WordWolf

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

Catcup,

You wrote: "...I reject the "law of believing" as a LAW. There is a difference between a law and a principle. One is NOT the other"

Oh, so you have installed yourself as the official discerner of the fine differences between words?

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.

quote:

I don't care if the President of the USA along with the UN installed you as the world's official Dictionary Dictator; it would make any difference to this discussion. When we want to know what Dr meant in his writings, is is HIS vocabulary that the inspired Word of God is expressed in, and not your world's definitions.

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.

quote:

What we were taught will make sense when you take the time to properly understand it. Believing is a law, and we need to find out what that means, not reject it.

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.

quote:

You wrote: "In my many years in The Way International, during the many classes I attended, and while literally sitting at the feet of this man, I NEVER heard Victor Paul Wierwille claim that believing was a 'crude approximation of a law.' However, Wierwille did claim 'mathematical exactness and scientific precision,' in the same breath as 'the law of believing.'"

Catcup, you have given away two of your weakness in one paragraph here. The first is your past focus on the spoken teaching of Dr, when he repeatedly tried to get top leadership to see the written. Your use of phrases like "classes" and "sitting at the feet" and "heard" is indicative of the malaise that totally infected top leadership who rested on the spoken forms drifted farther and farther from the much more powerful and accurate written forms of same.

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....

quote:

Dr's final instructions were a final plea, after a ten year string of similar pleas, to get leadership serious about getting the written forms mastered. The reasons so many top leaders had no idea what to do when the ministry meltdown occurred in 1986-89 was because they had no solid roots in the written teachings, and the spoken forms had by then degenerated into many differing TVTs of powerless sloganeering. I have posted countless times here about this crucial distinction between the written and spoken forms of Dr's teachings and how leadership missed this distinction. You help prove my point in this telling paragraph of yours.

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?

quote:

The next weakness you exposed is the depth of learning you achieved. You may have gotten the wording right when called upon to reissue doctrines we were taught, but the depth of understanding wasn't and still isn't there. I'm talking about Dr telling us that "Believing Equals Receiving" was a "crude approximation of a law."

He never said that! Prove me wrong by citing the book and page where he said it was

a "crude approximation of a law!"

quote:

I'm going to show you TWO places where he put it in writing.

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."

quote:

Again, I point out that if you had really gone to the books as Dr urged us repeatedly, and mastered them as he also urged us, THEN you would have recognized the truth of my use of the phrase of "crude approximation."

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"?

quote:

But first, I want to include others in this indictment. WordWolf is a leading writer here of how well he "mastered" the books. He has stated on numerous occasions how hard he studied and how well he did on the AC test. Yet he, you, and many others who may have done well in such settings are far from a deep understanding of what is written.

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"?

quote:

I loved the AC test. I was surprised at how easy was, and how refreshing it was. In those days I spent an enormous amount of time in the books. I commuted by train to my job then and had AT LEAST three hours of study time per day, plus my job was wide open to reading time being available. It was years later that I drifted from these habits, and drifted (like everyone else) from the accuracy of IT IS WRITTEN. But when I took the AC test it was not only a breeze, it was like a teaching, a reminder of many items I loved. I was Roman Catholic, so I was set free of many deep prisons that religion had shackled me in. I paid deep attention to the contents of the books, especially in the areas where I was set free. I paid deep attention to areas that looked too good to be true, like "heaven bound." I paid deep attention to areas that were scarey to me, like "Jesus Christ is not God." I did not merely memorize sentences so that I could parrot out answers like I now see people like you and WW must have done.

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".

quote:

Two years ago I challenged posters here for MONTHS to find the chapter, the ENTIRE CHAPTER, where Dr taught about "time travel." I dangled this challenge and teased posters for months to find this chapter, yet no one could.

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"?

quote:

Like your assertion that Dr never taught "crude approximation," they all insisted I was crazy and there was no such chapter.

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.

quote:

The reason no one could find in the corroded recesses of their minds that chapter was because I slightly altered the terminology. If I had used the words "caught away in time" then I'm sure many of the shallow parrot "masters" of the material would have remembered that chapter in WWAY. Because they had only a shallow comprehension of the material, their biological search mechanisms couldn't find it.

