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.
I did not revise his teaching. It is YOU who refuse to admit the context in which it was taught. He taught in the context of "How to receive anything from God" and "What defeats the promises of God".
The entire focus and context in PFAL teaching was on receiving or not receiving Godly things, something you and Dr. Juedes doesn't seem to want to admit.
You accuse it of being an atheistic teaching because of his "saint and sinner alike" comment. How would you teach it then?
Go ahead and explain Mark 11:23:
Mar 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Whosoever means Whosoever. It doesn't say Christians only. (besides, there were no Christians then.)
Mar 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Whosoever means Whosoever. It doesn't say Christians only. (besides, there were no Christians then.)
I give up, but I'll bet if you as Herr Word Wolf...he vill have an answer!
a shot in the dark, i know not everyone is interested or can follow...but here i go posting it anyway...in my own words...
as ive often mentioned around here
our faith can be described as unfolding along a spectrum of "leaps"
and in general, this adventure lasts from womb to tomb
there is ample scripture to support this...just throw a rock at your favorite bible books...and look for sections you typically didnt read in twi...especially the epistles and book of rev
1) from what i have come to understand, "the law of believing" is the same kind of faith we acquire at 2 years old..or so.
...and for an adult to remain at this level of faith is a severe case of arrested faith development...and there are a billion adults in this very situation...a tyrant is an adult acting like a 2 yr old. As is our narcissistic boomeritus. From here, one does not like ANY other levels of faith...self-preservation and victory-mindedness are likely. Anti-social behaviour is also common here. Terrorism comes from here.
2) the next step of faith is when we bring our self-centered magic selves to a group and bond around a shared myth...or storyline. Like when we join a cult and insist that our small interpretation of Bible texts is the best...and "EVERYONE else is more wrong about it than us." This should happen at maybe 5-8 yrs old or so...when we bond with family and friends...but its not hard to see what trouble happens when this stage of faith lasts til late adulthood and gets into the CEOs and Politicians and power-brokers of the world. Severely metaphorically challenged. Language itself is more of a liability than a tool.
But this stage of faith does NOT like the previous stage. Much as TWI did not like lone wolves..."your application of the law of believing had better serve our group before it serves your individual self."
3) so the next stage of "faith" is not called "faith" at all. Although it IS a faith in reason. And as with all levels of faith..one does NOT like previous levels of faith. Thus, the enmity between religion and science. This stage of faith is very "darwinian." We should be picking this up in our teens. It is the level of faith where we question the heck out of the myths we used to believe.
and so on and so forth...the line of faith development is akin (but not identical to) to adult ego development..or cognitive development...or moral development...each level of faith carries us beyond the previous faith, but includes positive and useful aspects of it.
4) the next is more related to pluralism and compassion and a faith in equality and communal love. again...does not like previous stages at all. cant stand mere reason most of all, cant stand myth, but blindly tolerates self-centeredness. And while this level of faith is most caring and compassionate of the previous...it still cannot stand the idea of levels at all. This level of faith most often mistakes talking about levels with how earlier stages asserted dominance.
5) the next and beyond are more related to death and higher ("thinner?") states of consciousness...where all the saints and sages and wise ones we revere played here and beyond. This is where the previous stages suddnely make sense again as necessary steps.
note: even though we may live near one of these levels more than the others...we are almost always on the move between two of them. If i am at 2), both 1) and 3) are tugging at me. if i am at 3), both 2) and 4) are tugging at me, etc...
such as TWi mostly struggling being between 1) and 2) (thus, all the stories of being saved from self-centered oblivion based on magic..only to enter group-centered oblivion based on magic)
and Bill O'Reilly being in the struggle between 2) and 3) (thus, his bible based darwinian business mentality)
the struggle is often quite evident in language, in one's chief concerns, and especially what insults and offends and disturbs a person most often.
again...i am only talking about a single line of growth in humans...that path of moving from faith to faith to faith....as strange as it may sound, one can have a magic degree of faith that is served by a highly developed cognitive line. One may have a high degree of faith but have a warped sexual line, etc...
but when one's faith no longer works...one must make a leap to something new...and that daring journey through the space between rungs (maybe think flying trapeze) is where we are most spiritually engaged...that space is perhaps more important than the rungs themselves...that space is where "God" exists at ALL levels.
