Also, isn't meekness one of the fruits of the spirit SIT is supposed to produce? So where was the meekness. One of the posts here tells the story of a friend (a researcher) approaching RR With where they strayed. She told him: "I know the bible." And promptly fired him. (Guess RR also means railroad.) Its practacly legendary that you questioned werewolf and he sent you packing.
Yeah, those guys started to remind me of the corruption depicted in the Roman Catholic church in the movie "Martin Luther". Gobs of money pouring in to the Vatican, and "excommunications" issued to anyone that dare question their authority or direction by quoting the Bible.
This is a critical point that needs to be defined, "works" and what that means.
The Way's teachings indicated that by speaking in tongues one result would be a set of "fruits" that would be produced as a result of speaking in tongues....other benefits, like "spiritual perception", etc. that are being referenced here.
I use the word "indicated" because if the doctrinal points on speaking in tongues, manifestations in general and "walking worthy" are lined up there's significant overlap. (a lot of subject titles and labels would capture those elements, probably others too).
It would be incorrect however to say that what a person experiences as "fruit of the spirit" is solely the result of - only - speaking in tongues, or "operating" any one of the "manifestations" as they were taught by the Way.
It simply won't happen, for the kinds of reasons noted here - if a person live's in sin, does wrong, breaks any and all commandments, standards, and moral and ethical instructions at will that are contained in the bible and can't even observe simple common sense for any length of time - but still says they "speak in tongues" .... "a lot" ....they aren't going to have the kinds of things listed in Galatians (and other places) like "joy" or "peace", or more broadly a "godly" life that reflects the example and teachings of Jesus Christ or His earliest followers. .
Someone may wallow fat and happy in their tub of toxic lard lifestyle and call that by the same names, but the criteria for "receiving the things of God" isn't the result of doing one thing and only that one thing to the exclusion of everything else. The true "abundant life in all of it's manifestations" or whatever simply won't be realized that way.
That doesn't mean people won't try to say that's what they're living. If they're not, they'll be found liars upon even a cursory examination.
"SIT bypasses that part of the reasoning part of the mind blah blah?"
The critical component that I understood from the Way's teachings while in the Way and that I still believe is supportable by scripture is that speaking in tongues - whatever it is - is private and personal. It doesn't inform or reflect human religious edicts or even expectations. I do sympathasize with anyone who was misled or somehow found their brain mushing in as a result of what they did. I simply know that hasn't been the case for myself, my wife or many others.
The critical component that I understood from the Way's teachings while in the Way and that I still believe is supportable by scripture is that speaking in tongues - whatever it is - is private and personal. It doesn't inform or reflect human religious edicts or even expectations. I do sympathasize with anyone who was misled or somehow found their brain mushing in as a result of what they did. I simply know that hasn't been the case for myself, my wife or many others.
That there is a non-uniform expression from those who have experienced with the natural phenomenon of SIT . . . would indicate there may be no intended purpose, design, or selection for its use. If wearing a thong helps one's batting average . . . have at it.
I drop a ball, it hits the ground. I don't drop a ball expecting it to go into orbit. The law of gravity works. Not only does it work in that context, but also in the context of sending a man to the moon.
The ministry said the word of God worked with a mathamtical accuracy, and a scientific percision (If I had a 1/100 of a penny for everytime I heard that, I'd be buying out Bill Gates). The SIT was suppose to supercharge prayer, fatten up your spirit, which in return produces fruit of the spirit.
It was also supposed to improve that connection between you and God, hence, if prophets were walking with God, they would be SITting, and therefore God would have clue them to some of the neferious goings on. Further, if the prophets were SITting they would know they had truth on their side and have nothing to fear from werewolf. God was his silver bullet.
If I flick a light switch and the light doesn't go on, I don't say well electricity is above my comprehension, so I'll just sit in the dark. I look at the bulb, then the switch, then the circuitry, trying to find the error.
But, then, I've always been a big fan of the scientific method: Thesis, experiment, observation, adjustment.
"That there is a non-uniform expression from those who have experienced with the natural phenomenon of SIT . . . would indicate there may be no intended purpose, design, or selection for its use."
That's not what I meant, or wrote, but it's an interesting observation.
Interesting concept, Ham. And, if I understand what you are saying, you're not telling anyone NOT to pray, simply suggesting they use some method other than SIT. You know, like your primary language, whatever that may be. Isn't there something in the Bible about God knowing your heart, knowing every single hair on your head and all that stuff? So if you used the wrong word or phrased something poorly, would that have any adverse effect? I'm just sayin'
No speaking in tongues. Verboten.. for at least six months..
what would happen?
scary thought for some..
really what would happen..
da almighty would be forced to go on some kind of vacation..
if my actions dictate what the Almighty has to do with his spare time..
sowy. It's scarey thoughts here..
so what really happens?
