WordWolf

Which-the one on Adultery, or some other? Won't know until I know what article you mention. That's a few people running errands, bringing food and BarryWhite albums. David was careful in this business-I would expect him to be smart enough to use people who could keep a secret. (vpw certainly did- and he got away with serial rape and molestation.) The order to kill Uriah was sealed and known to one commanding officer. Do I think word got around his staff? No, and there's no evidence to make any comment OTHERWISE to be anything beyond SPECULATION and GUESSWORK. Let's see.... I might be killed if I tell someone, if I tell someone, THEY might get killed, a deliberate attempt to make my child look like my husband's child is in play, the penalty for adultery is STONING... I would expect Bathsheba to keep her mouth SHUT. The PROPER thing was never to commit adultery in the first place, but having sinned, I expect she wasnt stupid. To put two and two together, you need two and two. To know two, you must first know one. There is no evidence-beyond your speculation-that anyone knew who was willing to talk. If anyone other than God and Nathan knew, the Word of God remains SILENT on that issue. "Where the Word of God remains silent, he who speaks is a fool." (vpw) I believe I made a STRONGER argument AGAINST than you made FOR. It didn't require deep scholarship, either. That means there was an IMPLICATION, but you posted a SPECULATION. They're 2 different things that are not interchangeable. If it's so "clear", there would be a "smoking gun" verse. I don't claim to know the mind of a murderer that well. However, there have been things called "crimes of passion" where a moment's "hot blood" is heeded and a felony is committed, assault, battery, destruction of property, or murder. I'm not a criminologist nor criminal psychologist. NEITHER ARE YOU. Please don't consider yourself an "expert on everything"- we had our fill of that in twi. Are we talking "committed adultery in his heart" sins, "fibbed to his wife" sins- which are one thing, or "he committed adultery again and killed ANOTHER man to cover it" sins? Big difference. I expect he did the first- the second, I'd insist on seeing it line by line. Maybe. I'd buy that some people found the timing suspicious, and would SUSPECT-especially after Nathan had an "executive session" with David whose minutes were sealed, but they wouldn't KNOW. Well, we have different thresholds for accuracy, but that hardlyqualifies as news. It's in the Bible. I'm aware of it. I dont need a class, tape or textbook to learn EVERYTHING. Schoenheit's picking a fight with me? I didn't see him post. IF, IF, IF, Schoenheit made the claim you did-that David's entire staff knew and that Uriah's family KNEW (not suspected), then I'd respectfully disagree with him on the grounds I posted. I still wouldn't "argue", and I suspect he's classier than that himself. However, I'd prefer Schoenheit make such a claim himself before I said I disagreed with him. I do not believe ANY teacher short of Jesus Christ HIMSELF is incapable of error, nor would I expect them to be, nor would I expect them to think THEY are. (If they do, there's the FIRST error right there.)

Life on the Moebius strip, let's see.... Mike, 6/18/05, 10:56pm Mike, 6/18/05, 11:01pm Mike, 6/18/05, 11:02pm. We discussed this subject before. Mike has misunderstood the Uriah account, we corrected him, and he's STILL making the SAME mistake months later. It's a mistake most Christians wouldn't make, because most Christians wouldnt try to justify rape and murder. ========== Mike, if you ever sit down, open a Bible, and read the account, you'll see that David engaged in a governmental coverup. First, he hid that he was committing adultery with Mrs Uriah. Then, when she became pregnant, he attempted to make it look like Uriah's kid by bringing Uriah home from the war, and sending food and a Barry White album to his house so he'd have sex with his wife and think her kid would be the result of that sex, since he trusted her and didn't suspect her of cheating. When that failed to work, he arranged to have Uriah killed, and to make it look like an accident. That succeeded. It looked like David got away with it, but then God sent Nathan to confront David over this. Other than Nathan-who was informed by God Almighty-there is no evidence that anyone not directly involved knew something was up. This detour into "Uriah's family forgave David for knocking up his wife and killing him" is wild speculation unsupported by any Scripture. However, Mike keeps relying on this as actually happening. That's because Mike is adamant on saying there were no real consequences for this, and using that as an analogy and saying there were no real consequences for the rapes and molestations committed by vpw. That's not unique to Mike, either. The seeds of this idolatry is in the pfal class itself, when vpw declares that "technically, all the women in the kingdom belonged to the King", in clear and blatant violation of the Old Testament Law-which applied to beggar and king. This helped him pave the way for his later rapes and molestations. A separate question is: Are they the same? Is the one-time adultery and scramble to conspire to conceal it, even unto death, by David, followed by his repentance, functionally equivalent to serial premeditated rape and molestation by a "man of God", with possible repentance as he approached the end of his days? That's answered here. How many months before Mike makes this claim again? I'm guessing 6 months.

