Raf

Not bad, for what it was. Enough laughs to make it worthwhile, enough honest questions to provoke an interesting discussion about faith.

I finally saw the second movie, which actually bears a passing resemblance to the second book. Characters are alive who shouldn't be in the beginning, middle and at the end. Carpathia gets short shrift. And the plans to get close to Carpathia seem more ridiculous on video than they do in print. The first movie is goofy fun and watchable, even though it has its problems. The second one dispensed with the watchability while keeping all the flaws. Sigh.

Oakspear, you put it wonderfully. I agree. Mike, your thesis doesn't even agree with Wierwille, much less the Bible. Turn from your idolatry. God is waiting.

Mike M.O. in operation: "Distract" This is not about what I think, Mike. It's about what the Bible says and, in this case, what it does not say. It does not say Job's fear was the reason for what happened. Job asks God why, and God doesn't blame Job's fear. You do, and you're wrong. Wierwille did, and he was wrong. "When and where the word of God is silent, he who speaks is a fool." Wierwille said that, despite the fact that he fell into that very trap and led you into it with him. What do I think? Not the issue. What does the Bible say? What does it not say? It does NOT say Job's fear caused his calamity, no matter how many times you try to rationalize it with your Blame The Believer Horse Manure Masquerading As Disciplined Devotion. Stop blaming Job, soft or hard. It wasn't his fault. It was an unjust, unprovoked, unwarranted attack.

If you were any more predictable, I could use you to set my alarm. There is no documentation of Job's fear in chapter one. There is evidence of his faithfulness and devotion to God, which Wierwille interpreted as evidence of fear. Wierwille was wrong, of course. But you are so busy worshipping every word he wrote, and a few words he stole, that you will never see that. There is no "law of believing." Job bore NONE of the blame for what happened. No hard blame. No soft blame. When Job repeatedly asked God why, why, why, God NEVER mentioned Job's fear. The worst fear of any parent is that something will happen to their children. Wierwille took that perfectly natural fear and turned it into an indictment. You come along with this happy horse manure and call it "soft blame." HMMADD, Mike. There is no law of believing that God was compelled to honor, thus allowing Job's children to DIE! Job's calamity was unjust, unfair, and NOT in accordance with some fictional law of believing. MC, BTB, HMMADD.

HMMADD. Satan did NOT pull a technicality. Satan was unaware of any hole in God's hedge of protection. Because there was none. One would think five years of mastery would have prepared you to address at least some of hte intricacies of session one. Again, he must distort and rewrite the law of believing in order to make it work. Fine and dandy, but it ain't what Wierwille taught. The further you go from the words of your idol, the more you establish that his doctrine had a lot of value but was not God-breathed. And to paraphrase what I've said earlier: Wierwille was often right about believing. The problem is you have set up a belief system in which he can never have been WRONG. But he was wrong. He was wrong to call it a law, he was wrong to equate fear with "negative believing" in that context, he was wrong to blame Job for his calamity, he was wrong to blame the heart and life of that woman, and he was wrong to say that God would have to change the laws of the universe in order to disprove Wierwille's preposterous theory. The issue here is not the law of believing. It's not about the true effects and proper response to fear. The issue here is your idolatrous equation of Wierwille's flawed thesis with God-breathed doctrine. As long as you bind yourself to PFAL, you will never rise above it. I pity you.

None of which establishes that her fear was responsible for the boy's death. Very pious sounding post there, Mike. But there's something about that smell. We wouldn't be at a stable, would we?

Mike, Problem with your thesis on Job 1:12. The problem is, Satan has to come back and ask for more permission in the next chapter. Why is that? If, as you say, Satan already has the hole in God's hedge, and God has told him as much, why go back for more permission? Because there was no hole in the hedge. Miserable comforter, you are. More BTB and HMMADD. No matter how many ways you contort the Bible to fit in with what Wierwille taught, it will always be "Blame The Believer" "Horse Manure Masquerading As Disciplined Devotion." What did Job's children fear? No evidence that they feared anything. Oh, but they all deserved to die because Job feared? How moronically stupid is that? Job and his children deserved NOTHING that happened to them. The calamity that befell them is totally unfair, not the result of some paralyzing fear on Job's part. Enough with your MC, BTB, HMMADD slander of Job.

