That theory is so stupid. If fears kill, all of my children would have been abducted and murdered a long time ago and I would have died in child birth or have been afflicted with an incurable disease....my husband would have perished in some firey car wreck...
The bad things that happen, are not results from fear....I wasn`t AFRAID that the horses would break into the feed and one die.... never even considered it ...but it happened last month...It wasn`t FEAR that killed that horse....rather poor fencing and clever ponies.
I wasn`t AFRAID that I would find my old dog dead this week, never even considered it....It wasn`t FEAR that killed that dog....just old age....
The blessings I recieve are usually things that it never even occurs to me to want or *believe* for....the outragiously expensive tickets (200 bucks) to a horse training seminar for ten dollars....free lessons for the kids....safely getting across the Nickajack dam in the middle of a tire blow out at 65 mph....etc
Old vp had to have SOMEONE to blame when his stupid theories didn`t pan out, so he found a convenient way to land the blame on the other person ....a lot more appealing than facing the fact that his was just plain WRONG!
That doctrine was one of the most harmfull taught in twi imo.
who hath sinned, in the case of the man born blind from his birth? this man or his parents?
who had "NEGATIVE BEE_LEAVING", this man(born blind, hard to be BEE_LEAVING in the womb) or his parents??? IT'S A LAW, as waddahayseed and mykee would have us BEE_LEAVE....well, I'll let you keeeedszz check out what JESUS the MESSIAH said. then you can decide who you find more credible a "Doctor of Theology".....
One of the characteristics of a sociopath is to lay blame on others. This believing equals receiving came from someone that had sociopathic tendencies or was a total sociopath.
Hey it was your believing and fear that killed that child. Lets the person who teaches this keep their control over you.
Just like true, pure believing has a close (but no cigar) second, so does fear.
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.
You people who talk about having exercised fear or believing, actually only engaged in mental assent or worry.
The natural state of man is to DIS-believe everything of God, so we all start out lacking proper believing. 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.
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? 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. 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.
***
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 form. 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, and drifted farther and farther from the much more powerful and accurate written forms of same.
Dr's final instructions were a final plea, after a ten year string of similar pleas, to get leadership serious about mastering the written forms. Some reasons why 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.
***
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."
I'm going to show you TWO places where he put it in writing. 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."
***
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.
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.
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. Like your assertion that Dr never taught "crude approximation," they all insisted I was crazy and there was no such chapter.
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 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.
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.
"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.
If you had done what Dr told you to do in 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.
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.
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."
(((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. 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.
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.
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. "Believing a promise of God equals receiving" is a much more accurate formulation, 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.
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. I pointed out to him ten places in the class where Dr absolutely DID include and emphasize that crucial factor. It was HE (and many others) who were guilty of committing the ommission. 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.
***
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. 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 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. 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.
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.
Why did some people get upset when I said half jokingly that maybe their believing sucks, when they have stated that they don't believe in believing anyway ?!
"And all things whatsoever you ask in prayer,having confidence,trust,believing,hope,faith,positive mental images,etc.. you shall receive." Whatever one may want to replace the word believe with, I'm pretty sure Jesus was saying expect to receive something !!
Mike, WW`s posts have much merit, to damn bad you cannot recieve the wisdom....I suspect that is what happens when ones mind is closed and the conscience seared....
You didn't have to tell me that when you read my posts that you can't help hearing silly songs in your head. I strongly suspect others do the same, judging from how they get so much of what I say wrong.
When I see WW's long posts, like the one above, I can't help but see that old SNL skit where Dan Ackroid plays "The Anal Retentive Chef."
I get the giggles when he posts that way and wonder how many readers skip over his posts with a yawn.
It was a very funny SNL skit.
.
.
.
PS - I swapped this post with my previous one to greater emphasioze my "Amen" to Allan. That's why rascal's post seems to presage this one. She saw my original configuration, before I swapped.
So, rascal, are you ready to take an exam on your comprehension of WW's previous post?? ;)-->
I thought, or at least I hoped, it was simply a rumor or exaggeration that you worship Victor Paul Wierwille. However in your above post, you removed all doubt for me.
You show yourself an idolator. You truly do believe Wierwille's writings are as God-breathed as scripture. WOW, that's amazing.
I won't even go there with you. You're a joke. A walking, talking, joke. And you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the bum.
Thanks for clearing that up mike, I couldn`t figure out WHAT the hell had happened lol, nor figure out how to explain it.
Just because you are unable to comprehend what is communicated that by no means can imply that ww`s posts lack merit, or do not command respect amongst others.