Raf you are good at shooting down Dr. Wierwille's teaching on this.
But if you can teach and explain it with greater understanding then he did, I will consider it.
Why? Why can't you just think for yourself, instead of waiting for some teacher to come along and present it in a way that's appealing to you?
Read it for yourself, Oldiesman. Employ your thinking skills. Stop waiting for some authority to come along and say "this is what I think it says."
There is no law of believing. But there is faith in Him. Why must there be one in order for the other to exist?
Why can't I say "believe God" without having to say "believing is a law that works for saint and sinner alike"?
Believing is NOT a law, it does not work for saint and sinner alike, what you believe you may not receive, fear is not believing in reverse...
I said it before and I'll say it again: The effectiveness of believing is entirely dependent on the credibility/reliability/trustworthiness of that which is believed.
Oldies, you're twisting Wierwille around to say something acceptable when he didn't.
I have yet to see anyone move a mountain, with or without God's involvement. Thus, it's a blatant example of hyperbole instructing people to believe God in all situations.
If you think what I wrote does not contradict Wierwille, you can only think that by distorting Wierwille to get him to say something palatable.
Wierwille's law of believing is exactly what John Juedes described, a tool that can be picked up and used for or against God's purposes. I didn't call that witchcraft, but I find it enlightening that you did.
You didn't call it that, but that is the assumption by some and it has been mentioned before by some.
It's like Christian Witchcraft. I think it was Sunesis who referred to Kenyon as a Christian Spiritualist. Like a freakin warlock. Well then Wierwille was one too.
I am not twisting any of Wierwille's teaching.
I KNOW the context in which it was taught and can prove it from the film and syllabus.
Dr. Juedes is taking it out of context and trying to prove it was an atheistic teaching.
As I said before, one may take anything out of its context to prove anything.
Interesting thread. Close to eighty pages of pie in the sky on the "big things" thread, how "blessed" people were.. and disclaimers..
I could hardly get people to squeak out three on my thread, asking for some practical, substantial, verifiable "results" of da class..
You get the front parking spot at Wally mart maybe fifty times in a row or so.. (and not when the store is closed, or at five in the morning ) and maybe we can talk about "the magic of believing"..
So I was richly rewarded for my believing and faithfulness, and giving of 15 or more percent.. a front spot at Wally Mart, woo hooo!
What about the other 379 times I had to park in the back of the lot?
A couple of years ago I put in for a promotion, fully expecting to be turned down. I firmly believed I would be rejected. I confessed this belief to several people.
Confession of belief yields receipt of confession, right?
The law of believing leaves God out of the picture. I have not thought about believing in ages! We are to have faith in God. To trust God, to look to God for answers. We pray for things, people, etc. God knows what I need. I give it to him. That was the very first thing I got rid of when I left TWI many moons ago.
Let's face it, the law of believing never left much room for humility, it was all about entitlement, like so much of wierwille's doctrine, remember "demanding" what you needed at God's throne? That is so far to the extreme that I'm embarrassed we actually believed we could treat God like that.
And what happened if you got sick or had a car accident or something bad happened to you or your family, you were blamed for not believing, judged by all for not being spiritual enough.
How about the numerous Corps that were run out on a rail and kicked out for their lack of believing ability? If God was so much a part of it, then God should have been blamed for all those apparent "failures".
"Let's face it, the law of believing never left much room for humility, it was all about entitlement, like so much of wierwille's doctrine, remember "demanding" what you needed at God's throne? "
Yeah, like a vending machine God, I have a quater now I better get the candy.