This is something I've handled before: The fact that Job "greatly feared" that something would happen to his children is not unusual for any parent. It did not cause the calamity that befell him, nor did it play any role in it. Any reading of Job without Wierwille's horrific bias should indicate to the honest reader that Job was a righteous man and that the attack on him was unprovoked. His fear did not cut a hole in God's hedge of protection around Job. The attack was unfair, unjust, unprovoked, unwarranted, etc. Job's fear did NOTHING to bring this to pass because Job's fear was not unusual in the slightest. God never blames Job for what befell him. He does not credit Job, He does not hold Job responsible, and when Job asks Him repeatedly why this happened, God never responds "because of your fear." Why not? Because Job's fear had nuttin to do with it, despite Wierwille's unfair and disgusting assertion. Wierwille would have been right at home with Job's miserable comforters, as he blames Job as wonderfully as any of them did.

FINE! But it's still not what Wierwille taught. Wierwille taught "what you believe for or expect, you get." Not, "what you believe for within God's will..." Not, "What God promises and you believe..." Not, "What you believe for or expect you might maybe get if the conditions are right." I agree with what you're saying. I do not agree that it is a reasonable approximation of what Wierwille taught. Like I've said before and I'll say again, Wierwille often got "believing" right. But he also got it wrong from time to time. Your reliance on your own words and dismissal of his words (as we've quoted them repeatedly) proves itt.

Have you noticed that you have to re-write the law of believing into a "maybe it will happen and maybe it won't" thesis in order to establish its veracity? That's not what Wierwille wrote, and you know it. "Having a positive attitude is going to help..." is NOT the "law of believing." "Whatever you believe for or expect, you get," is the law of believing. If receiving something from a source other than God is not reliable, then believing is not a law. [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on July 12, 2003 at 11:09.]

File this under "distract," folks. It's an interesting discussion that does nothing to disprove Wierwille's plagiarism. All it says is "other people did it too." That's very nice, I know. While we're at it, let's name a few other people known to have committed plagiarism, just to get it out of the way... Martin Luther King, Jr. Alex Haley Jayson Blair Joe Biden Vanilla Ice (musical, not lyrical) All interesting. All irrelevant. Why? Because no one is claiming that ANY of these people were producing "God-breathed" works.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HA! Mike, if you are correct, then we were only paying for the cost of production of the books and the magazines, etc. That would put the costs FAR BELOW what we were paying (ask the Jehovah's Witnesses, who really do attempt to charge only "production costs." Their materials are loads less expensive than TWI's. Oh, and let's not forget the classes themselves. The registration fee (oh, pardon me, "donation," snicker snicker) was greater than the cost of the books, and did NOT go to the terrific vegetable plates, which were donated by the believers, not The Ministry. Man, could you imagine an American History course as taught by Mike?

That certainly seems to be Mike's implication. Here's Mike's exact words, with my emphasis. One may infer that Mike is trying to say she got the results of her believing from the untrue God, or at the least from somewhere OTHER than the true God. In any event, she got the results of her believing, because believing is a law and it's going to get fulfilled whether God does it or not. If that's your argument, Mike, then I rest my case. The "Law of Believing" is not restricted to the promises of God, because of God doesn't fulfill it, someone else will, BY YOUR VERY OWN ARGUMENT. HMMADD. Mike, millions of people are afraid of countless diseases, yet do not manifest them. Why not? If the law of believing is truly a "law," then they MUST manifest those diseases. Is God changing the laws of the universe so frequently?

HMMADD. Good luck.

Something's been nagging me and I haven't been able to put my finger on it until now. Smikeol has been endeavoring to master hisss precioussss for five years now, yet he can't tell us what Wierille meant by "LAW of believing." Here's his exact words... You've been mastering this stuff for five years and haven't yet gotten to session one!?!?! ---- Moving back to the topic of this thread (we do remember the thread topic, don't we): I can see quite clearly how the spirit/natural dichotomy is ubiquitous in the teachings of VPW. Exactly how was it hidden?