Mike seems trapped on a Moebius strip. I'll get back to that in a bit. First, how Mike fails to read his own posts. 6/18/05, 10:46pm, Catcup. 6/18/05 10:40pm, Catcup. 6/18/05 10:50pm, Mike. 6/18/05, 10:51pm, Catcup. 6/18/05, 10:55pm, Catcup. 6/18/05, 11:01pm, Mike. Actually, Mike, your post 6/18/05 10:50pm sure SOUNDS like that's what you SAID AND what you THOUGHT. Their rapes were sort of "collateral damage" while God brought Teh Tr00th to us. A handful of rapes is a small price to pay for that-and they would have been worse off without vpw, his Tr00th, and his rapes. Seems nobody else on the planet was teaching about the True God and NOT raping....

The same man with "GREAT respect for the traditional canon" has been quoted as referring to it as "unreliable fragments" and "tattered remnants". His definition of "GREAT respect" is not one most people use. But, he feels free to redefine the REST of the English language, so is this news?

Literal translation according to usage, Ebonics version: "Catcup, yo' mama!" ==== Literal translation according to usage, Elizabethan Pharisee version: "Catcup, you are a Samaritan, and hath a devil!"

You haven't read my full answer. You declared-by divine fiat or other unquestionable authority- that the 2 terms were identical, and gave no basis for anyone to conclude they ARE. They are NOT identical, and the differences are more substantial than, say, the modern meanings of "throughly" and "thoroughly". I pointed out they're NOT equivalent the other day, and you're continuing as if everyone agreed they ARE. I understand what you're saying FAR more than you claim, and FAR more than you understand what I say. Disagreeing is not misrepresenting, and insulting is not rebutting. You might want to consider that-they're 2 differences between our posting styles.

This, I take it, is the Mikean version of "literary criticism." Fewer than skip over yours, from what I hear. See, I can go on all day and make a lot of points in plain English. People can spend an hour and come away saying "That made sense." People can spend an hour on your posts and see little beyond sycophantic worship of a man and the books he cut-and-pasted from others, and insults to anyone who disagrees with you, and what most come away with is a sense or idolatry and insults. Of course, those who have the same worship and level the same insults will be unable to detect the difference. HCW has written some lengthy posts with much material as well. People read them and come away having gotten considerable substance. That's what's supposed to happen when you write that much.

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. BUT I DID-so I did. *snicker*

So, is Mike really convinced that "crude approximation of a law" is synonymous with "simply stated"? He appears to.