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...

quote:

I strongly suspect that there are now AI computer programs that can "read" all of Dr's books and then answer my "time travel" question correctly. Yet no one here could.

so much else.

quote:

You're correct, Catcup, Dr never did use the exact phrase "crude approximation" when speaking of the deficiencies of the sentence "Believing Equals Receiving." He used different wording, but with the same deep meaning. I have posted several times here on one such spot, and then the other day I saw a second.

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.)

quote:

"Believing Equals Receiving" was a mnemonic slogan to help the memory with a simple, short rhyme, but it in no way was the full teaching Dr gave us on the subject. It was only a very abbreviated portion of one aspect, and Dr said so... that is he WROTE so.

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?

quote:

If you had done what Dr told you to doing his final instructions you would have spent time in BTMS and eventually seen page 29. But by that time you had you own agenda, like we all did, and missed seeing what Dr WROTE on this subject. It's not on a tape or in a class. It's not even in a chapter. It's in the Introduction to Part II of the Blue Book.

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?

quote:

Many people did use the collaterals for teachings, especially in the earlier years. But only those serious about MASTERING the books ever saw the introductions or prefaces after their initial exposures to the books.

Just get to where he uses the phrase "very abbreviated portion of one aspect",please,

and stop insulting us.

quote:

Page 29 of BTMS reads "The law of believing is dynamically powerful, yet so simple. The law, simply stated, is that what we believe for or expect, we get. This applies in every realm: physical, mental, material, spiritual."

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?

quote:

(((BTW, I wonder if it EQUALLY applies to all three realms. This is what I was thinking out loud about in yesterday's post. My suspicion is that it's only in the spiritual that it ALWAYS works with no interference. This is the frontier of my learning here, so far.)))

To say that "what we believe for or expect, we get" is to only SIMPLY state the law. If I were to say that the law of gravity says "everything falls" then I'd only be stating a very simple, abbreviated form of that law.

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.

quote:

If I wanted to avoid this "crude approximation" I'd say that "gravity exerts a force that is reciprocally proportional to the distance squared of the product of the mass and the Earth's mass multiplied by a scaling factor of such-and-such a well known magnitude.

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.

quote:

If we say that "Believing Equals Receiving" is the law of believing, then it MUST be kept in mind that this is only a SIMPLE stating of the law. It's approximate. If it were bandied about in a TVT long enough, without the other factors, though, then it's a CRUDE approximation.

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...)

quote:

You seem to be unaware (or not forthcoming) of one such crucial factor when you wrote in the same post: "I don't care what you believe with all your heart, just because you believe it does not make it so."

Well, OF COURSE just believing doesn't make it so, it's only believing a promise of God that makes it so.

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.

quote:

"Believing a promise of God equals receiving" is a much more accurate formulation,

Page 44.

"The law of believing works equally effectively for both the sinner and the saint..."

Mike is contradicting the Blue Book.

quote:

but is loses the rhyme and the brevity that "Believing Equals Receiving" supplies, so it can't be used as a positive slogan for a quick reminder of the overall law.

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????

quote:

I remember when JAL was on the rampage in the late 80's an early 90's and he accused Dr of failing to teach this important factor of including the "promise of God" in our understanding of of the law of believing.

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.

quote:

I pointed out to him ten places in the class where Dr absolutely DID include and emphasize that crucial factor.

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.

quote:

It was HE (and many others) who were guilty of committing it. He brushed off my correction of his criticism, just like I suspect you will here of my correcting you. You all answer to God, though.

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?

quote:

The other place where Dr wrote that "Believing Equals Receiving" cannot be taken as a full understanding of the law (and hence is a

crude approximation

for those who think it is the fullness) is in GMWD page 79. There we see:

"The great things of this world are available to men and women who know how to operate one of God’s laws, namely the law of 'believing equals receiving.' And this law includes 'believing equals action.' Great accomplishments are not necessarily just for people with great intellectual ability; they are attainable by men and women who believe to receive. It doesn’t hurt to have a few brains, but it doesn’t help unless one operates this universal law of believing. Many operate the law of believing without even having a knowledge of God’s Word, for this law of believing works for saint and sinner alike.

See? vpw said sinners ignorant of God's Word (and therefore, God's promises)

operate his 'law of believing'. You said otherwise.

quote:

But for those who haven’t been operating and therefore benefiting from the law of positive believing, a knowledge of it from God’s Word can open the door to change course and set sail on the new, better way."

