TLC

Evidently your mission statement, eh?

Does all cancer have "life of it's own" or life in and of itself? (I seem to recall it being said/taught in TWI that not all did.) What does it even mean to have life in itself? Quite frankly, I don't know. Maybe somebody that does know can (try to) explain it. As I see it, there's significant differences between cancer being a devil spirit, all cancer being caused by a devil spirit, and some cancer possibly being the result of devil spirits. When Jesus Christ healed the leapers, or the blind man in John 9:1ff (as well as others)... were devil spirits cast out? It doesn't say that. But when he healed dumb and blind men in other instances (Matt. 9:32; 12:22), they plainly were. So, might cancer somehow be caused by a devil spirit? In some instances, I suppose it might. Would that axiomatically mean that it always is? Not necessarily. How many instances of physical issues might be attributed to a spiritual cause? Maybe not all that many. But I'd think it not entirely impossible for nearly any of them, maybe even including a headache. (far, far, FAR too much focus on and talk about devil spirits in TWI. Most of it of little or no value...)

In other words, how/where spirit can and/or does operate ought to be considered. Can or does it operate in a lump of flesh, aside from the mind? (Personally, I'm inclined to think not. Rather difficult to prove, though.)

Let's see... cancer = "life of its own" = must be spirit, and fetus = "life of its own" = (but doesn't breath air, so...) must not be spirit? Now that makes a lotta sense.

If you intend to aim that in my direction, WW, I'd suggest you try something with at least one aspect of it close enough to the truth that it's taken more seriously.

As if you know what star I'm hitched to...

Frankly speaking, I'm stunned that you somehow managed to think that I was somehow referring to you in any way, shape, or form with something that I was merely trying to communicate to you that I wasn't. But it's plainly not the first time you've misunderstood or mistaken something I've said. We are on such different wavelengths, I guess maybe I should just ought to bow out of any further discussion with you altogether. I've had no intention nor inspiration to do so. My initial post in this thread was merely to point out that not everyone was entirely drawn into and captivated by this "magical thinking, TWIt version" back in the day, as there were "known issues" with it that were never sufficiently addressed or resolved, and that "believing" was not - and is not - thought of by everyone in the way and manner that it was being described in this thread. My statement was subsequently challenged, and I responded to it, explaining further what I meant by it, and why. That's it, and I am done with it. Sorry you feel that way, I was merely trying to express my genetic proclivity as best I could think of to describe it. Maybe it's not the best fit, but I don't know what else to call it. Yeah, that arrogancy stink is sure hard to wash off. It's followed me around for years as well, so don't feel too bad about it. Ciao.

Not in regards to quantum physics, for sure. I'll agree that it doesn't matter if the only point is to say that whatever VP and TWI taught was "magical thinking" that didn't fly (and/or pass the sniff test as a "law."). And subsequently, neither does it matter whether believing is said to be (or not be) a law. 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.

Well, call it whatever you want. 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. It's not an issue that I have any great insight into, or understanding of, and am only familiar enough with it to recognize that you might not be. 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. Regardless of what VP said, Proverbs 23:7a states "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he." Have you ever experienced anything in life where that is not true?

If you carefully note the words that were used, I didn't say it disagrees. I brought it up only because of experiments suggesting that reality doesn't exist until it's measured, and there's enough stuff around on the Internet on the subject that I don't see any need to be going into it any deeper. No, I don't.... but neither did I claim it to be a fact. Though, I suppose one might be able to make a case for it based on an interpretation of Rom 3:27, IF said verse was mutually accepted as support or proof of reality. Okay, so they're reliably predictable from a sense knowledge vantage point. We have a nice, solid box that fits around it.

Now there's a smelly proposition. I dunno, waysider. Quantum physics is weird, and at times might seem to somewhat disagree with that. Do you have proof and/or facts to support that? Well, I don't necessary disagree with that (given the context of the thread), or with much of the rest of your post.

No need to apologize, and quite honestly, I didn't think (at least, not previously) that you were trying to accuse me of some "doctrinal offence." (But those are certainly odd words that you chose to respond with.) Nor did I view the motive of your posts as subtly aimed at bringing someone into your way of thinking. I don't much care that you don't care to discuss my perspective on believing in the manner that I chose. C'est la vie.

Oh, I'm sorry... was the banter a little too satirical for you to understand or relate to Socrates, Wilbur? That's neither the topic of this thread, nor the direction it cares to go in, Bolshevik. (In case you hadn't noticed.)

Yeah, silly me. Thinking the thread might be useful for something other than tearing down. (And for thinking that someone might have wanted a deeper or more meaningful discussion to a question asked of me.)

mmmmm....no thanks – while that might be interesting – I think we've got enough on the plate already discussing magical thinking. Well then, that was a short path to nowhere.