Maybe you missed that long post of mine to you above, BEFORE WW's post
You mean that long harangue where you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel? The one where YOU came off as the anal retentive chef even before you accused WW of it?
I never instituted a homo hunt while doing threesomes in Dayton hotels, nor have I ever worn $1500 suits while extorting money from mothers feeding peanut butter to their kids.
He learned his pernicious ways from the man, the M*A*N whom you worship.
I didn't say ALL of you symptoms were like LCM's, just your attitude that you can't be wrong, and can't even consider it for a day or two when someone gives you detailed proof of you not having something correct.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
50
49
36
97
Popular Days
Jun 18
120
Jun 19
84
Jun 24
72
Jun 17
47
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 50 posts
Catcup 49 posts
WordWolf 36 posts
Mike 97 posts
Popular Days
Jun 18 2005
120 posts
Jun 19 2005
84 posts
Jun 24 2005
72 posts
Jun 17 2005
47 posts
rascal
That theory is so stupid. If fears kill, all of my children would have been abducted and murdered a long time ago and I would have died in child birth or have been afflicted with an incurable disease....my husband would have perished in some firey car wreck...
The bad things that happen, are not results from fear....I wasn`t AFRAID that the horses would break into the feed and one die.... never even considered it ...but it happened last month...It wasn`t FEAR that killed that horse....rather poor fencing and clever ponies.
I wasn`t AFRAID that I would find my old dog dead this week, never even considered it....It wasn`t FEAR that killed that dog....just old age....
The blessings I recieve are usually things that it never even occurs to me to want or *believe* for....the outragiously expensive tickets (200 bucks) to a horse training seminar for ten dollars....free lessons for the kids....safely getting across the Nickajack dam in the middle of a tire blow out at 65 mph....etc
Old vp had to have SOMEONE to blame when his stupid theories didn`t pan out, so he found a convenient way to land the blame on the other person ....a lot more appealing than facing the fact that his was just plain WRONG!
That doctrine was one of the most harmfull taught in twi imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
who hath sinned, in the case of the man born blind from his birth? this man or his parents?
who had "NEGATIVE BEE_LEAVING", this man(born blind, hard to be BEE_LEAVING in the womb) or his parents??? IT'S A LAW, as waddahayseed and mykee would have us BEE_LEAVE....well, I'll let you keeeedszz check out what JESUS the MESSIAH said. then you can decide who you find more credible a "Doctor of Theology".....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vickles
One of the characteristics of a sociopath is to lay blame on others. This believing equals receiving came from someone that had sociopathic tendencies or was a total sociopath.
Hey it was your believing and fear that killed that child. Lets the person who teaches this keep their control over you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Just like true, pure believing has a close (but no cigar) second, so does fear.
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.
You people who talk about having exercised fear or believing, actually only engaged in mental assent or worry.
The natural state of man is to DIS-believe everything of God, so we all start out lacking proper believing. 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.
Believing is rare. Fear is less rare.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Ayup fear isn`t REALLY fear....it`s mental assent....
Error in twi doctrine isn`t REALLY error, just tvt....
Evil practiced by vp isn`t really evil, just the excess of the God given brains and brawn manifesting itself....
Mike, you have no truth, just qualifiers to faulty ideas that enable you to pretend that what you believe is Godly or spiritual.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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? 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. 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.
***
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 form. 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, and drifted farther and farther from the much more powerful and accurate written forms of same.
Dr's final instructions were a final plea, after a ten year string of similar pleas, to get leadership serious about mastering the written forms. Some reasons why 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.
***
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."
I'm going to show you TWO places where he put it in writing. 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."
***
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.
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.
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. Like your assertion that Dr never taught "crude approximation," they all insisted I was crazy and there was no such chapter.
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 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.
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.
"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.
If you had done what Dr told you to do in 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.
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.
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."
(((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. 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.
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.
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. "Believing a promise of God equals receiving" is a much more accurate formulation, 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.
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. I pointed out to him ten places in the class where Dr absolutely DID include and emphasize that crucial factor. It was HE (and many others) who were guilty of committing the ommission. 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.
***
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. 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 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. 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.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
This 'believing in percentages' and 'fearing in percentages', this 'close-second' to either,
is made-up to excuse the instances where the supposed 'law' fails-which is the vast
majority of the time. It relies on continually redefining words like 'believing' and 'fear'
so that times when either is in effect, it is not REALLY in effect, allowing both terms
to dodge and evade actual meanings.