I dares you. Spend three months. No speaking in tongues..
will that make you any less spiritual or something?
just three stinking months..
What would happen? Its like the government thretening to shut down if there's no continuing resolution. Wouldn't it be something if everything continued along as if nothing had happened?
Who are you talking to here ham and So_C? Are you talking directly to me? Or are you talking to well, I don't know who it would be. Your descriptors here, "dares", assorted "scary" thoughts and propositions and other comments about "three stinking months" - not sure what you're trying to say, if it's to me.
Who are you talking to here ham and So_C? Are you talking directly to me? Or are you talking to well, I don't know who it would be. Your descriptors here, "dares", assorted "scary" thoughts and propositions and other comments about "three stinking months" - not sure what you're trying to say, if it's to me.
I'll try to craft my response appropriately.
I was responding to Ham's comment. I was agreeing eith Ham: if one stops SITting buses continue being late, lovers contiue being untrue, politicians continue to lie, utility companies continue to overcharge and somehow reality continues on its merry way.
Again, if not the minisries purpose, just what does SITting do?
During an interview on 2006-SEP-20 by Steve Paulson, Andrew Newberg -- Associate Professor of Radiology, Psychiatry, and Religious Studies and Director for the Center for Spirituality and the Mind, at the University of Pennsylvania -- said that the region of the brain involved in language is not activated when a person speaks in tongues. He said:
"Speaking in tongues is a very unusual kind of vocalization. It sounds like the person is speaking a language, but it’s not comprehensible. And when people have done linguistic analyses of speaking in tongues, it does not correspond to any clear linguistic structure. So it seems to be distinct from language itself. That’s interesting because we did not see activity in the language areas of the brain. Of course, if somebody is a deep believer in speaking in tongues, the source of the vocalizations is very clear. It’s coming from outside the person. It’s coming through the spirit of God. 11
They found decreased activity in the brain's frontal lobes, an area associated with self-control. One of the researchers, Andrew Newberg, said: "It’s fascinating because these subjects truly believe that the spirit of God is moving through them and controlling them to speak." The data partly confirms the subjects' beliefs. In fact, the subjects are not in control of their usual language centers as they spoke in tongues.
edit: Please note that it doesn't say the subjects themselves are out of control. It says they are not in control of those portions of the frontal lobes that are associated with language. In other words, as has been noted, it is quite possible to dribble a basket ball and speak in tongues at the same time.
Very interesting. In my last post I said I could SIT and think in English at the same time because SIT doesn't require my "senses mind". Compare with..."the region of the brain involved in language is not activated when a person speaks in tongues."
However..." Of course, if somebody is a deep believer in speaking in tongues, the source of the vocalizations is very clear. It’s coming from outside the person. It’s coming through the spirit of God."
Not so fast. God's spirit teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit. NOT from outside the person.
Also...""It’s fascinating because these subjects truly believe that the spirit of God is moving through them and controlling them to speak." Nope. Maybe his subjects did, but I sure don't believe I'm being controlled.
I don't know, John. According to the chart illustrating The Great Principle, the originating source is outside one's self.
quote: This is The Great Principle, as stated many times in the foundational, intermediate and advanced classes.:
"God's spirit teaches His creation in you which is now your spirit and your spirit teaches your mind and is manifested in the senses realm as you act."
Wierwille also stated that "God, being spirit, can only speak to that which he is, spirit."
So, if God, being spirit, can not talk to your mind, how is it that YOUR spirit, being spirit, can?
In essence, if The Great Principle is true, the only people that God has talked to down through the ages are either born-again Christians or people who have had the spirit placed on them conditionally on an ad hoc basis.
Sounds rather limiting, in my opinion.
I'll choose the limits of the great principle over the limits of an assoc. prof of radiology, psychiatry, and whatever any old time.
I see what was wrote . . . sorry if I've missed your point.
I can see how SIT would benefit a few individuals personally. That would be the individual's quirk. There seems to be a suggestion that those who don't see a benefit simply aren't doing it right or haven't truly experienced SIT. (In general, not from anyone in particular).
I don't buy that it opens us up to suggestion. Orchestrated amidst other mindless activity, it might play some role in being influenced. That would depend on the individual as well, IMO.
quote: This is The Great Principle, as stated many times in the foundational, intermediate and advanced classes.:
"God's spirit teaches His creation in you which is now your spirit and your spirit teaches your mind and is manifested in the senses realm as you act."
Wierwille also stated that "God, being spirit, can only speak to that which he is, spirit."
So, if God, being spirit, can not talk to your mind, how is it that YOUR spirit, being spirit, can?
In essence, if The Great Principle is true, the only people that God has talked to down through the ages are either born-again Christians or people who have had the spirit placed on them conditionally on an ad hoc basis.