"Let's face it, the law of believing never left much room for humility, it was all about entitlement, like so much of wierwille's doctrine, remember "demanding" what you needed at God's throne? "
Yeah, like a vending machine God, I have a quater now I better get the candy.
But that wasn't the right quarter...
That quarter wasn't good enough...
You need to get your two dimes and one nickel parallel...
This quarter is only the bare minumum - to REALLY get something from this machine you need TWO quarters...
NOWHERE in the Bible are we told to "believe FOR" things.
Dooj, that's not entirely correct.
Seeing as this thread is essentially about doctrine and Paw hasn't found it necessary to move it in the appropriate forum -- I'll quote you one passage that supports (at least imo) the claim that we can believe FOR things.
Matthew 9:27 - 29 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us. And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord. Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.
We are told to pray for things
As you can see from the above passage -- no praying was involved.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
35
52
21
51
Popular Days
Sep 4
93
Sep 6
84
Sep 5
78
Sep 7
38
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 35 posts
oldiesman 52 posts
doojable 21 posts
Larry N Moore 51 posts
Popular Days
Sep 4 2007
93 posts
Sep 6 2007
84 posts
Sep 5 2007
78 posts
Sep 7 2007
38 posts
George Aar
The sick are even sicker, the dead are still dead, the broke are only moreso - as are the homely, stupid, and unlovable.
In short, the "LAW" didn't WORK!
Jeezus, how people can hang onto that fiction, even after decades of no results themselves - it's just remarkable.
Of course there's always that occasional parking place right up by the front door of the Value Village that keeps 'em going, I guess...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I did not revise his teaching. It is YOU who refuse to admit the context in which it was taught. He taught in the context of "How to receive anything from God" and "What defeats the promises of God".
The entire focus and context in PFAL teaching was on receiving or not receiving Godly things, something you and Dr. Juedes doesn't seem to want to admit.
You accuse it of being an atheistic teaching because of his "saint and sinner alike" comment. How would you teach it then?
Go ahead and explain Mark 11:23:
Mar 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Whosoever means Whosoever. It doesn't say Christians only. (besides, there were no Christians then.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
I give up, but I'll bet if you as Herr Word Wolf...he vill have an answer!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Raf you are good at shooting down Dr. Wierwille's teaching on this.
But if you can teach and explain it with greater understanding then he did, I will consider it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yeah.. except for those at the top of the pyramid scheme..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
a shot in the dark, i know not everyone is interested or can follow...but here i go posting it anyway...in my own words...
as ive often mentioned around here
our faith can be described as unfolding along a spectrum of "leaps"
and in general, this adventure lasts from womb to tomb
there is ample scripture to support this...just throw a rock at your favorite bible books...and look for sections you typically didnt read in twi...especially the epistles and book of rev
1) from what i have come to understand, "the law of believing" is the same kind of faith we acquire at 2 years old..or so.
...and for an adult to remain at this level of faith is a severe case of arrested faith development...and there are a billion adults in this very situation...a tyrant is an adult acting like a 2 yr old. As is our narcissistic boomeritus. From here, one does not like ANY other levels of faith...self-preservation and victory-mindedness are likely. Anti-social behaviour is also common here. Terrorism comes from here.
2) the next step of faith is when we bring our self-centered magic selves to a group and bond around a shared myth...or storyline. Like when we join a cult and insist that our small interpretation of Bible texts is the best...and "EVERYONE else is more wrong about it than us." This should happen at maybe 5-8 yrs old or so...when we bond with family and friends...but its not hard to see what trouble happens when this stage of faith lasts til late adulthood and gets into the CEOs and Politicians and power-brokers of the world. Severely metaphorically challenged. Language itself is more of a liability than a tool.
But this stage of faith does NOT like the previous stage. Much as TWI did not like lone wolves..."your application of the law of believing had better serve our group before it serves your individual self."