But, as he states it, they were capable of operating it without that knowledge.

You contradicted vpw again.

quote:

But instead, many want to say stuck in the old not-so-better way. Not me. I seek a deep understanding of all the is written.

You'll never get it by contradicting what's written,

and changing words and phrases.....

quote:

That's where the treasure is. It's in getting a deeper than parrot-like understanding of the words. God will help us restore all that was lost and more as we seek this new better way to be found in mastering the written forms of PFAL.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

Just like true, pure believing has a close (but no cigar) second, so does fear.

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.

quote:

Worry won't bring on the focus of the worry, but allowing worry to LODGE, take up residence in the mind, will eventually lead to the kind of REAL fear that enables the adversary.

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.

=========

quote:

You people who talk about having exercised fear or believing, actually only engaged in mental assent or worry.

it 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.

quote:

The natural state of man is to DIS-believe everything of God, so we all start out lacking proper believing.

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."

quote:

In this world, with all it's infuences, true believing is a feat. If it were easy then why was Abraham lauded as the father of believing.

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.

quote:

Believing is rare. Fear is less rare.

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.....

quote:

Originally posted by Catcup:

And about that pooch pornography:

He showed that movie to an advanced class where I KNOW there was at least one seventeen year old girl in the audience-- probably more.

In the country I live in, it is ILLEGAL to show pornography to a minor.

Now you tell me, just what are the motivations for a fifty to sixty year old man to show pornography to minor teenage girls?

There is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION FOR IT WHATSOEVER.

quote:

Originally posted by Catcup:

Did the woman who was the first victim of the serial killer walk around in fear that she would be the victim of a serial killer? Probably not.

And how about his last victim? I'd wager that after it became known a serial killer was in the neighborhood, that a lot more than just one woman was "afraid she'd be his next victim." But were they all victims?

Absolutely not.

Doesn't pass the test for a true law.

A true law works for everyone in the same way, exactly the same way, all the time, every time.

That's why it's a law.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

I'm sorry folks, but I just don't have the time to spend on every single detail that comes up against me, not even close. But the important things I make time for.

Translation: I shall ignore what I have no answers for.

quote:

I've pointed out here OFTEN that Dr was very careful to mention in several places that "Believing equals receiving" is a crude approximation of the law of believing.

quote:

Many here have NOT been so careful to note the fine tuning Dr gave us in expressing this law.

which I call a law. This is how it works, and why it fails to work. If you follow these instructions precisely, you will get the results 100 times out of 100." If it HAD, there would have been a basis for making this claim. There, of course, WAS no such session because there IS no way to make believing work like a "LAW". You have to completely define ALL the conditions before even STARTING. THAT's not a "LAW". Under that type of "science", people "proved" Blacks had less cranial space than whites-

until someone did tests that DIDN'T define all the conditions....

I'm not even going to address your misunderstanding of gravity. Feel free to have the

scientists here try to explain it AGAIN. We HAVE discussed it before.....

quote:

I'm still learning about this latest angle, but so far it looks like what we were taught in the FOUNDATIONAL class was just the beginning of what needs to be learned about believing. The adversary does not have any power in the spiritual realm, and from that perspective (God's) the law never even appears to be violated.

So long as your understanding REQUIRES all information conform to the false doctrine

of the "law of believing", you'll waste your time.

quote:

There are so many details that have to be looked into here, but the complaints I always hear about how we were taught this law always come from people who have never or seldom grappled with the more advanced aspects of this law, only the foundational expressions of it in the Foundational Class.

It fails on its own rules as stated in BOTH Session One AND the Blue Book.

It's propped up by people like you who add all sorts of "exceptions".

quote:

I yearn to discuss these things with thinkers, not emotional complainers.

Translation: I wish everyone would agree with me for once and validate my false doctrines. All the people here, at all their IQ levels and education levels and

experience with pfal, all refute my doctrine.

quote:

There is much yet to learn about these things. For those who want to think a little deeper on this I'm repeating my post of last night, the one to which I referred to boldfaced words here.

Translation: I was refuted yesterday, so I'm going to try to ignore it and call for

a do-over. Here's how I try to claim that the mother killed that boy in the

hypothetical example-let's ignore all the real-world examples people brought up.

quote:

"God didn't kill that boy.