Sounds rather limiting, in my opinion.
I'll choose the limits of the great principle over the limits of an assoc. prof of radiology, psychiatry, and whatever any old time.
There were two problems with this, as has been said a number of times before.
A) If God Almighty can only speak to spirit BECAUSE HE IS SPIRIT, the principle here would be
"only spirit can communicate with spirit."
If vpw's statement here was correct- "God can only speak to that which he is"- then the only thing spirit can
communicate with IS spirit- which means that The Great Principle fails.
The Great Principle, according to vpw...
"God who is Spirit, communicates with his creation in you, which is now your spirit, which then communicates with your
mind. Then it becomes manifested in the senses realm as you act."
Here's where it fails...
"...your spirit, which then communicates with your mind."
According to vpw, God Almighty, the Creator of Heavens and Earth, is UNABLE to communicate with a mind directly-
BECAUSE HE IS SPIRIT. vpw then goes on to say your far punier spirit communicates with your mind.
vpw obviously didn't understand what other men taught sometimes when he parroted their phrases in an attempt to
claim it was all his work. (We fell for it anyway.)
Then again, as has also been pointed out before, vpw also came out with other obviously incorrect statements
on the subject.
"God is Spirit, and God can only give that which He is."
As Raf has pointed out before, this is obviously false.
God gave manna in the desert. (Approximately 12,480 times, if my math is correct.)
God is not manna.
God gave that which He is NOT- over 12,000 times to go by the sole account of manna in the desert.
This statement of vpw is manifestly incorrect.
vpw's claims grossly limited God in each instance.
"God can only speak to" limited God's many forms of communication.
If necessary, we waste time going into accounts of God speaking to that which is not spirit
(beginning with Genesis 3:8, the first instance where God speaks to flesh that lacks spirit.)
However, it should already be clear God Almighty is able to communicate whenever and wherever He wishes,
to whatsoever He wishes.
"God can only give that which He is" severely limits God's ability to give, God's abundance.
Sorry, I can accept that an enemy of God would make such a claim
(like in Genesis 3:2, where God's abundance is excluded when "freely" is excluded),
but not any competent servant of God, not any competent man or woman of God.
1) 2 Cor. 5:17a - Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (creation)..Who says God can't create a mind/spirit bond which never existed before. Christ paved the way for this.
2) When VP said God can only talk to what He is, it was in the context of God telling Adam "thou shalt surely die" and how Adam lived for what? 930 years, but his spirit connection with God is what died. I really don't have a problem with the idea that VP got some things wrong. When God said that to Adam there were no other humans around and I DON'T think God talked directly to animals.
I really don't see where the limit is. Someone could say why only Jesus? Why can't I get born again by being a Buddha follower? That isn't fair! Why is God so limited? Yet we read "No man cometh unto the Father but by me" (Jesus). Is that God being limited?
I don't think that God can't put thoughts in the mind of one who isn't born again. Or speak in an audible voice, for that matter.
OK, 3 things.
3) As for SIT, it still feels like honey on my tongue. The first time I did it was a life changing moment. Every session 12 I was ever at there was this powerful presence in the room when everybody SIT'd. Is it a guarantee that the person will thereafter always live virtuously? No. But it's good enough for me.
My personal opinion. I think a lot of the intellectualization and over explanation was just to fatique the intellect so it would accept anything. A method very common in brainwashing. Overload the intellect, everything sinks right into the unconcious and increases suggestability. Why do you think the classes went on so long?
I find the story about how vp filmed the class amuzing. I was told he filmed it for 24 hours straight, putting ice cubes on his eyes between takes. "Why film for 24 hours straight and risk burning your retinas to a crisp?" I asked. "The days are evil," was the response. And this troops is why werewolf wears glasses. He sacrificed his eyesight to teach the word of God.
Yah, now we know he had ocular cancer and that's why he wore glasses.
Wierwille said that people in the O.T. were only able to communicate with God when
God placed spirit ON them. He further stated that this placement was conditional. If they violated the conditions, God would remove the spirit and render them incommunicado. When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost the spirit that was placed on them conditionally, thus, losing their connection with God. (according to Wierwille). As WordWolf has shown in his latest post, this is contradicted by verses 7 and 8 of Genesis.
7.And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8. And they heard the voice of the Lord God ....
So----They violated the conditions, leaving them spiritless yet were still able to hear the voice of God?
How, within the constructs of "The Great Principle" is that possible?
1) 2 Cor. 5:17a - Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (creation)..Who says God can't create a mind/spirit bond which never existed before. Christ paved the way for this.
My objection would be if you were saying-as it sounded- like you were trying to excuse vpw
for making the gaffe about God-and spirit-being unable to communicate with anything BUT spirit.