I really didn't want to suggest a meaning for it, and intentionally asked it a non-leading way so as it leave it open for interpretation if it's said or thought that there is no law of faith (aka, believing.) Good golly. Might as well draw up blueprints for a manned rocket ship to Mars while I'm at it... BTW, are you aware (i.e., have you read or surmised elsewhere in my post in other threads) of my proclivity towards being a Socratic? It's just not much in my nature to think or act like a prosecuting attorney and "lay the case out before you" and try to persuade you with it into thinking a certain way. And, on top of that, short posts on a thread like this get read, while long ones seem to dull the senses (and get glossed over.) Bite size is simply more palatable. As noted already in my previous post, I don't have issues (i.e., problems) in the effects of believing. (So I'm not addressing any.) You want a definition for believing? Well, it may not be the most complete or best there is, but I trust that you won't mind if I borrow one from someone else that I think isn't bad. Very simply put, believing is to take God at His Word. How that's taught and/or learned isn't as easy or as simple to grasp. Far easier to spot, is what it's not, or how it's not done right. While we can probably discuss what about it was taught (right, poorly, or just plain wrong) in PFAL and TWI, I'm not aware of any secret way that it was ever taught to "group B." However, as for my own thoughts on the matter, well... it would have to be more bite size (that'd probably take a bit of work on your part to piece together). For starters, I see believing as being an issue of the heart. What do you think or see the heart is?

Evidently you doubt there is such a law (with or without any modifiers.) What then, do you make of Romans 3:27? I don't so much see problems in the effects of believing, but in what believing is and/or how it is taught.

Where did you think I ever said or claimed they were different? What I said was, that there were some known issues with it (though obviously, not known by everyone.) Furthermore, I said that not everyone thought of "believing" in the way and manner that it is described in this thread.

Granted, that was an issue that grew larger and became worse over time. Well, it sure didn't have to be (and it wasn't always)... but unfortunately, it far too often was. I don't disagree that he probably incorporated some number of things from EW Kenyon. But I don't see or necessarily agree that's primarily where the problems with how believing was taught stemmed from. And I actually like a lot of Kenyon's stuff and think a lot can be learned from it. (Especially his work on Identification.) Having not ever researched or read much on either of these two (aside from Clark's book on George Washington Carver, which is remarkable), I don't know if either of them might be the source for the "camera" analogy.

wayside said in post # 61: In other words, "Better keep it hidden from the peons, lest the ABS should cease to flow." However, I actually said (concerning this subject matter) that I did not think this was the reason.

Some here seem to think that VP was so into Pauline doctrine, that he either cast aside or reinterpreted the O.T. to fit with it. Yet, here is a classic example of him pulling something out the O.T. that just doesn't fit with the Pauline epistles and the gospel of grace. (Nor with the school of Tyrannus.) Long before Wierwille or Bullinger, agreed. But I chose (well before TWI) to disagree with you on the "made up" part (and haven't changed my mind since.) But, as you say, it digresses... While that may have been the reason behind some things, I'm not convinced it was the reason here. More basic to it at the time, I suppose, was the lack of more viable (and understandable) alternatives. And, given the egotistical nature of those in control (giving those of us not in charge or in control the unwarranted and undeserved benefit of the doubt, but probably no less applicable or true), there was simply no need to burden those of lessor intellectual spiritual ability with unresolved and unanswerable questions.

Well, I didn't say that anyone back then claimed to have much for "answers." The intent was to point out that that there were questions (re: this "magical thinking," the topic of this thread) from way back then (...which few here seemed to think even possible, preferring to think that I was probably just in denial.) Perhaps it won't make sense to you, but once you (in this case, me) start chasing something down a rabbit hole, the longer you're at it and the farther away from where you started you go, the harder it becomes to retrace your "jumping off" point and all the reasons why you might have gone left or right in the course of things. So in a certain sense, asking how I got to the place where I'm at regarding my thoughts on what believing is (and what it is not) can be a bit like asking Alice how she got there. On the surface, someone would undoubtedly be quick to say that I'm "waybrained." But underneath the surface, it's so different from what was taught in TWI, the difference is... magical.

Thank you, penworks. (Clever handle, btw. It had slipped by mind what it was in my previous post, but I've had enough pens that didn't work that it should be easy enough to remember. However, seems a lot of details from half a lifetime ago do rather easily slip away from one's fingertips.) If I had to guess, I'm inclined to think Norman Vincent Peale, who's writings undoubtedly also influenced Robert Schuller. (Joel Osteen reminds me of their style or manner of teaching.)

I've already stated in a previous post that anyone that was involved in, or that was reasonably close to, the research fellowship at TWI (circa '83-'85) surely was aware that there were unresolved issues around how pistis was being handled and taught in the ministry. (Perhaps you missed that.) At the very least, DWBH or Charlene ought to be able to confirm the reality of at least that much of what I said for you. Maybe there's others here that were aware of it at the time. Otherwise, you probably won't think or take it as anything other than something which uniquely existed in my own head. (Though it may have started with trying to delineate what the "household of faith" meant or referred to, it necessitated a better handle on - or understanding of - "pistis.") Did any of you ever wonder what "the household of faith" really was, or was the meaning of it so smooth and polished by the time you heard it that it never crossed your mind (back in the day) to question it?

Well, I suppose I could... so, maybe I will. But, the time it might take me to consider the most effective way to do it might be longer than you'd like. I'll need to think about it.