Actually, Catcup acknowledges that words have commonly-understood meanings. YOU'RE the one who's installed himself as the man with the power to alter them as you see fit. Liar. vpw's usage of "LAW" was consistent with what Catcup said. We've discussed this for YEARS now. Orange Book, page 44. "What one fears will surely come to pass. It is a law. Have you ever heard about people who set the time of their death? When somebody says 'Well, this time next year I will not be here', if you are a betting man, bet your money, you are going to win. If a person makes up his mind that this time next year he is going to be dead, God would have to change the laws of the universe for the person not to be accomodated." You are disinterested in what vpw meant by "law" because we demonstrated (and continue to do so) that believing is not a "LAW". Since you are enslaved to the letter of his work and committed to defending it in the face of overwhelming evidence, you're required by your own obsession to alter the meaning of the text in order to make it defensible. Believing is NOT a law. Believing God is a good thing. Confidence and trust in truth is a good thing. Believing is NOT a law. We had discussions a few years ago where you admitted you STILL didn't understand this "law of believing" after over 5 years of study. Amazing how you STILL haven't gotten there yet-this is SESSION 1 material. I'll die of old age before you make it to Session 6 at this rate. Nice try hiding one of your OWN weaknesses here. Catcup was physically present and learned face-to-face from vpw. Your revisionist view is constructed from fragments of books and tapes. (Not the WHOLE book, just the parts that match your opinion.) Hearing vpw and seeing him teach face-to-face skips the editing process of other people (like you) deciding what vpw meant. vpw NEVER said believing was "A CRUDE APPROXIMATION". That phrase was INVENTED by MIKE, and used to try to defend the false doctrine that "believing is a law". Go ahead, Mike, what's the book and page# where vpw said it? I'd LOOOOOOOOVVVVVEEEE to read it for myself. Where did vpw make this statement that you made up? Hm-they're focused on the failure of believing to be a "LAW"-I'd better CHANGE THE SUBJECT COMPLETELY.... No, that had nothing to do with anything. Your OWN failure to distinguish between the written pfal and the Mikean doctrine is demonstrated here. You can't tell that "CRUDE APPROXIMATION" does NOT appear in the pfal class nor its collaterals, but only in the Mikean doctrine. That is YOUR failure. Go on, prove me wrong-cite the book and page#, many of us still have all our books.... Or, try to dodge the issue by attacking Catcup directly. Guess which direction Mike goes? He never said that! Prove me wrong by citing the book and page where he said it was a "crude approximation of a law!" GET OUT! You're REALLY going to show us where switch from calling believing a "law" to a "crude approximation of a law"? I won't believe it until I see it! I expect to see you throw up misdirection and end up NEVER showing even ONE place, LET ALONE TWO. But, hey-let's see-I may be wrong. Show us, Mike, where vpw calls believing a "crude approximation of a law." Just show us you have some steak, Mike, THEN maybe the sizzle will mean something. Where does vpw use the words "crude approximation of a law"? We've demonstrated our skills. You've claimed to demonstrate yours. But you have a golden opportunity here-where did vpw use the words "crude approximation of a law" when speaking of his false "law of believing"? We've demonstrated an understanding of the meanings, not just the terms. Stop insulting us and show us where vpw called believing a "crude approximation of a law". We were disinterested in your "challenges" and have seen nothing to qualify you as our instructor. Furthermore, the BURDEN OF PROOF is on the person making the claim of the existence of something. If Mike claims green monkeys fly out of his posterior, it is not up to me to prove they do NOT-it is for Mike to prove they DO. You've misapprehended all this and are now claiming we looked and were unable to find something. We just said "get to the point." Speaking of "get to the point", where does vpw use the words "crude approximation of a law" when referring to his disproven "law of believing"? No, we said "just get to the point." Until you show that he used the term "crude approximation of a law", Catcup's point still stands. I answered this already. Piling on insults and puffing up your own knowledge may impress YOU, but we're mostly adults here and you just look like that's all you have to offer. Now, about this "crude approximation of a law" thing you claim vpw said... We yawned and said "get to the point." You missed that there like you missso much else. SO YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID YOU'D SHOW US "TWO PLACES WHERE HE PUT IT IN WRITING"! And you're admitting it! I'm more surprised that you admitted it than that you lied. Am I misreprsenting Mike, people? Scroll up this same post. What did he say? "I'm going to show you two places where he put it in writing." Then "Dr never did use the exact phrase 'crude approximation'..." Now he's going to try to convince us an entirely different term is