The idea of God Almighty, the Creator of the Universe, untold galaxies, and so on, who calculated
the times so precisely that the constellations tell the times, and the tiny vibrations of the atoms
are our DEFINITION of time, would be UNABLE to do something by virtue of lacking the ability
(communicating with anything that is not spirit),
well, I find that, to say the least, wildly improbable.
A MUCH better case would have to be made than vpw's bald assertions.
Which is more likely- that vpw made a mistake, or that the Almighty is hardly "all mighty" and
lacks the ability to do useful things that he later gave us the ability to do?
2) When VP said God can only talk to what He is, it was in the context of God telling Adam "thou shalt surely die" and how Adam lived for what? 930 years, but his spirit connection with God is what died. I really don't have a problem with the idea that VP got some things wrong. When God said that to Adam there were no other humans around and I DON'T think God talked directly to animals.
I really don't see where the limit is. Someone could say why only Jesus? Why can't I get born again by being a Buddha follower? That isn't fair! Why is God so limited? Yet we read "No man cometh unto the Father but by me" (Jesus). Is that God being limited?
I don't think that God can't put thoughts in the mind of one who isn't born again. Or speak in an audible voice, for that matter.
No qualifier was made when vpw made his bald assertions like
"God is Spirit, and God can only communicate with what He is"
and "God is Spirit, and God can only give what He is".
Given how silly these statements are when someone isn't blindly memorizing them,
but is just examining them, you'd think an immediate explanation and correction would follow.
However, I think he was skipping over helping OUR understanding because HE didn't really
understand either statement like whoever he plagiarized it from- Leonard, Stiles, Bullinger...
I agree with you that God CAN put thoughts in the mind of one who isn't born again, or speak in an
audible voice. (We can both comfortably agree with the Bible there.) This also allows us to skip over
elaborate explanations forced on the Old Testament to make it conform to pfal,
like adding the imposition of spirit on Balaam's donkey instead of God just making a miracle,
or adding spirit to a pagan king-against his will- for an undefined short period so that vpw could
claim to understand how the writing on the wall worked.
OK, 3 things.
3) As for SIT, it still feels like honey on my tongue. The first time I did it was a life changing moment. Every session 12 I was ever at there was this powerful presence in the room when everybody SIT'd. Is it a guarantee that the person will thereafter always live virtuously? No. But it's good enough for me.
Couple quick notes wordwolf - I always appreciate your methodical approach. in regards to the mind, God' speaking to, working in, etc. the mind of man....
First off - I agree that the overall doctrinal position of PFAL on this and the "Great Principle" isn't presented clearly. I'm not interested in defending or denying the Great Principle as a point of doctrine as I don't hold it to be a point of reference for myself, rather to clarify this:
If God Almighty can only speak to spirit BECAUSE HE IS SPIRIT, the principle here would be "only spirit can communicate with spirit." If vpw's statement here was correct- "God can only speak to that which he is"- then the only thing spirit can
communicate with IS spirit- which means that The Great Principle fails.
VPW's teaching on this revolves around 3 basic concepts - 1. "soul", the life of man - 2. "mind", the intellectual, logical ("moral" by another word although there's theology that would argue against me on that) and emotional facility of man - and lastly "spirit", the life of all living things.
As I'm sure you know the greek words in the N.T. for each are - psuche, nous, and pneuma, translated into a variety of English words. They aren't defined or translated as tight as that in every usage.
In brief, PFAL's position is/was that that the psuche or soul of man was "pheuma", spirit - but "not eternal life spirit" or "pneuma hagion". I believe the phrasing goes "all life is spirit but not all life is eternal life spirit" in the "Advanced" class. For something to be alive requires a "life force" of spirit, pneuma. God is "holy spirit", and the life force (it's an odd phrase but it's used in a lot of literature so hey) of God is eternal, among other things. God "breathed" life into man and man became a "living soul". VPW held that the life of man and the life of God were different however - similar in essence of what they are but different in qualities - and when man had that pneuma of God he shared directly in the life of God.
The "nous", the mind of man was taught as part of man's life, the psuche and was therefore hmmm...resident in his soul life. Again, limited in scope but not entirely unlike the life and mind of God. (and I would contend that when the Bible states man was "created in the image of God" it's more than a single component of pneuma hagion - which PFAL also taught - but that's another topic).
God's pneuma could be in communication with man's psuche at any time, by God's decision and in a relatively direct way because -well, like for like might express what I see there in PFAL. "Pneuma" is pneuma, albeit not "pneuma hagion" in every instance. Man with pneuma hagion could commune directly with God, "two-way", anytime, all the time, etc.
That allows for "God who is spirit" to speak to/teach man's "pneuma" or to "pneuma hagion" or "new life" spirit and for that "creation" in man to speak to man's mind. Put another way, it's spirit talking to spirit throughout the process.
