Raf

Not a relevant question in my theology. A relevant question in Mormon theology, granted. That's why we disagree. Coffee?

He says there's nothing wrong with the definition, then goes on to describe why it is inadequate. Point is, it's not a law. Simplicity is a beautiful thing. Haste makes waste. Often true. Not always. Not a law, but worth remembering. Same goes for VPW's aphorisms on believing. Often true. Not always. Not a law, but worth remembering.

LG, You presume that witnessing to onlookers and this being a cry of triumph are mutually exclusive. I don't particularly see it that way.

It's not "asking someone to believe he was pondering the esoteric" if, in fact, he did quote scripture while he was hanging there. I believe he was pondering the scripture he quoted, a reasonable belief considering he quoted a scripture. I do not believe God forsook him, I do not believe he believed God forsook him, and I do not believe it was a cry of anguish from someone going through intense physical pain. He managed to say seven different things on the cross, despite the pain he was enduring and had endured. It doesn't strike me as odd at all to suggest that a man who quoted a scripture was thinking about that scripture at the time.

I was making a gag, but I missed the word "assist" in the opening post, so shame on me. :)

Welcome back, M.D. Vaden. And nice post. Can I nitpick on something you said, though?

I was looking for the line that said "If there's anything we can do to help you, please let us know." Was that in the excerpted portion of the letter?

Then I must be wrong. :)

Actually, Mo, what I am saying is not only that God did not forsake Jesus, but that Jesus never felt that God forsook him. If indeed he was quoting a scripture, then his reason for calling out those words goes beyond the words themselves. If ANYONE knew that God would never, ever forsake Jesus, it would be Jesus.

The problem is, the more you try to re-describe the law of believing, the farther you get from Wierwille's definition. Wierwille's "law of believing" isn't oversimplified. It's flat out wrong, doesn't exist. I've come to the belief that what Wierwille describes is more of an aphorism or proverb than a law. The difference is with aphorisms, when it works, it works, and when it doesn't, it doesn't mean the laws of the universe have been violated. "Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it." This is not a "law." It often works exactly as presented. It often does not work. People are people. Believing equals receiving. Confession of belief yields receipt of confession. As you believe, you receive. These are good sayings. But they do not express a law.

Something that works. The law of believing doesn't.

Mike, You're acting as if I've claimed that the "law" of believing is a human-type or Mosaic-type law. That's stupid. It's not what I ever said; it's not what I ever meant. As a matter of scientific-type laws, THERE IS NO LAW OF BELIEVING. It flat out does not work.

Mike, In my heart, I knew I would not get the job. The principles laid out in the Bible are wonderful. Turning them into a "law" was error. I confessed with my mouth what I believed in my heart, and it did not come to pass. Instead of trying to figure out where the (nonexistent) law of believing failed (which it did), I'm busy praising and thanking God.

Thanks for clarifying.

Confession of belief yields receipt of confession, right? Yeah, right. Not true. I believed I would get passed over for a promotion. I confessed that belief to others. I got the promotion. Either VPW was wrong, or I got someone else's job!

got it to 22.874 seconds!

CK, Can I ask you an honest, non-confrontational question? Seriously? Is English your second language? If not, is there something else that might explain why you write as you do? For example, themex is a little tough to follow sometimes because he's thinking in Spanish and writing in English. year2027 is tough to follow sometimes for other reasons. I find your posts tough to follow, not because of the content (which is ringing loud and clear) but because of style. If you don't want to answer, you don't have to. Just wondering.

I think it's an awfully big assumption that Jesus, who knew this was his mission and knew what was to come next, FELT forsaken. The Bible says he endured the cross "for the joy that was set before him." Why would Jesus accuse God falsely of forsaking him? Makes more sense that he was quoting a known scripture to bring attention to his identity. Also makes more sense to move this whole thing to doctrinal, no?

The word "learning" in "for our learning" is the same word translated "doctrine" elsewhere. The scriptures are written "for our doctrine." Just thought I'd lob that grenade in there. :)

So, Oldiesman, do you think TWI is right about how that verse should be translated in the gospels, or do you think STFI is right? Just curious. STFI rejected what Wierwille said about "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?" Their explanation is that God did not forsake Jesus, and that Jesus was not accusing God of such a thing. You (mistakenly?) give the impression that STFI and VP were in agreement on the subject.

When TWI has any say over someone's financial well-being YOUR CONCERNS ARE MOST DEFINITELY VALID. TWI's interest is the financial well-being of TWI, not your sister. Your parents should do everything in their power to ensure that their money is received according to their wishes. If that means putting it in trust for the nephew and niece, then put it in trust. When it comes to money, do not trust The Way International under any circumstances.

I'm sure Cynic and Mark already know this, but I think it needs to be said explicitly: TWI's position is not Arian. The Arians still believe in a Christ who existed prior to his birth as a man, which TWI rejects. JW's are far closer to Arians than TWI.

I was away for the weekend. Will post something late morning/early afternoon. Raf

Don't take that class! "To Serve Man" is a cookbook!

20.75.