identical to "crude approximation of a law". Note that this is the same guy who claimed we were unqualified to understand the meanings of words. (Top of this post.) And these words "this is only a very abbreviated portion of one aspect" where "Dr said so".... what BOOK and PAGE did he say so? Or is this another incident that Mike invented and put in vpw's mouth like the "crude approximations" we discussed so recently? Ok, this has the phrase "very abbreviated portion of one aspect" in it? Or was that a fabrication of Mike's, attributed falsely to vpw? Just get to where he uses the phrase "very abbreviated portion of one aspect",please, and stop insulting us. Hm. Again, the phrase "very abbreviated portion of one aspect" was missing. Can this be another example of something Mike made up and attributed to vpw? Is Mike really unable to tell the difference between what is written in vpw and what his own inventions are? Or is he aware and deliberately deceiving us, hoping we can't read the difference? actually, any scientist should tell you that is a FALSE version of the law of gravity based on a misunderstanding of how gravity works. It was believed true once when scientists were still learning, just as it was believed the earth was the center of the universe. Neither was true, but both were believed true. No real scientist would say "everything falls" is a "simple, abbreviated" form because it is WRONG. If it was NOT wrong, then it would be technically true that "everything falls". Please take this up with the scientists on board. You'd STILL be wrong because your explanation is dependent upon the EARTH. Gravity on Jupiter is greater than gravity on Earth, and Earth is insignificant in its discussion. Gravity on Mercury has nothing to do with the Earth, also. Gravity in the Andromeda Galaxy has NOTHING to do with Earth. Therefore, your "crude approximation" is ALSO incorrect. Since you're not a physicist, this is not a big deal-unless you're trying to rely on your misstatement to say something else, as you do here. And here's where Mike switched the words "crude approximation" in his vocabulary with the words "simply stated" in vpw's vocabulary. He then concluded the terms were equivalent, and went on his way. Is he intentionally deceiving us in this, or has he convinced himself these terms are the same without ever discussing their differences? (Not to mention where he lied in saying he'd show us where vpw used the term...) Blue Book, page 43-44. "You may believe rightly or wrongly. Believing works both ways, and you bring to yourself whatever you believe." Nothing about "you must believe a promise of God" there. page 44. "Fear, worry and anxiety are types of believing. If you worry, have fear and are anxious you will receive the fruit of your negative believing which is defeat." There's a promise of God that fear, worry and anxiety brings to pass? What Mike said above is NOT what the Blue Book says. Mike has added to the Blue Book. That is "private interpretation." Mike needed to add to it to try to salvage its erroneous contents. The "law of believing" fails to stand on its own merits, so Mike must "prop it up" by adding content NOT in the Blue Book or class. In doing so, he takes from our CRITICISMS of the Blue Book's failures, then lies and claims they are mentioned there somehow. Page 44. "The law of believing works equally effectively for both the sinner and the saint..." Mike is contradicting the Blue Book. So, the supposedly God-breathed Blue Book lacks any mention of a promise of God in that chapter on "what you believe, you get" because it looks stupid on a bumper-sticker???? The pfal class-both the tapes AND the books-miserably fail to include it, but found room for imaginary mothers to kill their kids by worrying, and to include corny jokes. Apparently, they were more critical to include. Since God supposedly directed the contents, God decided to omit references to BELIEVING HIMSELF when discussing BELIEVING. Here we go again. Mike, if these TEN PLACES supposedly EXIST, in the actual class and books, not just in Mike's mind, then tell us where they are. TEN PLACES where they are INCLUDED and EMPHASIZED, you said. The Burden of Proof is on you. Otherwise, it looks like another thing you manufactured, like the "crude approximations" that vpw mentioned "twice" and still fail to actually produce- in fact, you admitted it was a lie. We'll both answer to God. I may "brush off" spurious claims of information that vpw supposedly wrote that he never wrote- like you did here. I have no proof you didnt make up the accounts to JAL, earning a "brush-off". Your track record is unimpressive in this regard. Instead of pronouncing God's Judgement on us for ignoring the word of Mike, how about giving us some SUBSTANCE? See? vpw said sinners ignorant of God's Word (and therefore, God's promises) operate his 'law of believing'. You said otherwise. But, as he states it, they were capable of operating it without that knowledge. You contradicted vpw again. You'll never get it by contradicting what's written, and changing words and phrases..... You can insult our understanding all you want, but taking the jar of pickles, and labelling it "apple-butter" in no way changes the pickles on the inside of the jar.