That's about the sum of what I understand to have been taught in PFAL - given that the mind of man (the nous) is part of the life or soul of man (psuche) and life is spirit (pneuma), and God is holy spirit (pneuma hagion) the ingredients are all "spirit" or "life" based and therefore share some of the same functionality.
Greek philosophy - Plato f'instance saw the mind or "nous" of man as a part of the "life", the psuche of man. There's a lot of different strains of thought on this and not all are completely exclusive of the way these ideas are used in the Bible IMO.
I would say today that these ideas aren't as exclusive to each other as modern Christianity (last 100 years or so) have made them out to be in an effort to make all things "5 senses" exclusive to anything "spiritual". Life is a much broader expanse and doesn't fall into these container like categories so easily, IMO. But hey - like the wood carver said , "I take it a whittle at a time".
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
17
18
41
13
Popular Days
Sep 9
48
Sep 11
40
Sep 13
22
Mar 21
12
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 17 posts
Ham 18 posts
waysider 41 posts
anotherDan 13 posts
Popular Days
Sep 9 2007
48 posts
Sep 11 2007
40 posts
Sep 13 2007
22 posts
Mar 21 2010
12 posts
chockfull
Yeah, those guys started to remind me of the corruption depicted in the Roman Catholic church in the movie "Martin Luther". Gobs of money pouring in to the Vatican, and "excommunications" issued to anyone that dare question their authority or direction by quoting the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
" If SIT works "
This is a critical point that needs to be defined, "works" and what that means.
The Way's teachings indicated that by speaking in tongues one result would be a set of "fruits" that would be produced as a result of speaking in tongues....other benefits, like "spiritual perception", etc. that are being referenced here.
I use the word "indicated" because if the doctrinal points on speaking in tongues, manifestations in general and "walking worthy" are lined up there's significant overlap. (a lot of subject titles and labels would capture those elements, probably others too).
It would be incorrect however to say that what a person experiences as "fruit of the spirit" is solely the result of - only - speaking in tongues, or "operating" any one of the "manifestations" as they were taught by the Way.
It simply won't happen, for the kinds of reasons noted here - if a person live's in sin, does wrong, breaks any and all commandments, standards, and moral and ethical instructions at will that are contained in the bible and can't even observe simple common sense for any length of time - but still says they "speak in tongues" .... "a lot" ....they aren't going to have the kinds of things listed in Galatians (and other places) like "joy" or "peace", or more broadly a "godly" life that reflects the example and teachings of Jesus Christ or His earliest followers. .
Someone may wallow fat and happy in their tub of toxic lard lifestyle and call that by the same names, but the criteria for "receiving the things of God" isn't the result of doing one thing and only that one thing to the exclusion of everything else. The true "abundant life in all of it's manifestations" or whatever simply won't be realized that way.
That doesn't mean people won't try to say that's what they're living. If they're not, they'll be found liars upon even a cursory examination.
"SIT bypasses that part of the reasoning part of the mind blah blah?"
The critical component that I understood from the Way's teachings while in the Way and that I still believe is supportable by scripture is that speaking in tongues - whatever it is - is private and personal. It doesn't inform or reflect human religious edicts or even expectations. I do sympathasize with anyone who was misled or somehow found their brain mushing in as a result of what they did. I simply know that hasn't been the case for myself, my wife or many others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
That there is a non-uniform expression from those who have experienced with the natural phenomenon of SIT . . . would indicate there may be no intended purpose, design, or selection for its use. If wearing a thong helps one's batting average . . . have at it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Socks:
Works to me defines itself.
I drop a ball, it hits the ground. I don't drop a ball expecting it to go into orbit. The law of gravity works. Not only does it work in that context, but also in the context of sending a man to the moon.
The ministry said the word of God worked with a mathamtical accuracy, and a scientific percision (If I had a 1/100 of a penny for everytime I heard that, I'd be buying out Bill Gates). The SIT was suppose to supercharge prayer, fatten up your spirit, which in return produces fruit of the spirit.
It was also supposed to improve that connection between you and God, hence, if prophets were walking with God, they would be SITting, and therefore God would have clue them to some of the neferious goings on. Further, if the prophets were SITting they would know they had truth on their side and have nothing to fear from werewolf. God was his silver bullet.
If I flick a light switch and the light doesn't go on, I don't say well electricity is above my comprehension, so I'll just sit in the dark. I look at the bulb, then the switch, then the circuitry, trying to find the error.
But, then, I've always been a big fan of the scientific method: Thesis, experiment, observation, adjustment.
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
"That there is a non-uniform expression from those who have experienced with the natural phenomenon of SIT . . . would indicate there may be no intended purpose, design, or selection for its use."
That's not what I meant, or wrote, but it's an interesting observation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
what would happen.. gawd forbid.
