Oakspear

Okay, there's the guideline, BELIEVE - yeah, I get it, I can still read the bible - but it still goes back to, how do you know, other than in hindsight whether you are "believing" or not. If the only way you can tell is after the fact, then it's circular. If you're speculating that perhaps that's my perception, then you are incorrect, just trying to understand the logic of which ones get answered and which ones don't; fairness is another topic in my opinion. Yup, from a bible-believing standpoint I would agree with you 100%, but if you think that you're believing but aren't getting results, how can you know in advance taht you're not? Hey if it works for you, go for it, but do you even know when you're going to get results and when not? I would guess that the answer is "no". But I could be wrong No, it isn't moot if I am interested in the answer, and dismissing me as a non-Christian (if that's what you are doing) is not answering the question. And I respect that and am happy that you are secure in that. But we're having a discussion here, you're free of course to reply with "that's just what I believe" but it doesn't really further the discussion. I'm not trying to trash your beliefs.

Honey Weiss, Bigg Butt , Red and Creamy dark for me Oops! Sorry! :unsure: I understand, so are you saying that it's basically the loving father taking care of you as he sees fit model, or something like it? I don't think that the folks who pray for specifics are trying to "yank God's chain" - just trying to understand how belief in answered prayer can be reconciled with the lack of answers. :)

Depends on your point of view

Okay JL, you're right, though I can't offhand think of any, lets stipulate that there are verses that describe asking/praying for specific things. My problem with that is there seems to be no rhyme or reason to when prayers get results and when they don't. Now I'm not arguing that results never follow prayer. If you, for instance say that you prayed for a case of Leinenkugel's beer, and I showed up on your doorstep with a case of Lenenkugel for you, then you would have indeed received as you believed. I would be a fool to try and argue that you didn't pray and an even bigger fool to argue that I didn't have the beer! (There's 23 bottles to a case, right? ) - I won't even argue (I'll save it for some other thread) that you don't know that God supplied the beer or that it was coindicence etc. I'm willing to stipulate for the sake of this discussion that God worked in me to get you that beer, thus answering your prayer. Here's my problem: what are the guidelines for when prayer gets answered and when it doesn't? There doesn't seem to be any. Some say "believe". Well and good; but other than in hindsight concluding that believing didn't take place because receiving did not occur, how do we know when we're believing or not? Why oh why do some prayers yield the desired results and some do not? I can think of several reasons: 1) God is a loving father who supplies our needs as he sees fit without regard to our wants or requests. Sometimes there will be a concurrence of what we ask for and what God says we need, sometimes not. So asking is not strictly necessary. or 2) Maybe it is formulaic. Perhaps this receiving is more along the lines of what magickal practioners or the writer of "The Secret" envision (or VP Wierwille), that there is some mental manipulation of reality that is limited by our skill at it. Those who are bad at this magic will get worse reults than those who are good at it. Kind of like how throwing a baseball is a skill. Even the best pitchers don't throw stikes 100% of the time. I have no issue with you Christians wanting your view of prayer to match the bible, but I would imagine that it should match real world results as well.

I don't know if anyone ever "protected" me. I was "in" from 1978-1983 and 1990-2001. In the first stint our twigs were for the most part self governing, self propagating and self supporting/sufficient. I believe that part of this was that the Way Corps were spread thin enough that top-down control was difficult. We had a Limb Coordinator who was also the Region Coordinator. This was New York, so he had lots of ground to cover. Under him was an Area (later Territory) Coordinator who oversaw 9 or 10 branches, each with at least 7 twigs. Not one branch leader was a Way Corps grad. Many twig coordinators weren't Advanced Class grads. People just rose up when needed. They were more facilitators than leaders. They didn't think they could tell people what to do. This was from March 1978 through August 1980. Toward the end of my stay in TWI in the late 90's the ratio of Way Corps to rank & file believers was much closer. Two Way Corps couples for 4 or 5 twigs in the entire state. By that time leaders toed the party line or were out. Sheilding anyone from anything was tantamount to calling in devil spirits. It was a time of suspicion.

I think the difference between what Shifra posterd: ...and what you are talking about Mr. Lingo, is the difference between expecting God will work it all out for you, because he loves you, and accepting when it doesn't go as planned, and asking for specific things and expecting exactly what you asked. After all, what do you do when you don't get what you ask for? (rhetorical question)And nobody always gets what they pray for. If you're praying for these specifics, but excusing it somehow when you don't receive, how is that different than what Shifra posted?

paging Invisible Dan, Marcion alert at the front doctrinal desk...paging Invisible Dan

The devil icon is winking

F---ing spelling police

A lot of you guys who are touting "believing", or quoting bible verses that talk about believing aren't for the most part talking about what was taught in PFAL. Saw this a lot even while still in. Wierwille very clearly taught some things about "The Law of Believing", some folks modified what he taught either to line it up with reality or with the bible. There were even "official" teachings that altered Wierwille's dogma. But no one ever came out and said that Wierwille was wrong in his initial teachings, nor did the attitude of blame ever really change. A couple of you guys are emphasizing that one had to believe God to get any kind of results, yet that's not really what Wierwille taught. Saint & sinner alike!

Yeah, welcome to this place that is bad.

Perhaps Jesus was mistaken. Or he was misquoted. He certainly doesn't seem to be right on this one But believing what exactly? TWI's version was to believe for what you wanted/needed as long as it was "available" and you knew how to receive and what to do with it. Formulaic. It doesn't seem to be what prayer is all about in the bible. You ask, God decides whether he wants to pony up and you get what you prayed for or you don't.

The "revelation" to send you to Idaho must have changed Physical danger on the WOW field was always downplayed, if not ignored (just believe Gawd) and the idea of two single guys living with two single women shut plenty of doors in some of the areas that WOWs went to.