Ah, a sinner believing what's on the available list without knowing that it's available from God. Makes sense until one considers one of the requirements of receiving anything is knowing that God's willingness equals his ability.

Mike's selective memory needs refreshing. Yes, Wierwille did emphasize "what is available," and he did get that right. However, it is not only a stretch, but an outright inaccuracy to say that Wierwille taught a "law of believing" that was limited to the promises of God. Examples: "If a person is afraid of not being able to hold his job, do you know what will happen? He will lose it." PFAL, p. 38 God's Word does not promise a lost job to those who fear it. "If one is afraid of a disease, he will manifest that disease because the law is that what one believes... he is going to receive." ibid. That statement is so untrue, it's laughable. "When we believe, we receive the results of our believing regardless of who or what we believe." Same page. That statement is the antithesis of "The law of believing operates in the arena of God's Promises only." Let's not forget: "Do you know what killed that little boy? The fear in the heart and life of that mother." (p. 43-44). Show me where a mother who is afraid her son will get hit by a car is PROMISED BY GOD that her fear will come to pass. Now, is it a good thing to believe and maintain a positive attitude? Yes. Is it a good thing to keep fear in its proper perspective and refuse to allow it to hinder your walk with God? Of course it is. Those are main points that Wierwille got right. Where he went wrong is in insisting that these things are immutable laws, that the reliability of that which is believed is essential to this "law's" success. 'The law of believing operates in the arena of God's promises only" is an interesting thesis. It is defensible, Biblically. It makes sense. But it is not what Wierwille taught.

Socks, Thanks for the "My Sweet Lord" explanation. You'll notice that I didn't address it originally, and that's primarily because I recognized it for what it was: a distraction/evasion from the fact of Wierwille's plagiarism. You know, I have very little problem with anyone who says the information was more important than the source and they're willing to overlook the plagiarism. That's everyone's right. But when the plagiarism is denied, well, I just giggle. The fact that Wierwille plagiarized is so clear that anyone with two eyes and two books can see it. Those who think it doesn't matter should just say so: Wierwille plagiarized, but it doesn't matter to me. FINE! Wierwille didn't plagiarize? God plagiarized and gave it to Wierwille? As if God couldn't find a better way to express His own heart than EW Kenyon? HMMADD. Wayne, Goey: Brilliant.

Mike, Your understanding of plagiarism is laughably ignorant. Defend it all you want: Wierwille plagiarized from Kenyon. Sorry to break it to you: your alternate scenarios are beyond preposterous. But you go on believing them, and defending your idol. Be my guest. I'm enjoying it, really. Oh, and as for what constitutes a law: Go ahead and take all the time you want deciding what Wierwille meant when he said "Law," but until you do, you have NO RIGHT telling me that my definition is wrong. Some master you turned out to be. Good luck in your continued idolatry, and your HMMADD. Raf

Your ignorance is amusing. It's not called a "deed of ownership" in publishing. It's called a copyright. If you still have trouble finding it, let me know. I'll help you. I commend you on your valiant expansion of the "Blame The Believer" (BTB) explanation of why the Law of Believing doesn't work. I don't see how it's any different from what I said earlier: "You didn't really believe, you know. It was just mental assent." No matter how flowery your speech, it was still BTB, an extension of your overall M.O. of Horse Manure Masquerading As Disciplined Devotion (HMMADD). When HMMADD is being operated, one can easily observe the manufacture of a dichotomy between the way things were done after 1982 and the way they were done before 1982. The Person Exercising HMMADD (PEHMMADD) will then, with a straight face, appropriate the arguments of the post 1982 TVT leadership while claiming to have a pre-1982 heart. Remarkable. But stil HMMADD. As for the definition of "law," I define it the way Wierwille did. "All believing equals receiving." No it doesn't. "What you believe for or expect, you get." No you don't. "Fear is believing in reverse." No it isn't. "Fear is negative believing." No it's not. "God would have to change the laws of the universe not to accomodate you." No, He wouldn't. Why don't YOU define Law? That way I can hold you to it, rather than have you dance around any definition I would put forward. Raf [This message was edited by Rafael 1969 on July 09, 2003 at 15:55.]