No speaking in tongues. Verboten.. for at least six months..
what would happen?
scary thought for some..
really what would happen..
da almighty would be forced to go on some kind of vacation..
if my actions dictate what the Almighty has to do with his spare time..
sowy. It's scarey thoughts here..
so what really happens?
I dares you. Spend three months. No speaking in tongues..
will that make you any less spiritual or something?
just three stinking months..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Interesting concept, Ham. And, if I understand what you are saying, you're not telling anyone NOT to pray, simply suggesting they use some method other than SIT. You know, like your primary language, whatever that may be. Isn't there something in the Bible about God knowing your heart, knowing every single hair on your head and all that stuff? So if you used the wrong word or phrased something poorly, would that have any adverse effect? I'm just sayin'
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Now, here is something that crossed my mind.
If speaking in tongues causes your inner spirit to grow stronger, does abstaining from speaking in tongues cause your inner spirit to atrophy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
What would happen? Its like the government thretening to shut down if there's no continuing resolution. Wouldn't it be something if everything continued along as if nothing had happened?
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Who are you talking to here ham and So_C? Are you talking directly to me? Or are you talking to well, I don't know who it would be. Your descriptors here, "dares", assorted "scary" thoughts and propositions and other comments about "three stinking months" - not sure what you're trying to say, if it's to me.
I'll try to craft my response appropriately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I was responding to Ham's comment. I was agreeing eith Ham: if one stops SITting buses continue being late, lovers contiue being untrue, politicians continue to lie, utility companies continue to overcharge and somehow reality continues on its merry way.
Again, if not the minisries purpose, just what does SITting do?
SoCrates
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
It affects neurological activity in the the areas of the brain that are associated with processing of language, emotion and self image.
----------------------------------------------------
During an interview on 2006-SEP-20 by Steve Paulson, Andrew Newberg -- Associate Professor of Radiology, Psychiatry, and Religious Studies and Director for the Center for Spirituality and the Mind, at the University of Pennsylvania -- said that the region of the brain involved in language is not activated when a person speaks in tongues. He said:
"Speaking in tongues is a very unusual kind of vocalization. It sounds like the person is speaking a language, but it’s not comprehensible. And when people have done linguistic analyses of speaking in tongues, it does not correspond to any clear linguistic structure. So it seems to be distinct from language itself. That’s interesting because we did not see activity in the language areas of the brain. Of course, if somebody is a deep believer in speaking in tongues, the source of the vocalizations is very clear. It’s coming from outside the person. It’s coming through the spirit of God. 11
They found decreased activity in the brain's frontal lobes, an area associated with self-control. One of the researchers, Andrew Newberg, said: "It’s fascinating because these subjects truly believe that the spirit of God is moving through them and controlling them to speak." The data partly confirms the subjects' beliefs. In fact, the subjects are not in control of their usual language centers as they spoke in tongues.
edit: Please note that it doesn't say the subjects themselves are out of control. It says they are not in control of those portions of the frontal lobes that are associated with language. In other words, as has been noted, it is quite possible to dribble a basket ball and speak in tongues at the same time.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Very interesting. In my last post I said I could SIT and think in English at the same time because SIT doesn't require my "senses mind". Compare with..."the region of the brain involved in language is not activated when a person speaks in tongues."
However..." Of course, if somebody is a deep believer in speaking in tongues, the source of the vocalizations is very clear. It’s coming from outside the person. It’s coming through the spirit of God."
Not so fast. God's spirit teaches His creation in you, which is now your spirit. NOT from outside the person.
Also...""It’s fascinating because these subjects truly believe that the spirit of God is moving through them and controlling them to speak." Nope. Maybe his subjects did, but I sure don't believe I'm being controlled.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I don't know, John. According to the chart illustrating The Great Principle, the originating source is outside one's self.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: This is The Great Principle, as stated many times in the foundational, intermediate and advanced classes.:
"God's spirit teaches His creation in you which is now your spirit and your spirit teaches your mind and is manifested in the senses realm as you act."
Wierwille also stated that "God, being spirit, can only speak to that which he is, spirit."
So, if God, being spirit, can not talk to your mind, how is it that YOUR spirit, being spirit, can?
In essence, if The Great Principle is true, the only people that God has talked to down through the ages are either born-again Christians or people who have had the spirit placed on them conditionally on an ad hoc basis.
Sounds rather limiting, in my opinion.
I'll choose the limits of the great principle over the limits of an assoc. prof of radiology, psychiatry, and whatever any old time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I see what was wrote . . . sorry if I've missed your point.
I can see how SIT would benefit a few individuals personally. That would be the individual's quirk. There seems to be a suggestion that those who don't see a benefit simply aren't doing it right or haven't truly experienced SIT. (In general, not from anyone in particular).