You know what killed that boy?

The fear

in the heart

in the life

of that mother.

--because that mother was just desperately afraid something was going to happen to her little Johnny. And she kept that fear and kept it, till one day it happened.

"Why? Because it's a law. It's a law. That which you are afraid of is what you are going to receive.

She was afraid of her boy,

she was afraid he was going to get killed.

She was afraid she was going to lose him and she did just that.

God didn't do it!

She did it with her own negative believing."

God was innocent-the mother was a murderer.

quote:

We've been over this umpteen times, but for the new people

God did not do it.

We object to you calling the mother the murderer.

quote:

Why doesn't anyone here focus on and discuss the "contributing factors" mentioned here?

This does NOT guarantee the kids die-which means this "law" that means you kill your

kid by worrying isn't a "law".

quote:

Why doesn't anyone here focus on and discuss the "ultimately made possible" mentioned here?

B) It blames a mother for a death she had nothing to do with.

C) It's based on a made-up example.

quote:

The woman focused on fear, when she had good advice to do the opposite.

What we select in our focus is important.

If we see ourselves developing great fear, it's wise to put on the brakes, learn how to control our minds, and find the protective promises of God to believe.

Controlling your mind is a good thing. It does NOT mean that this woman killed her

son.

quote:

What we should NOT do is condemn ourselves. If we see others falling into the fear trap, we should not condemn them, but help the out with kind words.

Translation: Yes, this woman killed her son, but don't condemn her for it.

Aaaaannd, here comes the commercial!

quote:

It is in THIS point (not Dr's teaching) that our TVT (Twi Verbal Tradition) went awry, and our experiences soured.

.

vpw said the woman killed her son. He was wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by What The Hay:

quote:

vpw said the mother was responsible for the sole reason of FEAR, and keeping FEAR.

Funny. I just re-read the exact same section that another Dr. of Theology had just read, and NO WHERE does VPW ever blame the mother herself for causing the death of her child. But he does blame her fear.

"Bombs don't kill people-EXPLOSIONS DO."

"Guns don't kill people-BULLETS DO."

Someone gets the gun, loads it, points it, and pulls the trigger.

If WTH was an attorney, he'd claim they weren't responsible for the victim dying from

a gunshot wound to the head.

I brought up the ridiculousness of claiming believing was a law-

and specifically, that the hypothetical mother murdered her hypothetical son

by way of her believing and using the driver as the murder weapon

(he had no choice-it was "A LAW". I pointed out how the survival of almost

every child whose parents worry about them as a complete FAILURE of the so-called

"LAW" which, apparently, fails more than 90% of the time.

(Could you imagine if GRAVITY had a 90% failure rate?)

Further, suffering comes to people who have NO people worrying about them.

So, the response this person gave to all that was this...

quote:

Originally posted by What The Hay:

quote:

Every morning, millions of children get home alive and unharmed.

I don't believe that fact matters much to any parent(s) who lost their kid(s) at Columbine. As I recall there was a similar situation like that which occurred in MN not long ago.

You might actually try READING my posts sometime. With understanding.

Columbine proves my point. According to your so-called "LAW", the tragedy there was

primarily due to great fear on behalf of the parents and students of the high school,

which by far exceeded the fear of parents and students in the rest of the country.

Only incidentally do the actual shooters become involved.

quote:

quote:

What you believe will surely come to pass, whether positive or negative. We've heard this all before.

Faith (doesn't matter if it is positive or negative .. Romans 10:17) comes by hearing. Faith, positive or negative still comes that way, even in 2005.

You can SAY "negative faith" is in the Bible, but, amazingly, no concordance

SHOWS this error-ridden phrase to appear in Scripture.

Fear is not good, fine. Faith in God is fine. If you still think "faith" is

independent upon the reliability of that which is believed, you're still thinking

Session One, and you're STILL divorced from the Bible.

quote:

But I can choose who or what I want to listen to just as easily as you can. But most people choose to listen to the "roar of the crowd." It's more like the roar of the lion rather than the crowd I believe. (1 Peter 5:8)

Labelling what other people believe doesnt affect them. That's sociology, not

Scripture.

quote:

Believing (whether it's negative or positive ) is nothing more than a seed one plants in their heart, and what one sows they ultimately reap - positive or negative

Now, THAT's what was taught in Session One.

quote:

- it just depends on what is sown.

