waysider

Hi, Chuck If you were "lost", it's unlikely you would be seriously contemplating the concerns you expressed in your post. IMHO

This is from a "wiki" on Norman Vincent Peale regarding his Power of Positive Thinking.(1952) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Teachings “Positive thinking,” as described by Peale could be broken down into a three step process of practicing repeated self-hypnosis, attaining “divine” or God’s power to use for oneself, and eliminating and avoiding all negativity in life. The first step in positive thinking is focused on the use of repeated "techniques." Peale describes positive thinking as first and foremost as “simply a series of practical and workable techniques for living a successful life.” [6] Peale, who had no mental health credentials, was vague as to a definition of his "techniques," although he repeatedly stated that they were scientifically proven and "firmly established as documented and demonstrable truth." [7] Mental health experts, however, clearly saw and identified the techniques as hypnosis.[8] Hypnosis is defined as "A trance like state that resembles sleep but is induced by a person whose suggestions are readily accepted by the subject."[9] The reader was instructed through constant repetition of affirmations to bypass his conscious mind and implant suggestions into his unconscious mind where they would operate automatically, without the interference of conscious will. “Let them sink into your unconscious and they can help you overcome any difficulty. Say them over and over again. Say them until your mind accepts them, until you believe them – faith power works wonders.”[10] Peale's readers were instructed to "pray ceaselessly," to use his techniques repetitively and permanently. Peale promised the reader that if they followed and practiced his techniques, they could attain success over almost any adversity. “It is a power that can blast out all defeat and lift a person above all difficult situations.”[11] Peale insisted that the only way to acquire these attitudes was through the unconscious and through his techniques. Peale repeatedly instructed his readers that their conscious will, their self knowledge, self determination, courage and intelligence were not be enough to live a successful life. He described these conscious acts of will as unreliable, untrustworthy and not sufficient to meet the demands of life. The conscious, self-determining self was to be rejected, disempowered and “surrendered,” so that Peale’s techniques and the unconscious were now the determining and motivating factors in the individual’s life. The payoff for this rejection of self, according to Peale, was the attainment of God’s power, “I hereby draw power from You as an illimitatable source,”[12] is one Peale formula. Men now had superhuman powers, and God had now become "man's omnipotent slave." [13] Peale further said that regular prayer was insufficient to meet the demands of life, that in order for prayer to really work the reader had to use his techniques. Peale said controlling the unconscious, using his techniques, was the only channel to attain God’s power. “Surface skimming, formalistic and perfunctory prayer is not sufficiently powerful” [14] says Peale when describing his “prayers” for overcoming an inferiority complex. Formalistic prayer used for thousands of years by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and other mainstream religions didn’t produce sufficient results according to Peale. Peale also promised his readers that if they followed his techniques that they could always think positively and remove all negativity from their lives. Negative attitudes were not to be tolerated but avoided at all costs according to Peale. Negative thoughts were to be repressed, cancelled out and destroyed through his techniques. “It is important to eliminate from conversations all negative ideas, for they tend to produce annoyance and tension inwardly." [15] Peale’s readers were instructed to never doubt or question a statement Peale made or this would cut off the “power flow.” Any negative doubting of Peale or whether his techniques worked were to be immediately canceled, and the reader was instructed to immediately repeat the Peale phrases. The Peale statements, and the words that made them up were actual “things” according to Peale. “Thoughts are things,”[16] and the repetition of his phrases were more important than actions. Repeating positive only statements would cause only positive things to happen. But according to Peale, the reverse is also true. Thinking negatively causes negative things to happen. Thus the fear of negativity, of avoiding all negative, fearful "thoughts" and realities is part and parcel of positive thinking. There can be no positive thinking without this avoidance of negative thinking, according to Peale. “Never think of the worst. Drop it out of your thought, relegate it. Let there be no thought in your mind that the worst will happen. Avoid entertaining the concept of the worst, for whatever you take into your mind can grow there.” [17]

You say the "soft answer" example is moot because it is not a "promise". I can recall many, many times when this very verse was offered as an example of the "over 900 promises". I also don't see in the verse that you quoted where it says the Word is only guaranteed to work if a "promise" is implied. And I definitely don't see where it says the Word will only work in you if you believe. (Promise or no promise) But let's put that aside for the moment. Back to the "soft answer" example: ( Let's forgo a debate of whether or not this is actually God's word.) Assuming this is God's word, if and when I use this tactic and it works for me, that would mean that God's word(the "soft answer" technique) is working in/for me, regardless of my status as either a saint or a sinner. No believing is required on my part. In fact, I could, with skepticism, try this technique at the advise of someone else merely to see if it works. If and when it works------------ it is God's word at work in/for me. No believing required. No saint or sinner status necessary.

So then there's a "promise' in there that says "If you believe hard enough, you won't die."?? I must have missed that one. Any idea where I might find it?

So then if an atheist uses something from Proverbs, such as " A soft answer turns away wrath", it won't work because there is no "believing" involved? Come to think of it---- How does that factor in with Wierwille's statement that "believing" works for saint and sinner alike? You see, in my Proverbs example, the person is not a "saint" nor are they operating "believing". I'm just sayin'--------

KJV (King James Version) "---the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." Is the word "also" supposed to be in that verse? I don't know. Maybe somebody who is versed in these types of intricacies can chime in here. If it is, though, it would mean that the word of God works in those who don't believe, too. Kinda like an additional, descriptive qualifier. (ie: "---the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you who live in New Jersey.") That really makes sense when you think about it. Consider this. ----"A soft answer turns away wrath." Does believing have anything to do with whether or not that advise works? -------------------------------------------- NWMV (New Way Ministry Version) "---the word of God, which effectually worketh if/because you believe." Doesn't seem to carry the same meaning in my opinion. Seems to take the pressure off God and put it on YOUR shoulders. But what do I know?