I don't buy that it opens us up to suggestion. Orchestrated amidst other mindless activity, it might play some role in being influenced. That would depend on the individual as well, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
There were two problems with this, as has been said a number of times before.
A) If God Almighty can only speak to spirit BECAUSE HE IS SPIRIT, the principle here would be
"only spirit can communicate with spirit."
If vpw's statement here was correct- "God can only speak to that which he is"- then the only thing spirit can
communicate with IS spirit- which means that The Great Principle fails.
The Great Principle, according to vpw...
"God who is Spirit, communicates with his creation in you, which is now your spirit, which then communicates with your
mind. Then it becomes manifested in the senses realm as you act."
Here's where it fails...
"...your spirit, which then communicates with your mind."
According to vpw, God Almighty, the Creator of Heavens and Earth, is UNABLE to communicate with a mind directly-
BECAUSE HE IS SPIRIT. vpw then goes on to say your far punier spirit communicates with your mind.
vpw obviously didn't understand what other men taught sometimes when he parroted their phrases in an attempt to
claim it was all his work. (We fell for it anyway.)
Then again, as has also been pointed out before, vpw also came out with other obviously incorrect statements
on the subject.
"God is Spirit, and God can only give that which He is."
As Raf has pointed out before, this is obviously false.
God gave manna in the desert. (Approximately 12,480 times, if my math is correct.)
God is not manna.
God gave that which He is NOT- over 12,000 times to go by the sole account of manna in the desert.
This statement of vpw is manifestly incorrect.
vpw's claims grossly limited God in each instance.
"God can only speak to" limited God's many forms of communication.
If necessary, we waste time going into accounts of God speaking to that which is not spirit
(beginning with Genesis 3:8, the first instance where God speaks to flesh that lacks spirit.)
However, it should already be clear God Almighty is able to communicate whenever and wherever He wishes,
to whatsoever He wishes.
"God can only give that which He is" severely limits God's ability to give, God's abundance.
Sorry, I can accept that an enemy of God would make such a claim
(like in Genesis 3:2, where God's abundance is excluded when "freely" is excluded),
but not any competent servant of God, not any competent man or woman of God.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Wordwolf: 2 things
1) 2 Cor. 5:17a - Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature (creation)..Who says God can't create a mind/spirit bond which never existed before. Christ paved the way for this.
2) When VP said God can only talk to what He is, it was in the context of God telling Adam "thou shalt surely die" and how Adam lived for what? 930 years, but his spirit connection with God is what died. I really don't have a problem with the idea that VP got some things wrong. When God said that to Adam there were no other humans around and I DON'T think God talked directly to animals.
I really don't see where the limit is. Someone could say why only Jesus? Why can't I get born again by being a Buddha follower? That isn't fair! Why is God so limited? Yet we read "No man cometh unto the Father but by me" (Jesus). Is that God being limited?
I don't think that God can't put thoughts in the mind of one who isn't born again. Or speak in an audible voice, for that matter.
OK, 3 things.
3) As for SIT, it still feels like honey on my tongue. The first time I did it was a life changing moment. Every session 12 I was ever at there was this powerful presence in the room when everybody SIT'd. Is it a guarantee that the person will thereafter always live virtuously? No. But it's good enough for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
jonny yam tried to pm you but you must have it turned off
just wanted to tell you how happy i am to see you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
My personal opinion. I think a lot of the intellectualization and over explanation was just to fatique the intellect so it would accept anything. A method very common in brainwashing. Overload the intellect, everything sinks right into the unconcious and increases suggestability. Why do you think the classes went on so long?
I find the story about how vp filmed the class amuzing. I was told he filmed it for 24 hours straight, putting ice cubes on his eyes between takes. "Why film for 24 hours straight and risk burning your retinas to a crisp?" I asked. "The days are evil," was the response. And this troops is why werewolf wears glasses. He sacrificed his eyesight to teach the word of God.
Yah, now we know he had ocular cancer and that's why he wore glasses.
SoCrates
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Excathedra: Thank you very much. Good to see all your faces, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wierwille said that people in the O.T. were only able to communicate with God when
God placed spirit ON them. He further stated that this placement was conditional. If they violated the conditions, God would remove the spirit and render them incommunicado. When Adam and Eve sinned, they lost the spirit that was placed on them conditionally, thus, losing their connection with God. (according to Wierwille). As WordWolf has shown in his latest post, this is contradicted by verses 7 and 8 of Genesis.
7.And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
8. And they heard the voice of the Lord God ....
So----They violated the conditions, leaving them spiritless yet were still able to hear the voice of God?
How, within the constructs of "The Great Principle" is that possible?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
My objection would be if you were saying-as it sounded- like you were trying to excuse vpw
for making the gaffe about God-and spirit-being unable to communicate with anything BUT spirit.