3) so the next stage of "faith" is not called "faith" at all. Although it IS a faith in reason. And as with all levels of faith..one does NOT like previous levels of faith. Thus, the enmity between religion and science. This stage of faith is very "darwinian." We should be picking this up in our teens. It is the level of faith where we question the heck out of the myths we used to believe.
and so on and so forth...the line of faith development is akin (but not identical to) to adult ego development..or cognitive development...or moral development...each level of faith carries us beyond the previous faith, but includes positive and useful aspects of it.
4) the next is more related to pluralism and compassion and a faith in equality and communal love. again...does not like previous stages at all. cant stand mere reason most of all, cant stand myth, but blindly tolerates self-centeredness. And while this level of faith is most caring and compassionate of the previous...it still cannot stand the idea of levels at all. This level of faith most often mistakes talking about levels with how earlier stages asserted dominance.
5) the next and beyond are more related to death and higher ("thinner?") states of consciousness...where all the saints and sages and wise ones we revere played here and beyond. This is where the previous stages suddnely make sense again as necessary steps.
note: even though we may live near one of these levels more than the others...we are almost always on the move between two of them. If i am at 2), both 1) and 3) are tugging at me. if i am at 3), both 2) and 4) are tugging at me, etc...
such as TWi mostly struggling being between 1) and 2) (thus, all the stories of being saved from self-centered oblivion based on magic..only to enter group-centered oblivion based on magic)
and Bill O'Reilly being in the struggle between 2) and 3) (thus, his bible based darwinian business mentality)
the struggle is often quite evident in language, in one's chief concerns, and especially what insults and offends and disturbs a person most often.
again...i am only talking about a single line of growth in humans...that path of moving from faith to faith to faith....as strange as it may sound, one can have a magic degree of faith that is served by a highly developed cognitive line. One may have a high degree of faith but have a warped sexual line, etc...
but when one's faith no longer works...one must make a leap to something new...and that daring journey through the space between rungs (maybe think flying trapeze) is where we are most spiritually engaged...that space is perhaps more important than the rungs themselves...that space is where "God" exists at ALL levels.
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldies,
The verses you quote are a clear example of hyperbole, a figure of speech.
Read the verse before the one you quote. It says "have faith in God."
Thus, "whosoever" is not "saint and sinner alike," but rather, "whosoever has faith in God." Context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Why? Why can't you just think for yourself, instead of waiting for some teacher to come along and present it in a way that's appealing to you?
Read it for yourself, Oldiesman. Employ your thinking skills. Stop waiting for some authority to come along and say "this is what I think it says."
There is no law of believing. But there is faith in Him. Why must there be one in order for the other to exist?
Why can't I say "believe God" without having to say "believing is a law that works for saint and sinner alike"?
Believing is NOT a law, it does not work for saint and sinner alike, what you believe you may not receive, fear is not believing in reverse...
I said it before and I'll say it again: The effectiveness of believing is entirely dependent on the credibility/reliability/trustworthiness of that which is believed.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I see that and your explanation doesn't contradict Wierwille's teaching.
i.e, saint and sinner alike can believe, can have faith in God.
saint and sinner alike = whosoever. He said that in PFAL.
I don't believe that verse was only a figure of speech.
It could have been, but you assuming it is and that's it isn't enough for me.
Jesus also said that all things are possible to him that believeth.
Believe what? The promises of God. What God says he will do.
If God says the mountain will move then I guess its not a figure.
Again I would refer you to the context of which this principle was taught by Wierwille.
Like the verse in Mark, it was presented in the context of how to receive from God.
Therefore, it was anything but atheistic.
I'm surprised you can't see that, it's crystal clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldies, you're twisting Wierwille around to say something acceptable when he didn't.
I have yet to see anyone move a mountain, with or without God's involvement. Thus, it's a blatant example of hyperbole instructing people to believe God in all situations.
If you think what I wrote does not contradict Wierwille, you can only think that by distorting Wierwille to get him to say something palatable.
Wierwille's law of believing is exactly what John Juedes described, a tool that can be picked up and used for or against God's purposes. I didn't call that witchcraft, but I find it enlightening that you did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
You didn't call it that, but that is the assumption by some and it has been mentioned before by some.