NO.

WHAT is believed,

and WHO believes it does NOT enter the picture.

Adding those as factors is NOT what was taught.

It is changing pfal.

When you add to pfal, do you still have pfal?

Why add to pfal?

The failed "LAW" needs lots of excuses to explain its failure.

quote:

Plant a seed in the right conditions and it eventually sprouts and grows.

When did "conditions" come up in the class? You believed and it HAD to come to

pass, it was a "LAW."

You added "conditions" to pfal.

Why?

Because you needed excuses to explain the failure of this "LAW".

quote:

That shouldn't be a mystery to anyone here. Jesus taught the same thing in the gospel - in the parable of the sower and the seed.

Jesus didn't teach an immutable "Law of believing"-he taught to trust God, pray,

have confidence in God, and so on.

quote:

The only reason Mike can't plant this seed and expect much growth is because the ground here is rock hard.

once already. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

quote:

It's hardened by tradition, by religion, hardened by politics, by gossip, backbiting, and similar things people here want to talk about and listen to.

Labelling us out of your ignorance of our lives STILL doesn't change us.

quote:

At best, a different seed got planted and was sprouted.

Different than taught in Session One and by you? Yes-I agree.

quote:

quote:

Tell a lie, tell it big enough, and long enough, and loud enough, and the people will eventually believe you.

Quite a remark coming from someone who doesn't understand (or believe in) the law of believing and therefore rejects it.

B) It was one rule for pfal's success.

C) We "understand" the failed "law" of believing just fine. That's why we reject it.

We reject the "flat earth" doctrine also.

quote:

But frankly speaking, I do think they understand the law of believing because they couldn't make such a remark if they didn't.

quote:

They're just not being very truthful with us about it, so who's the one pushing the lie?

who's "pushing the lie"? Hint: someone keeps pushing something known to be untrue.

{quote]But let's not find fault with them just because they are not being truthful. Let's not find fault with them because they're BLAMELESS. Let's find fault with the one calling them LIARS for confronting lies with truth.

quote:

Most people aren't even true to themselves so why listen to them?

famous WTH sermons that have nothing to do with us..

quote:

It all starts right back at Romans 10:17. Well, that's what got us all in the soup to start with - listening to someone other than - well you know who...

Yeah-listening to vpw got us all in the soup for sure. Next thing you know, we're

buying all kinds of lies without subjecting them to critical evaluation,

like how a mother killed her child by worrying.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Hammeroni:

Just wondering- "fear is believing", and "doubt, worry, fear issuing in unbelief"- was this one of Vic's original thoughts, or was this plagiarised also? If so, where did he get it?

http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/rsr_lawbelieve.htm

And E.W. Kenyon.

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/posit.htm

Where did Kenyon get it?

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/461...faithtract.html

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

Not worry, but fear, extreme fear.

A semantic difference. The chart from Session I showed they were the same category,

making large amounts of worry functionally equivalent to large amounts of fear,

with both diametrically opposed to believing.

That chart was in the sessions, the Orange Book AND the syllabus, and the

Listening with a Purpose questions centered around it, making it cardinal to the

understanding of Session I.

BTW,

vpw showed a lot of students a pornographic movie with beastiality

in it, and described it for tens of thousands who didn't see it.

With more detail than was needed to make a point.

BTW,

did anyone see a specific point answered by the introduction of this

pornographic movie or its description?

If he was going somewhere with it, he took a wrong turn.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

Do you know what killed that little boy?

God didn't kill that boy.

You know what killed that boy?

The fear in the heart in the life of that mother--

because that mother was just desperately afraid something was going to happen to her little Johnny. And she kept that fear and kept it, till one day it happened.

Why? Because it's a law. It's a law. That which you are afraid of is what you are going to receive. She was afraid of her boy, she was afraid he was going to get killed. She was afraid she was going to lose him and she did just that.

God didn't do it!

She did it

with her own negative believing. Her own fears were the contributing factors that ultimately made possible the death of that little boy.

God did not do it.

Sometimes I feel like I'm trapped in the last episode of "Seinfeld."

See, the top button.....

Amazing. We've gone over this for YEARS.

This segment is based completely on a false doctrine and perpetuates error.

The hypothetical example given is a boy run over by a car.