If extended worrying brings events closer to happening, then momentary worrying does as well,
just not as far. If the worrying is different in degree, and believing is some "LAW",
then the result is only different in degree as well. Therefore, in DEGREE, there's a
difference between the imaginary woman in pfal who killed her imaginary son and the billions
of mothers every day who worry about their kids,
but in PRINCIPAL, it is the same.
Theft of 25 cents is wrong just as theft of millions of dollars is wrong-it's only a
question of DEGREE.
So, if pfal is to be believed, billions of mothers a day are responsible for setting the
stage for horrible things to happen to their children, and these kids miraculously escape
injury because the worry-level in effect is crappy. If the mothers were able to
"negatively-believe" to the same degree as the imaginary woman, then their kids would
suffer the same death as the imaginary son.
It is considered obvious to mothers that they will worry about their children when the
children are out of sight. It doesn't take being a mother to know this. (I did ask one
just to make sure it was "considered obvious".)
If "you worry a lot over extended periods of time and your young child dies" is a LAW
like pfal claimed,
then Raf died as a small child. He detailed BEFORE how his own mother worried over him as
the imaginary mother worried over her imaginary child.
So, here we have 2 examples.
===
Imaginary mother operates the "law of negative believing".
Her imaginary son dies an imaginary death.
Real mother operates the "law of negative believing."
Her real son survives to adulthood without significant injury.
====
So, the "empirical evidence" demonstrates this theory is a FAILURE.
Hypothesis formed, experiment done, results contradict hypothesis.
Any good scientist either says "the theory is error", or says
"the theory is probably error-let's repeat the experiment" and does so.
Meanwhile, other kids suffer horrible accidents and events, and their mothers worry a lot
LESS than Raf's mother.
Whether or not a child is struck by a car is NOT dependent upon the relative worrying of
his or her parent. It is dependent upon the drivers of cars, and the inability of the child
to avoid ever crossing a street (or in a few cases, an inability to stay off the sidewalk
or away from the curb).
MOST people have no difficulty understanding this.
However, under the failed "law" of believing, a parent whose child had been struck by a car
is to be blamed as RESPONSIBLE, since their worrying ENABLED this horrible event to happen.
One may FORGIVE the parent, one may refrain from commentary, but this would not change the
truth of the matter:
the parent caused the child to be struck by a car.
=========
There's no percentage where believing works, then a threshold whereit suddenly begins working. Any physics student should be able to just apply high school
physics and understanding of vectors to show that. Either force is being exerted or it is
not. If you're unable, with all your might, to shove a humvee down the street, that doesn't
mean you didn't throw your back out trying-you exerted much effort, and the humvee actually
DID move, just not far.
But, according to pfal, "believing works for sinner and saint alike."
If believing is a LAW, AS STATED IN PFAL, then the CONTENT of what is believed is
INSIGNIFICANT as a factor as to whether you get results or not.
Otherwise, the OTHER imaginary woman wouldnt have gotten her imaginary red drapes.
To say otherwise is to add to pfal. That is "private interpretation."
Since you asked, I went to an authoritative source rather than speculated.
"Why is Abraham lauded as the 'Father of Believing'?"
I'll skip that he is called that, since we agree the Bible calls him that.
Galatians 3:6
"Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
Galatians 3:9
"So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."
Galatians 3:18
"For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham
by promise."
Galatians 3:26
"For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
Galatians 3:29
"And if ye be Christ's, then ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Romans 4:3
"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for
righteousness."
Romans 4:11-12
"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he
had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that beliee, though they
be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also
walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised."
Romans 4:20-22
"He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving
glory to God;
And being fully persuaded that, what He had promised, He was able also to perform.
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness."
You can see the covenant itself in Genesis 17.
So, to explain Abraham's deal simply (in deference to you, Mike),
A) God made promises to Abraham.
B) Abraham gave the situation due deliberation.
C) Abraham concluded that God's promises were trustworthy, and Abraham believed God.
Abraham trusted that what God said was true.
D) Abraham did NOT do the critical functions-he was convinced that God promised him, and that
God would do what was necessary to carry out that promise.
E) God told Abraham to demonstrate his confidence with the symbol of circumcision,
demonstrating his confidence in God was greater than his confidence in the flesh.
Abraham did so.
So, to put it even SIMPLER, (in deference to you, Mike),
Abraham was NOT called "the Father of Believing" because he had superior "powers of believing".
Abraham is called the "Father of Believing" because he put his confidence and trust in God,
and God made a covenant with Abraham, and God carried out that covenant.
