waysider

What a surprise. :o

"Because what was/is so prominently thought and taught as believing doesn't appear to me to always square up with what pistis means biblically." Then start a thread in the doctrinal forum.

"I could care less whether you are or aren't moved in any way to investigate the matter further, or what you think of it." In other words, you don't really have anything to offer in this regard. "Look it up yourself." doesn't really cut it. "If you can't define pistis, faith, or believing (which doesn't seem to have been done here, that I can see), then how the heck do you know what criteria is or isn't consistent, and does or doesn't indicate it's a law? That's not a fact, Jack. It's just plain Sally silly." It doesn't matter one bit whether I or anyone else can give a definition of pistis that will suit you. It's not necessary for the purposes of defining a law. Believing is supposed to be a law, remember? ("God would have to change the laws of the universe"/"Works for saint and sinner, alike."....VPW) Since you're a fan of the internet, here is something pretty basic that might help you as you search it out yourself: WIKI "A physical law or scientific law is a theoretical statement "inferred from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."

Sounds like a bunch of fluff, TLC. You said it "might seem to disagree". O.K....In what way does it "seem" to disagree? Saying "It's on the internet." is a total cop-out. It reminds me of how people in The Way used to say "It's spiritual" when they really didn't have an answer. Do I have any facts to support my statement? How about this. If it's a law, it should fulfill the criteria of anything being declared a law. It doesn't. That's a fact, Jack. If you want to look at it realistically, you could exclude any mention of the Bible, altogether. Wasn't it Wierwille who declared it to work for saint and sinner alike?

waysider: You can't cause something to happen merely by thinking about it. Nor can you prevent something from happening merely by thinking about it. Thoughts do not change anything in the physical world. TLC: I dunno, wayside. Quantum physics is weird, and at times might seem to somewhat disagree with that. Please enlighten me how quantum physics disagrees with my statement. waysider: The so-called law of believing is, in fact, not a law at all. TLC: Do you have proof and/or facts to support that? Do you have proof or facts to support its reality? If it was a law, it would have a consistent, predictable outcome when applied. Mix 2 parts hydrogen with 1 part oxygen or drop something off a building. We know what will happen in both cases. It's consistent and predictable. You can't change the outcome of either event by virtue of your thoughts.

Let's boil the cabbage down, shall we? You can't cause something to happen merely by thinking about it. Nor can you prevent something from happening merely by thinking about it. Thoughts do not change anything in the physical world. The so-called law of believing is, in fact, not a law at all. It's not mystical, magical, spiritual or supernatural and it surely doesn't work for saint or sinner alike. The human mind is a fragile mechanism. It doesn't like discord and the uneasiness of uncertainty. So, it tries to find logic and reason that will explain the discrepancies frustrating it. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It helps us give what appears to be meaning to aspects of life that would otherwise be meaningless and frustrating. This new age sort of thinking didn't originate with Wierwille. It was quite popular in various forms in the 1950's and 1960's. Some of those forms were theological while others were completely secular. The fearful mother cited in PFAL did not kill her little boy by worrying about his safety. If a mother's fears for the safety of her children could actually kill them, the human race would be teetering on extinction.

TLC: "Let's change the subject." T-Bone: "No, thanks." TLC: "Well then, that was a short path to nowhere."

Hey, ya know, 50 of us came together in one place, each believing we would receive specialized Bible/ministerial training. (Specifically, it was supposed to focus on Acts.) But, it never happened. No wonder we got our butts chewed so much. Even with 50 of us believing, we were too weak to bring it to pass.

I didn't have any inside track as to what was going on at the corporate level, especially about anything that ventured into the realm of academia. As I've noted before, one of my biggest disappointments with the FellowLaborer program was the virtual nonexistence of anything resembling scholastic study. I think people out on the field were under the impression we were privy to all sorts of proprietary information. Nothing could be farther from the truth. We lived in a commune, worked a small garden plot, hashed, rehashed and re-rehashed collaterals and SNS teachings, and had endless, mind numbing organizational meetings, butt chewings and more believer's meetings than any one person should ever be subjected to in a lifetime. But, did we do any in-depth study of "The Word" or gain special insight on nuances of the Bible? Nope. Never happened. Oh, I can tell you how to sprout your own Mung Beans, make mayonnaise from scratch or throw together enough familia to feed 50 people for a month, sure. Greek words and Biblical intricacies? Nah, not so much...OK, not at all.