For someone who criticizes others over typos, it would be nice if you would spell my name right. Your ignorance about plagiarism explains your glossing over of Wierwille's wholesale theft of others' hard work. Please, continue defending him. The more you defend Wierwille's plagiarism, the easier it is to prove. Raf

Horse manure. For those keeping track, this would fall under "distract." It addresses nothing of the point I was making, but it did take up four whole lines. I have no problem with the positive motivation. It just ain't a law. Deal with it. A distinction Wierwille stole from Kenyon, incidentally. More evasion. This is the standard "blame the believer" approach whenever the law of believing doesn't work. You didn't REALLY believe, you see. It was just mental assent. Had you really believed, the law of believing would have worked. H-O-R-S-E M-A-N-U-R-E. Believing is a wonderful thing. It was wonderful as taught by Kenyon. It was wonderful as photocopied, stolen, and reprinted by Wierwille, and it even sounds good coming from you. It just ain't a law. Deal with it.

My, how this thread has grown in my absence. Sigh. Is "The Law of Believing" now considered "on topic?" If so, I'd like to point out God's Magnified Word, p. 79, in which Wierwille states, "Many operate the law of believing without even having a knowledge of God's Word, for this law of believing works for saint and sinner alike." The plain meaning of the preceding sentence is that the law of believing exists independently of God's Word and, therefore, independently of God's promises. Dodge. Evade. Distract. Deny. But never admit an error is an error. Of course, the interesting thing is that Wierwille was often right when he spoke about believing, leading his supporters on this subject to stumble when trying to prove him right. The problem is, as Jerry Barrax put it, Wierwille's thesis works "pretty much as advertised." Did you catch it? "Pretty much." Universal laws do not "pretty much" work. They are absolute. Wierwille's law of believing was presented as an absolute, and as such, it is either ALWAYS right, or it is not a law. To disprove that believing is a LAW, one only needs to come up with one example of something that is either available or promised in God's Word, in which the person with the request honestly believed God for deliverance, that the need and the desire for such deliverance were "parallel" (that is, that the want was not greater than the need, nor was the need greater than the want), and the understanding was present that God's willingness is equal to His ability and yet the deliverance did not come to pass. How many of you have a situation that fits that description? I do. I was at the funeral. Not all believing equals receiving, although it's a good principle to get clear and concerned and maintain a positive attitude and trust God. Not all fear equals receiving, or my mother would have seen to my death before I reached the age of 18, because I am talking a PARANOID momma. Believing is a good thing. It is a positive principle. There are successes that cannot be achieved without it (dancing comes to mind). But it's not a law, because one can believe and not receive. Likewise, one can receive without believing. _____ On another subject, Mike brought up Wierwille's crediting of EW Kenyon in "Order My Steps In Thy Word. Wierwille plagiarized Kenyon notoriously in that chapter, crediting the earlier author with one extended quote while swiping several other significant blocks of text from the very same chapter. For documentation, click here. Mike disingenuously tries to claim that Stiles, Bullinger, Leonard and Kenyon never complained about Wierwille's plagiarism. We now know that Stiles and Leonard DID complain, Bullinger was long dead when Wierwille lifted his stuff, and To put a cap on the issue, Kenyon died in 1948, long before Wierwille's relevant works were published. So what does Mike do? Accuse Stiles and Leonard of succumbing to the world's standards on plagiarism. Sigh. ____ Final point: Mike's handling of the "David was a man after God's own heart" error was so fundamentally dishonest, and his characterization of my treatment of that ERROR was so far from the truth, that I was forced to re-examine the error. In the end, I still think it is in fact and actual, undeniable error. So you might want to revise your table of contents again, Mike. If you have the time. But I know, you're busy. When you get to it, blah blah blah blah barf. Raf

I want the pasta e fagioli too. Oh no, wait, that's plagiarism. I'll have the soup. Oops, not can't have that. Doesn't anyone have an original recipe? Of course! I'll have the Kentucky Fried Chicken, please.