Abraham's job? Sit there and trust God would do all the work.
God's job? Do all the work.
Abraham did NOT force God OR the universe to act by believing a whole lot and making the
earth shake. In fact, God was fully capable of giving Abraham kids even if Abraham turned his
back on God-but God wanted Abraham to choose to trust Him.
According to pfal Session 1 AND the Blue Book, both believing and fear are activities
taking place 24/7 across the globe, by "sinner and saint."
I thought you believed both book and session to be "God-breathed" like a Bible.
If so, why do you add words, change words, and remove words?
Students of Session 6 know that's what got Eve into trouble.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Why did some people get upset when I said half jokingly that maybe their believing sucks, when they have stated that they don't believe in believing anyway ?!
"And all things whatsoever you ask in prayer,having confidence,trust,believing,hope,faith,positive mental images,etc.. you shall receive." Whatever one may want to replace the word believe with, I'm pretty sure Jesus was saying expect to receive something !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Amen, Allan!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Mike, WW`s posts have much merit, to damn bad you cannot recieve the wisdom....I suspect that is what happens when ones mind is closed and the conscience seared....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom Strange,
You didn't have to tell me that when you read my posts that you can't help hearing silly songs in your head. I strongly suspect others do the same, judging from how they get so much of what I say wrong.
When I see WW's long posts, like the one above, I can't help but see that old SNL skit where Dan Ackroid plays "The Anal Retentive Chef."
I get the giggles when he posts that way and wonder how many readers skip over his posts with a yawn.
It was a very funny SNL skit.
.
.
.
PS - I swapped this post with my previous one to greater emphasioze my "Amen" to Allan. That's why rascal's post seems to presage this one. She saw my original configuration, before I swapped.
So, rascal, are you ready to take an exam on your comprehension of WW's previous post??
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
ROTFLMFAO
I thought, or at least I hoped, it was simply a rumor or exaggeration that you worship Victor Paul Wierwille. However in your above post, you removed all doubt for me.
You show yourself an idolator. You truly do believe Wierwille's writings are as God-breathed as scripture. WOW, that's amazing.
I won't even go there with you. You're a joke. A walking, talking, joke. And you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you on the bum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Catcup,
You accept correction just like LCM.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Thanks for clearing that up mike, I couldn`t figure out WHAT the hell had happened lol, nor figure out how to explain it.
Just because you are unable to comprehend what is communicated that by no means can imply that ww`s posts lack merit, or do not command respect amongst others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Does that mean you're NOT ready for that exam? Maybe some coffee would help.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Correction? That was correction?
And you accuse WW of being like the anal retentive chef?
Have you even READ what you wrote? You truly live in a fantasy world.
Psssst......
I hear MJ is about to sell Neverland...
You might just have a shot at it...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Catcup,
I urged you to deepen your comprehension, AND to do it with mastering the written forms, not recalling from faulty memory the spoken forms.
I showd you two places where Dr DID say (in essence) that "Believing Equals Receiving" was only a crude approximation of the law of believing.
Maybe you missed that long post of mine to you above, BEFORE WW's post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
This is the key Allan. What is prayer.
And fear is not a sin in and of itself.
Positive believing is not a sin either,
in and of itself.
Asking in prayer will reveal what to believe.
And more importantly what to pray for...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Your idea of the written form includes the writings of a pornography-pushing plagiarist.
To borrow a phrase:
I have forgotten more about V.P. Wierwille's writings than you will ever know--
Thank GOD!!!!
heeheeheeheehee
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Catcup,
Well, I don't need to withdraw my LCM comparison, now do I?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
You mean that long harangue where you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel? The one where YOU came off as the anal retentive chef even before you accused WW of it?
Yeah, I read it.
I just don't think it justifies an answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
The Loy Toy? Are you serious?
I never instituted a homo hunt while doing threesomes in Dayton hotels, nor have I ever worn $1500 suits while extorting money from mothers feeding peanut butter to their kids.
He learned his pernicious ways from the man, the M*A*N whom you worship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
"When I see WW's long posts, like the one above, I can't help but see that old SNL skit where Dan Ackroid plays "The Anal Retentive Chef."
I get the giggles when he posts that way and wonder how many readers skip over his posts with a yawn"
I think most everyone feels that way about YOUR posts, Mike.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I didn't say ALL of you symptoms were like LCM's, just your attitude that you can't be wrong, and can't even consider it for a day or two when someone gives you detailed proof of you not having something correct.
A wise man LOVES reproof.
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.