It's like Christian Witchcraft. I think it was Sunesis who referred to Kenyon as a Christian Spiritualist. Like a freakin warlock. Well then Wierwille was one too.
I am not twisting any of Wierwille's teaching.
I KNOW the context in which it was taught and can prove it from the film and syllabus.
Dr. Juedes is taking it out of context and trying to prove it was an atheistic teaching.
As I said before, one may take anything out of its context to prove anything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
All right, we've spoken our peace. Let's let someone else play.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
OK, thanks for sharing.
Here's another statement by Dr. Juedes:
Who said Wierwille was a master of believing and, why can't Wierwille have low believing in a certain area of his life?
This statement by Dr. Juedes doesn't show that the teachings are false.
However if you said Wierwille's believing wasn't there, was low, etc., then that would fit with the teachings.
Which by the way is possible, his believing could have been low and not there.
There is such a thing as healings, after all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
There are only two contexts I can think of..
1. The "law" "worked(?)"
2. The "law" did not.
Interesting thread. Close to eighty pages of pie in the sky on the "big things" thread, how "blessed" people were.. and disclaimers..
I could hardly get people to squeak out three on my thread, asking for some practical, substantial, verifiable "results" of da class..
You get the front parking spot at Wally mart maybe fifty times in a row or so.. (and not when the store is closed, or at five in the morning
) and maybe we can talk about "the magic of believing"..
So I was richly rewarded for my believing and faithfulness, and giving of 15 or more percent.. a front spot at Wally Mart, woo hooo!
What about the other 379 times I had to park in the back of the lot?
must've not been "believing"..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
How about my situation?
A couple of years ago I put in for a promotion, fully expecting to be turned down. I firmly believed I would be rejected. I confessed this belief to several people.
Confession of belief yields receipt of confession, right?
Wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rosestoyou
The law of believing leaves God out of the picture. I have not thought about believing in ages! We are to have faith in God. To trust God, to look to God for answers. We pray for things, people, etc. God knows what I need. I give it to him. That was the very first thing I got rid of when I left TWI many moons ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
READ THIS AGAIN OLDIESMAN
Link to comment
Share on other sites
now I see
Let's face it, the law of believing never left much room for humility, it was all about entitlement, like so much of wierwille's doctrine, remember "demanding" what you needed at God's throne? That is so far to the extreme that I'm embarrassed we actually believed we could treat God like that.
And what happened if you got sick or had a car accident or something bad happened to you or your family, you were blamed for not believing, judged by all for not being spiritual enough.
How about the numerous Corps that were run out on a rail and kicked out for their lack of believing ability? If God was so much a part of it, then God should have been blamed for all those apparent "failures".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Raf!
I just love you!!!
Congrats on the promo, the wedding all of it!
But now I see said:
"Let's face it, the law of believing never left much room for humility, it was all about entitlement, like so much of wierwille's doctrine, remember "demanding" what you needed at God's throne? "
Yeah, like a vending machine God, I have a quater now I better get the candy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
But that wasn't the right quarter...
That quarter wasn't good enough...
You need to get your two dimes and one nickel parallel...
This quarter is only the bare minumum - to REALLY get something from this machine you need TWO quarters...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Ummm? Mr. Oldiesman, sir?
How exactly does a sinner have faith in God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Oldies, you're missing the point.
NOWHERE in the Bible are we told to "believe FOR" things.
We are told to pray for things
We are told to believe when we pray. ( think that prayer without believing is akin to taking the Lord's name in vain - ie - emptiness.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Man, you said a mouthful-----------
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Dooj, that's not entirely correct.
Seeing as this thread is essentially about doctrine and Paw hasn't found it necessary to move it in the appropriate forum -- I'll quote you one passage that supports (at least imo) the claim that we can believe FOR things.
Matthew 9:27 - 29 And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us. And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord. Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.
As you can see from the above passage -- no praying was involved.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.