superior "powers of believing". Abraham is called the "Father of Believing" because he put his confidence and trust in God, and God made a covenant with Abraham, and God carried out that covenant. Abraham's job? Sit there and trust God would do all the work. God's job? Do all the work. Abraham did NOT force God OR the universe to act by believing a whole lot and making the earth shake. In fact, God was fully capable of giving Abraham kids even if Abraham turned his back on God-but God wanted Abraham to choose to trust Him. According to pfal Session 1 AND the Blue Book, both believing and fear are activities taking place 24/7 across the globe, by "sinner and saint." I thought you believed both book and session to be "God-breathed" like a Bible. If so, why do you add words, change words, and remove words? Students of Session 6 know that's what got Eve into trouble.....