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.....

Translation: I shall ignore what I have no answers for. And you've been wrong each time. The phrase he used is "simply stated", which you have CHANGED and DECIDED means "crudely approximated." When you changed the word of vpw, you no longer had the word of vpw. You had "private interpretation." Not ONE session says "This is the specifics on believing,which I call a law. This is how it works, and why it fails to work. If you follow these instructions precisely, you will get the results 100 times out of 100." If it HAD, there would have been a basis for making this claim. There, of course, WAS no such session because there IS no way to make believing work like a "LAW". You have to completely define ALL the conditions before even STARTING. THAT's not a "LAW". Under that type of "science", people "proved" Blacks had less cranial space than whites- until someone did tests that DIDN'T define all the conditions.... I'm not even going to address your misunderstanding of gravity. Feel free to have the scientists here try to explain it AGAIN. We HAVE discussed it before..... So long as your understanding REQUIRES all information conform to the false doctrine of the "law of believing", you'll waste your time. It fails on its own rules as stated in BOTH Session One AND the Blue Book. It's propped up by people like you who add all sorts of "exceptions". Translation: I wish everyone would agree with me for once and validate my false doctrines. All the people here, at all their IQ levels and education levels and experience with pfal, all refute my doctrine. Translation: I was refuted yesterday, so I'm going to try to ignore it and call for a do-over. Here's how I try to claim that the mother killed that boy in the hypothetical example-let's ignore all the real-world examples people brought up. God was innocent-the mother was a murderer. NO ONE SAID HE DID!We object to you calling the mother the murderer. Because the mother didn't murder her child. All mothers worry when their kids are out of their sight. All the made-up examples of any class don't change that.This does NOT guarantee the kids die-which means this "law" that means you kill your kid by worrying isn't a "law". A) It's a lie. B) It blames a mother for a death she had nothing to do with. C) It's based on a made-up example. Controlling your mind is a good thing. It does NOT mean that this woman killed her son. Translation: Yes, this woman killed her son, but don't condemn her for it. Aaaaannd, here comes the commercial! vpw said the woman killed her son. He was wrong.

Funny. I just re-read the exact same section that another Dr. of Theology had just read, and NO WHERE does VPW ever blame the mother herself for causing the death of her child. But he does blame her fear. "Bombs don't kill people-EXPLOSIONS DO." "Guns don't kill people-BULLETS DO." Someone gets the gun, loads it, points it, and pulls the trigger. If WTH was an attorney, he'd claim they weren't responsible for the victim dying from a gunshot wound to the head.

I brought up the ridiculousness of claiming believing was a law- and specifically, that the hypothetical mother murdered her hypothetical son by way of her believing and using the driver as the murder weapon (he had no choice-it was "A LAW". I pointed out how the survival of almost every child whose parents worry about them as a complete FAILURE of the so-called "LAW" which, apparently, fails more than 90% of the time. (Could you imagine if GRAVITY had a 90% failure rate?) Further, suffering comes to people who have NO people worrying about them. So, the response this person gave to all that was this... I don't believe that fact matters much to any parent(s) who lost their kid(s) at Columbine. As I recall there was a similar situation like that which occurred in MN not long ago. You might actually try READING my posts sometime. With understanding. Columbine proves my point. According to your so-called "LAW", the tragedy there was primarily due to great fear on behalf of the parents and students of the high school, which by far exceeded the fear of parents and students in the rest of the country. Only incidentally do the actual shooters become involved. Faith (doesn't matter if it is positive or negative .. Romans 10:17) comes by hearing. Faith, positive or negative still comes that way, even in 2005. You can SAY "negative faith" is in the Bible, but, amazingly, no concordance SHOWS this error-ridden phrase to appear in Scripture. Fear is not good, fine. Faith in God is fine. If you still think "faith" is independent upon the reliability of that which is believed, you're still thinking Session One, and you're STILL divorced from the Bible. Labelling what other people believe doesnt affect them. That's sociology, not Scripture. Now, THAT's what was taught in Session One. NO. WHAT is believed, and WHO believes it does NOT enter the picture. Adding those as factors is NOT what was taught. It is changing pfal. When you add to pfal, do you still have pfal? Why add to pfal? The failed "LAW" needs lots of excuses to explain its failure. When did "conditions" come up in the class? You believed and it HAD to come to pass, it was a "LAW." You added "conditions" to pfal. Why? Because you needed excuses to explain the failure of this "LAW". Jesus didn't teach an immutable "Law of believing"-he taught to trust God, pray, have confidence in God, and so on. No, we've seen this before and were scammedonce already. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Labelling us out of your ignorance of our lives STILL doesn't change us. Different than taught in Session One and by you? Yes-I agree. Quite a remark coming from someone who doesn't understand (or believe in) the law of believing and therefore rejects it. A) It's true.B) It was one rule for pfal's success. C) We "understand" the failed "law" of believing just fine. That's why we reject it. We reject the "flat earth" doctrine also. Well, you're the one who claimed they didn't. Make up your mind. Believing is not a law because it fails to produce the results as stated in pfal. When its incredibly high failure rate is brought up, dozens of excuses never introduced in pfal pop up like mushrooms after a rain. WHO's being "untruthful", and who's "pushing the lie"? Hint: someone keeps pushing something known to be untrue. {quote]But let's not find fault with them just because they are not being truthful. Let's not find fault with them because they're BLAMELESS. Let's find fault with the one calling them LIARS for confronting lies with truth. Here comes thefamous WTH sermons that have nothing to do with us.. Yeah-listening to vpw got us all in the soup for sure. Next thing you know, we're buying all kinds of lies without subjecting them to critical evaluation, like how a mother killed her child by worrying.