Was it God's fault? No-AND NOBODY CLAIMED IT WAS, duh.

Was it the mother's fault? No-but vpw blamed her.

He claimed it's a LAW that if you worry something bad will happen to your child,

you are them RESPONSIBLE for MAKING something bad happen.

That is a vile error, and it is a lie to perpetuate it.

Every morning, millions of children are sent off to school.

Every morning, millions of parents worry something will happen to their children.

Every morning, millions of children get home alive and unharmed.

Every day, millions of children CONTINUE to come home unharmed despite worrying

parents.

Every day, someone's hit by a car and suffers serious injuries.

That's NOT because someone was in a panic that such a thing would happen to the

person. That's because there are bad drivers, there's suffering and evil in

the world, and we live in the world. Forcing them into a construct required

by an erroneous doctrine does them a disservice.

Some GSCers have pointed out they had parents who were TERRIFIED something would

happen to them, and nothing happened.

Other GSCers have had nobody worried about them, and bad things happened.

====

A child is struck by a car and killed.

Was God responsible? No.

Was his mother who wasn't there responsible? No.

Maybe the DRIVER was responsible.

did vpw blame the mother because the child was insufficiently socialized and

lacked experience?

No-although those MIGHT have helped-or they might not.

Children cross the street with the light every day and are hit by drivers

running red lights.

vpw said the mother was responsible for the sole reason of FEAR, and keeping FEAR.

vpw's construct didn't blame the DRIVER any-he was a humble pawn in the game-

this mother's fear FORCED him to hit the child. If not for her fear, the driver

would have driven safely. So, it's not his fault.

What a vile, vile thing to say!

To blame a victim!

This is as sensible as saying that the people who worked in the Twin Towers and

escaped had no fear, but the people in the upper stories who died were fearful.

According to vpw's construct, the FEAR in the HEARTS of the people in the upper

stories was the MAIN cause of their deaths,

and the planned and orchestrated hijackings, and hitting the planes into the

buildings, that was not only incidental, but the terrorists didn't have a choice

any more than that DRIVER did! The believing of those people dragged them along

and they were incidental, pawns under the FEAR of the people there.

Of course, the Police and Fire Dept people who went in and were inside when they

collapsed-despite their training, they must have been full of FEAR also, since

they had insufficient believing to escape alive. Odd how trained disaster

specialists were full of fear while some civilians were confident and escaped.

This must also mean that Todd Beamer ("Let's Roll") and the others on his flight

lacked sufficient believing to override the believing of a handful of terrorists

on their flight. If they had believed enough, they could have prevented their

crash as well.

Blame the Victim, Blame the Believer.

Session One.

quote:

Originally posted by Pirate1974:

Speaking of something that will turn your stomach.

quote:

Do you know what killed that little boy? You just quit yakking about anything else. You know what killed him. God didn't kill that boy. You know what killed that boy? The fear in the heart in the life of that mother--because that mother was just desperately afraid something was going to happen to her little Johnny. And she kept that fear and kept it, till one day it happened.

Why? Because it's a law. It's a law. That which you are afraid of is what you are going to receive. She was afraid of her boy, she was

afraid he was going to get killed. She was afraid she was going to lose him and she did just that. God didn't do it! She did it with her own negative believing. Her own fears were the contributing factors that ultimately made possible the death of that little boy.

Sometimes I think I must have just imagined that I heard that. Guess not.

No, you didn't. And it bore repeating.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

God judges righteously.

I make judgements as to what I am to focus on.

And to what you are to adamantly do your best to ignore and try to draw

attention from.

James Earl Jones

Coming to America

Eddie Murphy

I keep thinking of "Take Me to the River," because they share a line,

but it's not that old.

They would probably say the organization re-evaluated their listing after

communicating with them and seeing they were legit.

They would probably prefer to leave out the 'hefty donation' part.

*reads*

*does a search*

Thanks for posting that article.

However, that is NOT the guy we discussed before.

That was Dave Arneson, not David Sutherland.

Steve Lortz said

quote:

"Dungeons & Dragons, a collaborative effort between Arneson and

Gygax, was published late in '74. Sometime in the middle of that year, Arneson took PFAL.

Over the following years, Arneson "abundantly shared" tens of thousands of dollars

annually to TWI from his royalties off of "D&D."