Because

Here's a little discussion we had regarding the "law" of believing a couple of months ago. In some obtuse way, I think it may somehow tie into this concept of "bad things happen to people who aren't believing and it's their own fault". ( There is a commercial break about 3/4 of the way through it. Please don't let that deter you.) http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...=16327&st=0

It never ceases to amaze me the twisting and contorting of logic you will go through to keep your idol on a pedestal. I never said they died of what we refer to as "natural" death. I said they died a "physical" death just like everyone else who ever existed including Dorcas. (In case it escaped your notice, she didn't stay alive forever.) Nor did I ever say it was "God's Will" that they die a painful, horrible death. You have still failed to show me where the scriptures say that deliverance is "available" in EVERY incident that life brings our way. You are doing the exact same thing Wierwille did. You are implying that our short comings in this life are all our own fault because we fail to "believe" for deliverance. I ain't buying it. (Nor am I buying into the idiotic "law" of magical believing.) It ought to be renamed "the law of passing the blame and assigning unwarranted guilt".

There is only one man that has ever escaped death, Oldies. And the Bible doesn't say he accomplished this by operating the "law" of believing. It can't possibly be "available" for every other man, woman and child who has ever inhabited this planet to escape death by operating the "law" of believing. Your implication here is that these men are directly responsible for their own deaths because they failed to "operate" a so-called principle that is not Biblical but rather a man-made concept proposed by VPW. Please show me some scripturally sound evidence that states that physical death can be escaped by "believing".

You tell me, Oldies, was it? Does The Bible say that deliverance is always "available" in all( without exception) instances? If the answer, on the other hand, is that it is "available" in all(within a particular distinction), what and whom determines that distinction? If it is God who determines that qualifying criteria, it would be fool hearty to try to over ride it with the "law" of believing. Your logic on this particular subject appears to be horrendously flawed and idolatrous.

Oldiesman I may have misunderstood your explanation of why the lives of Paul and Peter(add Stephen to that, if you like.) ended in the awful ways they did. Please feel free to correct me if I have. (misunderstood) Your stance appears to be that these men died these horrible deaths because they were deficient in their ability to operate the "law" of believing in regard to deliverance. In other words, it was their own fault. Is that your contention? Aren't you the same guy who can't understand why people didn't just walk away from The Way? What is that phrase you have used,"No one held a gun to their heads."? The Way taught people that to walk away was equivalent to leaving the "hedge of protection" that the "one true household" provided. In essence they were saying that to leave would put you out of fellowship and at the mercy of "the adversary". And, of course, if you are "out of fellowship", it's impossible to receive revelation that might be required for personal safety and survival. You could end up the same way these men of Biblical note did if you walked away. Is that how you justify why these aforementioned men died? Because they brought it onto themselves through "unbelief"? Please clarify if I have misconstrued your meaning.

You are correct. It is, indeed, Donovan. Dylan has never done it, though it certainly has that same kind of flavor. When Donovan hit the scene in the mid 1960's, he was often referred to as the UK's answer to Dylan. (He is Scottish) That particular style was quite popular at that time. Lyrics were of utmost importance to this type of music. Another singer/songwriter that took a similar approach was one of my all time favorite "folkies", Eric Anderson. Eric actually started out as a contemporary of Dylan. Anderson, Dylan and Phil Ochs often played the same clubs in Greenwich Village. Here is Eric Anderson in 1970 in case you would like a sample. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g70zT3lXPZc Yer Next!!!!!

A liter is just slightly larger than a quart.

Thanks, jen-o I don't think you are rambling at all. You're making perfect sense.

"In the chilly hours and minutes of uncertainty, I long to be in the warm hold of your loving mind."

I sure wish I would have had your wisdom and insight when I was 18. Que Sera Sera.

Good Lovin'-------The Rascals---?? (Or were they still called The Young Rascals then?)

You got it! Written and recorded by Tom Waits but far better known for the treatment it received from The Eagles.

The dictionary cited seems to contradict itself. Definition #1 suggests that polytheists are pagan whereas definition #2 excludes the theistic requirements, either partially or in total. Hellenism is characterized by polytheism and the exclusion of a connection to Abraham.

Slight diversion

It sounds like it might be describing the ill-fated Franklin Expedition to find The Northwest Passage.

I understand the concept and agree with the essence of it. Part of the problem, though, is that some of the damages done to people are not at the conscious, thinking level. I recently posted a somewhat analogous example of a WWII vet who suffered from what we now call PTSS or PTSD. It's like a virus that lived inside him, biding its time until conditions were right to surface. It's not something you control by "thinking" about it. You can forgive people on a conscious level and, according to The Word, you should. It's not beneficial to carry grudges and retaliatory thoughts. Plenty of medical and psychological studies will bare this out. So, forgiving at the conscious level can certainly be a valuable part of the process but it's not the complete answer all by itself. You can "never think about it again" and still suffer from adverse reactions that are tied to something deeper than the thought process. IMO