I've never met a person who could honestly say that their "believing" produced the prayed-for results 100% of the time. Blaming yourself (or letting others blame you) for lack of "receiving" is in essence making excuses for the "Law" not working as advertised. And I'm not saying that the incidents you or anyone else described didn't happen. This isn't a "Does God exist?" or a "Does God Answer Prayer?" discussion. But "The Law of Believing" was presented as a works-all-the-time, 100% guaranteed, just-follow-the-steps type of deal. It wasn't. The way it was taught in TWI the one who didn't "receive" was condemned. The problem with the "Law of Believing" was that we were convinced that it always worked, even when it didn't, so convinced that we had ready-made weasel words at hand for the many times that it didn't. Lack of results didn't faze us. I'm sure ExC can speak up for herself, but what does knowing you have to do with commenting on your posts? She obviously feels that the description is apt, based on your written words.

The "Law" of Believing as practiced by TWI was circular reasoning. Believing = Receiving "But I believed and didn't receive!" "Then you didn't really believe!" Sure most of us can point to bible verses that say (or seem to say) believing = receiving, and many of us can dredge from our memory situations where we "believed" for something and received it, but the "Law" put us at the center of the universe, everything that happened to us was caused by our thoughts, so of course we had to be "reproved" when the bad things happened because, after all, we had caused them to occur! Think about the pressure that we were under: every single thing that affected outr lives was under our control :o

Agree or disagree, the Unseen One has done more studying than most folks on GS. You may not agree with his conclusions, but he has done his homework.

Been re-reading your own posts again? Why would the moderators kick you out? Would getting kicked out confirm your martyr status? That's right. Anyone can have an opinion. Anyone can post that opinion. Anyone else can disagree with it. Or if you change your mind and post something negative johniam will call your posting "stupidity" - or maybe a newer newbie will criticize you for being here Which is a lot better than criticizing us for our beliefs

Thanks, I appreciate the sentiment; may the Goddess bless you Doubt it. You don't even know me. There is a feature where you can read all of my posts. That'll tell you. But I don't think that you really want to know. I disagree. Why do you think so? Apparently you think that I do See above Sure. And I do those better things. Sorry, I'm not one of those. Y'know, some of the people here got me through a rough time in my life. It may not be my home, but in some ways they are my family.

JL: I remember him using the ballo, ball, throw thing when he was talking about lambano, which makes it weirder, but at the time I took it as the method that he used to remember his made-up definitions of dechomai and lambano.

When I first took PFAL I was taken in by Wierwille's enthusiasm and by his confidence. I didn't know enough to argue with him and he made what seemed to be sense at the time. By the time I left TWI I had seen enough made-up definitions of Greek and Hebrew words, references to documents that nobody else had seen, assertions that there just "had to be" a text that backed up one of his positions despite there being overwhelming evidense to the contrary, numerous mentions of what "the original" said when he also said there were no originals, twisting of verses and contexts that would have made a pretzel maker envious, screwy applications of obscure verses...that I threw it all out. If any of my current beliefs line up with PFAL it is purely by coincidence.

Whitey: I disagree that it is dishonest; inflammatory maybe, but dishonest, no. The most common Hitler-Wierwille comparison that I have seen goes like this: Poster A: Wierwille did such-and-such bad thing Poster B: So what? He taught me The Word (or substitute some other good that Wierwille did) Poster A: (Thinking that poster B is excusing Wierwille's bad behavior due to some positives) Well Hitler did some good too! The comparison is made, not to show that Wierwille is as evil as Hitler, or that he committed the attrocities that Hitler did (I'm speaking in general here), but that even someone as evil as Hitler did some things that were perceived as good so therefore bringing up any good that Wierwille did as a mitigating factor for the bad doesn't hold any water. Raf makes a similar point in his Dahmer comparison. He is not saying that Wierwille ate people, but that even someone as depraved as Dahmer wasn't always eating people, there were some people that he didn't eat, and in some contexts he probably did some good things. The problem with invoking Hitler, Dahmer, Attila the Hun, et al is that they are names that push buttons, they bring out a reaction far in excess of the point being made. Which is perhaps part of the point being made.

C'mon WD, do you really believe that, or are you just annoyed that people aren't showing the proper respect for Wierwille? If you compared someone to a liar, showed them a picture of Pinochio (sp?), or even said that he was like a liar, what would be the point of comparison? You'd be calling them a liar. The point isn't that anyone is pretending that using a figure of speech to make a point about Wierwille makes it anything other than what it is: pointing out something negative about him. The point is that the figure of speech is a valid comparison even if there isn't similarity on all points. Maybe, but the point is that a figure of speech will not be literally true, nor need there be a similarity on all points for it to be valid. No poster has ever suggested that Wierwille was like Hitler in all points. Various posters have used the Hitler analogy to make different points.

I believe that you missed the point. The point of a figure of speech is that it's not literally true.

On another thread someone compared Wierwille to Hitler and another compared him to Jeffrey Dahmer. Still another poster (actually more than one) took exception to the Hitler comparison pointing out that Wierwille didn't kill people, etc, expressing the opinion that the comparison was absurd. Can some people not understand the concept of analogies, metaphors and other figures of speech, or for that matter, exaggeration? Generally the Hitler analogy comes up in response to pro-Wierwille posters tossing out the old "Wierwille did some good" or "he taught me the Word" rationale. The anti-Wierwille response goes along the lines of "yeah...well Hitler did some good too...". The idea is not that Wierwille was exactly like Hitler in all particulars, but that the fact that he also did good as well as evil is a valid point for comparison. A figure of speech is by its very definition not literal, so why do so many act like it is?

"L" for "Lingo"?