Raf

No, but I remember him teaching you can believe God to have your child killed by a car. According to you, anyway. You revise Wierwille and then accuse those who accurately represent him of distorting the FALSE DOCTRINE he taught.

Mentiras Desde El Primer Dia I'm sure that's the Spanish translation of PFAL.

The effectiveness of believing is entirely dependent on the reliability of that which is believed. Thus, fear CANNOT be believing in reverse. Thus, the fear in the heart and life of that mother did not cause her child to die (though her failure to teach him how to cross the street might have played a role). If Wierwille was ONLY talking about receiving from God, how could FEAR be BELIEVING in reverse? Did God send the car that killed that mother's child? I seem perturbed? Dude, I'm not the one screaming "shame on you" at the top of my lungs. :) Oldiesman, you JUST GOT DONE saying what I claimed you said. I QUOTED you saying it.

yes, but that's not what Wierwille was talking about when he said "saint and sinner alike" and YOU KNOW IT. Stop perpetuating the FICTION that he was only talking about getting saved when he said that.

I wear your condemnation as a badge of honor, Oldiesman. You are devoid of moral authority and are nothing more than an apologist for a predator against God's people. And a false teacher to boot. The law of believing is FICTION.

The notion that "works for saint and sinner alike" is only meant to give the sinner the opportunity to be saved is REVISIONIST FICTION. It is not what Wierwille said or meant when he said the law of believing works for saint and sinner alike. It's simply a convenient way for you and other apologists to dodge the fact that Wierwille was, in fact, teaching something with no biblical foundation.

No, Not the same thing. One says there is no God. The other says God has nothing to do with using it. See the difference? God made the hammer. You can use it for his purpose, or indifferent to his purpose. That's what Wierwille taught about the law of believing, whether you refuse to acknowledge it or whether you finally wake up from a 19-year stupor and realize it.

No, PFAL. And you're misrepresenting Juedes and me when you prop up the strawman that either of us is claiming Wierwille promoted atheism. No one said that. What is said is that the law of believing is atheistic (I'd prefer non-theistic, as one does not need to believe in God to work a hammer or the law of believing, according to WIERWILLE, not me, not Juedes).

Well, if it works for saint and sinner alike, and unbelievers are as adept at manifesting the law of believing as believers are, I suppose you are correct, and it IS news to you.

The problem with the logic of "Wierwille was teaching how to receive from God" is the failure to realize that Wierwille taught a law of believing that was independent of God's involvement: namely, Wierwille taught that God set up the law of believing, and yes, to receive from Him, you must employ the law of believing as a tool. It's like this: God made the hammer. If you want to build a church, you MUST pick up the hammer. Now, do you have to be building a church to pick up a hammer? No, you can be building a strip club. But you're employing the same tool. The tool works no matter what you're building, whether it's a church, a school, a strip club or a brothel. Wierwille's law of believing was a hammer: anyone could use it, for godly purposes or ungodly. And as such, the law of believing is a FARCE.

Haven't checked Roberts, so I wouldn't know. And I don't know how you haven't seen evidence that Hagin or Copeland plagiarized Kenyon, except that you either haven't looked for it or have a strange definition of plagiarism. I haven't seen evidence of the existence of binary star systems, but I'm sure if I looked for it, it wouldn't be that hard to find. Google: Kenyon Plagiarism Copeland Hagin Wierwille and you'll probably find the evidence you've missed to date. Better yet, leave Wierwille off your search, since that will actually cut down the number of hits (far fewer people have heard of or care about Wierwille than Copeland or Hagin).

No, plagiarized. There's a difference between citing someone and lifting paragraphs wholesale without citing them. It was downright, flat-out plagiarism. but before this becomes another plagiarism thread, the point of bringing up Kenyon is that so much of these "word faith" doctrines can be traced back to his influence.

Copeland, Hagin and Wierwille have something else in common. All plagiarized Kenyon. Liberally.

I may be jumping the gun on this: Felix is pounding Nicaragua as we speak, at Category 5 strength, but forecasters are looking at another system just off the east coast of the U.S. The system is moving southeast, which is unusual. It's expected to turn back around as most storms do, and if it strengthens, it will be Gabrielle. What happens next? Well, either it hits the coast or it goes north the way most of last year's storms did. Who knows? Let's just keep an eye on it.

Oops. Sorry. :)

It's more than a week, WW. Jumpstart this game for me, willya?

Go Yanks!

I Hope You Dance is a nice one. Thank You For The Music by Abba works, too.

New movie: "Son, where did you get that gun?" "My mom gave it to me." *** "What's wrong with this man?" "There was gunplay, sir, and he missed it."

Dang, I guess I'll have to come up with another one. This was Scrooge, a 1970 musical starring Albert Finney as Old Eb and Alec Guiness (!!!!!!!!) as Jacob Marley. And yes, it was a musical.

It never ceases to amaze me, the torturous logic people go through to justify the corruption of TWI. A man who should know better takes a woman's hand and puts it on his pants to show off his erection, and we're supposed to excuse the behavior because the real point is being blessed that the man was healed. Holy cow! Are you flogging kidding me? A minister of God shows bestiality porn, and we're supposed to be figuring out what beneficial purpose he must have had in mind for it. Shutthefrontdoor! This a joke? Hey, here's my reason for VPW showing the bestiality porn. It's not because he was pushing bestiality. It was because HE GOT OFF ON IT. Think about it: it's the only reason that makes sense. There is no Christian reason to show such a thing (don't agree? fine: show it to your kids, and invite the cops to observe you doing it). If this is legalism, I'm down for more of it. The licentiousness being shown by axcusing such abhorrent behavior is utterly despicable.

YEah, whatever. Talk about no point arguing.

Oh please, Larry. Healing or no healing, miracle or no miracle, there's no excuse for what he did. And it wasn't beautiful, it was lecherous. How are these things even arguable?

Come on, guys. It's not Alastair Sim, the Muppets or Mr. Magoo. And it's not Scrooged. So, was there another version of this story any of you saw?

Ok, I won't judge the man. What I will judge is the expression that what he did was "beautiful." That wasn't a spur of the moment thought.