There used to be a guy who posted here (His name rhymes with psych.) who would carry on for a page and a half about how he didn't have time to post.

Thanks for making that so clear.

Well, OK, here's the first part: "Perhaps the mere indication (from what I had posted previously) that I might not have been as "clueless as the rest of [some of you] back then" is part of the reason (having pondered it from very early on) I have a bit different take and understand of what believing/faith is, biblically speaking." So, maybe you could elaborate on that?

"But then again, perhaps there are other, more significant reasons for it." It might help us to understand if you would elaborate on those "more significant reasons".

Perhaps if we knew a bit of your personal history, it would make it easier to consider your points. You don't have to divulge anything that would sacrifice your identity or any such thing. It's just that, when somebody gets on here and generically declares "I saw bad stuff, too", it doesn't do much to bolster their credibility. Yeah, I know, you never wrote those words I encompassed in quotation marks. That' the message that comes across, though

Well, that would be your opinion. :P

I must disagree with you on that point. While it may not have been invisible to you or a small minority of other Way followers, it was certainly highly touted and considered a crucial tenet of The Way in the 1970's. In fact, if you review the Way Corps principles (which are identical to the FellowLaborer principles), you will note that it is listed as part of #4.--Practice believing to bring material abundance to you and the Ministry.) Even today, S.O.W.E.R.S lists this as being one of its 5 principles.

Let it rain. There are lots and lots of pre-existing threads related to the "law of believing". Some are in doctrinal, as they relate to the scriptural aspects. Others are in the About The Way forum, as they relate more to the real life impact it had on peoples' lives. There is a search window in the upper right hand corner. edit: In the original PFAL materials it was not called the law of believing, it was called the magic of believing.

"I recently told someone to "cross their fingers". In the past, under the influence of Waybrain thinking, I probably would have said "be believing for", in place of crossing fingers. I don't believe crossing your fingers has any affect on the greater world, but I use the expression. Both "crossing your fingers" and "believing for" can be considered magical thinking, IMO, although there may be some differences?" In my opinion, there is a difference. When you cross your fingers, that's the end of it. It's passive. You don't continue to think about the power of crossed fingers. When you believe for something, you become an active participant by dwelling on the desired outcome. You self delude with mental fixation (camera analogy) and reinforce it with speaking in tongues. (lift list)

Why is it that when people want to exalt the image of Wierwille they so often default to Biblical parallels? He wasn't a Biblical figure, he was just some guy who ran a heavy handed religious cult from a tiny cornfield in rural Ohio.

A guy went to the doctor and said, "Doc, it hurts like crazy when I bang my head against the wall. What should I do?" The doctor said, "Well, for starters, you should stop banging your head against the wall." Maybe they should start the process by no longer "banging their heads (and everyone else's) against the wall."

John was not referring to enlarged egos when he said "your kind of people". He was referring to his refusal to tarnish the image of VPW and our drawing attention to things that have been hidden from many past and present TWI members. It seems to ire him to see people refusing to exalt VPW and his "teachings". This has clearly been John's modus operandi at GSC for the past decade and a half that he has been posting here. It appears to be impossible for him to consider that he, too, was scammed, just like the rest of us. You're free to correct me if i'm wrong about that, John. (We pause now for the ensuing straw man argument and meta discussion that John typically uses to drive the discussion off course.) edit; bad grammar, double negative.

Oh, really? In post # 50 you said: "I'll spare you my take on it, but I can't help but wonder...these 3 men really seem like "your kind of people". Their conclusions would fit in fine with most of you. Where are they now? Are any of them here?" This implies a contrast. You're contrasting your "kind" with our "kind" and our conclusions with your conclusion. There is no indication in this that you think VP's thinking was twisted. But, that's OK, go ahead and say it now if it will make you feel better. You move your lips. You move your tongue. You know the drill.

Except for Clarence. He's unable to dance because of his club foot.