Albert Cliffe, spiritualist. http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/rsr_lawbelieve.htm And E.W. Kenyon. http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/posit.htm Where did Kenyon get it? http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/461...faithtract.html

A semantic difference. The chart from Session I showed they were the same category, making large amounts of worry functionally equivalent to large amounts of fear, with both diametrically opposed to believing. That chart was in the sessions, the Orange Book AND the syllabus, and the Listening with a Purpose questions centered around it, making it cardinal to the understanding of Session I.

BTW, vpw showed a lot of students a pornographic movie with beastiality in it, and described it for tens of thousands who didn't see it. With more detail than was needed to make a point. BTW, did anyone see a specific point answered by the introduction of this pornographic movie or its description? If he was going somewhere with it, he took a wrong turn.

Sometimes I feel like I'm trapped in the last episode of "Seinfeld." See, the top button..... Amazing. We've gone over this for YEARS. This segment is based completely on a false doctrine and perpetuates error. The hypothetical example given is a boy run over by a car. Was it God's fault? No-AND NOBODY CLAIMED IT WAS, duh. Was it the mother's fault? No-but vpw blamed her. He claimed it's a LAW that if you worry something bad will happen to your child, you are them RESPONSIBLE for MAKING something bad happen. That is a vile error, and it is a lie to perpetuate it. Every morning, millions of children are sent off to school. Every morning, millions of parents worry something will happen to their children. Every morning, millions of children get home alive and unharmed. Every day, millions of children CONTINUE to come home unharmed despite worrying parents. Every day, someone's hit by a car and suffers serious injuries. That's NOT because someone was in a panic that such a thing would happen to the person. That's because there are bad drivers, there's suffering and evil in the world, and we live in the world. Forcing them into a construct required by an erroneous doctrine does them a disservice. Some GSCers have pointed out they had parents who were TERRIFIED something would happen to them, and nothing happened. Other GSCers have had nobody worried about them, and bad things happened. ==== A child is struck by a car and killed. Was God responsible? No. Was his mother who wasn't there responsible? No. Maybe the DRIVER was responsible. did vpw blame the mother because the child was insufficiently socialized and lacked experience? No-although those MIGHT have helped-or they might not. Children cross the street with the light every day and are hit by drivers running red lights. vpw said the mother was responsible for the sole reason of FEAR, and keeping FEAR. vpw's construct didn't blame the DRIVER any-he was a humble pawn in the game- this mother's fear FORCED him to hit the child. If not for her fear, the driver would have driven safely. So, it's not his fault. What a vile, vile thing to say! To blame a victim! This is as sensible as saying that the people who worked in the Twin Towers and escaped had no fear, but the people in the upper stories who died were fearful. According to vpw's construct, the FEAR in the HEARTS of the people in the upper stories was the MAIN cause of their deaths, and the planned and orchestrated hijackings, and hitting the planes into the buildings, that was not only incidental, but the terrorists didn't have a choice any more than that DRIVER did! The believing of those people dragged them along and they were incidental, pawns under the FEAR of the people there. Of course, the Police and Fire Dept people who went in and were inside when they collapsed-despite their training, they must have been full of FEAR also, since they had insufficient believing to escape alive. Odd how trained disaster specialists were full of fear while some civilians were confident and escaped. This must also mean that Todd Beamer ("Let's Roll") and the others on his flight lacked sufficient believing to override the believing of a handful of terrorists on their flight. If they had believed enough, they could have prevented their crash as well. Blame the Victim, Blame the Believer. Session One.

Sometimes I think I must have just imagined that I heard that. Guess not. No, you didn't. And it bore repeating.

And to what you are to adamantly do your best to ignore and try to draw attention from.

James Earl Jones Coming to America Eddie Murphy

I keep thinking of "Take Me to the River," because they share a line, but it's not that old.

They would probably say the organization re-evaluated their listing after communicating with them and seeing they were legit. They would probably prefer to leave out the 'hefty donation' part.