The Trustees knew him, and were very friendly to his face. But we all know how they

stabbed his product behind his back.

Arneson never went into the Corps, but he was one of my spiritual partners during my

brief stint. He did go WOW one year.

We're still in touch, and still fiddling with games.

Zixar said

quote:

The first editions of D&D still say "by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson."

The 2nd D&D supplement, "Blackmoor" is credited entirely to him.

Dave Arneson was a believer who lived in St Paul, MN for a while. Don't know if he was

Corps or not, but he really did co-write the game.

So, the answer to your question is "probably not."

I mean, he COULD have taken it, but none of us heard he did, and we heard about

Dave Arneson.

I forgot about the "devil" reference.

Actually, he's wrong.

Sesame Street IS evil.

At least, This guy is.... see?

quote:

Originally posted by vickles:

I don't know, belle, it says that there was half a brain. That means she still had half a brain.

It said her brain "had atrophied to the point that it was just half of normal size."

That means that brain-damage was sufficient to "atrophy" the brain to 50%

of its original mass.

Her brain has wasted away 50% of its mass.

Mind you, losing 5% of your brain-function is a crippling injury.

Losing 50% probably is equal to or worse than death.

I'd rather die from something than survive with 50% of my brainmass.

What remains? The autonomic system? The cerebrum is less-protected,

so the thing you think with probably rotted away FIRST.

Next thing you know, I'll be hearing that nonsense about only using 10%

of your brain or something.

Compaq's website.

http://h18000.www1.hp.com/support/files/

That's the driver mainpage.

Select "Printers and digital imaging"

and go from there.

It might or might not fix the problem.

However, downloading the latest drivers certainly can't hurt.

I met and spoke with a man who was there.

I saw the number he was branded with when they imprisoned him.

He was not a Jew, but he never claimed the accounts were exaggerated, either.

If this on-line petition existed to INFORM it would contain INFORMATION.

There's no link to proposed legislation (that stuff is ONLINE),

and no specifics, like a bill#, a date, or a specific quote from proposed

legislation.

THEREFORE, the people behind this DO NOT WANT you to look this up.

The absence of a specific date or year (like "the Spring 2006 session will be

reviewing this legislation"), allowing this to pose as a general bugbear,

something to link to year after year.

According to this webpage, the organizations running this

"primarily focus on education and advocacy on important national issues"

(You LIE and we see that right on this page)

"educates voters..."

(You LIE and we see that right on this page)

and

" PRIMARILY HELPS MEMBERS ELECT CANDIDATES WHO REFLECT OUR VALUES."

The operative phrase being

"HELP ELECT CANDIDATES".

Is this thing just to alarm?

Well, besides being devoid of content,

it says they will eliminate funding

"STARTING WITH 'SESAME STREET'..."

They will START by cutting funding to Sesame Street?

There are people waiting with paperwork, eager to cut the funding to

Sesame Street?

Am I really stupid enough to believe you if you say

"Yes, there are people eager to do that"?

============

Ok, so this is not about informing or stopping the cutting of funds.

What is it about?

Well, let's see what it does.

The ONLY way it provides for you to help AT ALL is to provide your personal

information and e-mail address.

Its disclaimer-if you keep reading-says

"We may, for example, provide compilations of petitions,

with your comments, to the President and legislators...

We may also make your comments, along with your city, state and country

available to the press and public online.

We will send you updates by e-mail."

So,

secondarily, it's to increase their mailing list.

Primarily, it's to separate your comments from their context and use them

for their own purposes.

Didn't we have enough of this in twi?

Huey Lewis

Back to the Future

Crispin Glover

Riddle:

"Why did Job have trouble sleeping?"

"He had miserable comforters."

======

Job's miserable comforters saw a man suffering,

having suffered financial disaster,

loss of family,

and physical affliction.

What was their response?

"Oh, you must have been a terrible sinner!

It's your fault!"

Kicked him when he was down.

GOD said Job was "BLAMELESS."

vpw said Job was to be blamed-

it was Job's "failure to believe" that resulted in horrible things.

vpw, lcm, pfal and twi as a whole have placed themselves firmly in the

"miserable comforters" category.

Well, besides singing "Power of Love" on the soundtrack,

Huey Lewis had a walkon role in the band audition scene of

"Back to the Future". :)-->

So, now someone can just link off another actor off the movie....