The idea of God Almighty, the Creator of the Universe, untold galaxies, and so on, who calculated
the times so precisely that the constellations tell the times, and the tiny vibrations of the atoms
are our DEFINITION of time, would be UNABLE to do something by virtue of lacking the ability
(communicating with anything that is not spirit),
well, I find that, to say the least, wildly improbable.
A MUCH better case would have to be made than vpw's bald assertions.
Which is more likely- that vpw made a mistake, or that the Almighty is hardly "all mighty" and
lacks the ability to do useful things that he later gave us the ability to do?
No qualifier was made when vpw made his bald assertions like
"God is Spirit, and God can only communicate with what He is"
and "God is Spirit, and God can only give what He is".
Given how silly these statements are when someone isn't blindly memorizing them,
but is just examining them, you'd think an immediate explanation and correction would follow.
However, I think he was skipping over helping OUR understanding because HE didn't really
understand either statement like whoever he plagiarized it from- Leonard, Stiles, Bullinger...
I agree with you that God CAN put thoughts in the mind of one who isn't born again, or speak in an
audible voice. (We can both comfortably agree with the Bible there.) This also allows us to skip over
elaborate explanations forced on the Old Testament to make it conform to pfal,
like adding the imposition of spirit on Balaam's donkey instead of God just making a miracle,
or adding spirit to a pagan king-against his will- for an undefined short period so that vpw could
claim to understand how the writing on the wall worked.
Congratulations. Did I say otherwise?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Couple quick notes wordwolf - I always appreciate your methodical approach. in regards to the mind, God' speaking to, working in, etc. the mind of man....
First off - I agree that the overall doctrinal position of PFAL on this and the "Great Principle" isn't presented clearly. I'm not interested in defending or denying the Great Principle as a point of doctrine as I don't hold it to be a point of reference for myself, rather to clarify this:
If God Almighty can only speak to spirit BECAUSE HE IS SPIRIT, the principle here would be "only spirit can communicate with spirit." If vpw's statement here was correct- "God can only speak to that which he is"- then the only thing spirit can
communicate with IS spirit- which means that The Great Principle fails.
VPW's teaching on this revolves around 3 basic concepts - 1. "soul", the life of man - 2. "mind", the intellectual, logical ("moral" by another word although there's theology that would argue against me on that) and emotional facility of man - and lastly "spirit", the life of all living things.
As I'm sure you know the greek words in the N.T. for each are - psuche, nous, and pneuma, translated into a variety of English words. They aren't defined or translated as tight as that in every usage.
In brief, PFAL's position is/was that that the psuche or soul of man was "pheuma", spirit - but "not eternal life spirit" or "pneuma hagion". I believe the phrasing goes "all life is spirit but not all life is eternal life spirit" in the "Advanced" class. For something to be alive requires a "life force" of spirit, pneuma. God is "holy spirit", and the life force (it's an odd phrase but it's used in a lot of literature so hey) of God is eternal, among other things. God "breathed" life into man and man became a "living soul". VPW held that the life of man and the life of God were different however - similar in essence of what they are but different in qualities - and when man had that pneuma of God he shared directly in the life of God.
The "nous", the mind of man was taught as part of man's life, the psuche and was therefore hmmm...resident in his soul life. Again, limited in scope but not entirely unlike the life and mind of God. (and I would contend that when the Bible states man was "created in the image of God" it's more than a single component of pneuma hagion - which PFAL also taught - but that's another topic).
God's pneuma could be in communication with man's psuche at any time, by God's decision and in a relatively direct way because -well, like for like might express what I see there in PFAL. "Pneuma" is pneuma, albeit not "pneuma hagion" in every instance. Man with pneuma hagion could commune directly with God, "two-way", anytime, all the time, etc.
That allows for "God who is spirit" to speak to/teach man's "pneuma" or to "pneuma hagion" or "new life" spirit and for that "creation" in man to speak to man's mind. Put another way, it's spirit talking to spirit throughout the process.
That's about the sum of what I understand to have been taught in PFAL - given that the mind of man (the nous) is part of the life or soul of man (psuche) and life is spirit (pneuma), and God is holy spirit (pneuma hagion) the ingredients are all "spirit" or "life" based and therefore share some of the same functionality.
Greek philosophy - Plato f'instance saw the mind or "nous" of man as a part of the "life", the psuche of man. There's a lot of different strains of thought on this and not all are completely exclusive of the way these ideas are used in the Bible IMO.
I would say today that these ideas aren't as exclusive to each other as modern Christianity (last 100 years or so) have made them out to be in an effort to make all things "5 senses" exclusive to anything "spiritual". Life is a much broader expanse and doesn't fall into these container like categories so easily, IMO. But hey - like the wood carver said , "I take it a whittle at a time".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.