If there were 'no law of believing' then there would likewise be 'no law of love' for one can not exist without the other. They are inextricably bound like the sides from the same coin. One might do better arguing away the law of love before they do the law of believing. But some people's arguments are so intellectual I have no doubt they could argue away that law too. The saddest part of it is, I honestly believe there are enough fools out there eager and willing to listen to them.
But have they truly disproven the law of believing? No, they have only proven that they have no need for it. What they have proven is that they have no need for God. Intellectuals don't need God. All they need is their deceptive reasoning because faith and believing are requirements for those who trust in something bigger than themselves and in what they can't see.
The greatest fear of any parent is that something horrible will happen to their children. It is NOT something that causes these things to happen.
That's true. Every parent at one time or another entertains thoughts about something bad happening to their children. But not every parent is obsessed with such thoughts. I suppose it might have been coincidental that the woman mentioned in PFAL just so happened to have a fear that her son would get run over by a car and lo and behold that's what happened. I suppose if the child had died another way VP would have had to find another example to make his point. Afterall -- it wouldn't have fit in very well if the child died in some other fashion.
Even I didn't like my last post. You're right. It was unclear. Thanks for pointing that out, Oldies. You quoted VP with this:
God is the one who makes things happen, not my believing.
VPW
I want to acknowledge that I understand and agree with the purpose of your posting that. You were asserting once again that he didn't teach "the law of believing" in an atheistic way. It's the "law" thing that I'm getting at. I feel you've proven your point about it not being atheistic.
But what killed that little boy, Oldies? Was it the fear in the heart of that mother? (That's one question with two question marks.)
Let's just keep it to that. According to your current understanding, Oldies, what killed that little boy?
Even I didn't like my last post. You're right. It was unclear. Thanks for pointing that out, Oldies. You quoted VP with this:
God is the one who makes things happen, not my believing.
VPW
I want to acknowledge that I understand and agree with the purpose of your posting that. You were asserting once again that he didn't teach "the law of believing" in an atheistic way. It's the "law" thing that I'm getting at. I feel you've proven your point about it not being atheistic.
But what killed that little boy, Oldies? Was it the fear in the heart of that mother? (That's one question with two question marks.)
Let's just keep it to that. According to your current understanding, Oldies, what killed that little boy?
Dan, I think you misquoted me. I believe I said this:
You say it, you believe it, and God will bring it to pass.
This quote is from PFAL and to the best of my recollection, VPW made the above comment in the context of believing God's promises in the Word.
Was not spoken in the context of bad things, like disease and death, etc.
What killed the little boy? Obviously the car that hit him. Look, this was a teaching tool of VPW. I can see the point he was making about fear and the way I took at that one was , the mother was always afraid to have the child walk home alone, so she always met him, and never taught him the correct way to cross the street.
I do not believe that she transitted her fear through the atmosphere and it killed the boy.
Now that I've read a few more of your recent posts explaining about the woman not teaching her kid to cross the street, I don't know what to say. I thought VP said that it was the fear in the heart of that woman that killed that little boy. If even today, you don't follow his reasoning, or I don't. He was teaching that believing equals receiving, and fear was the negative side of believing, and it too equaled receiving.
And the quote in post 192 (your post) says
God is the one who makes things happen, not my believing.
You attributed that to VPW. Like I said, you did it to prove he wasn't teaching an atheistic law. Correct.
Now you speculate (I suppose... I've never heard any suggestion to this effect before) that the woman may not have taught her child to cross the street. I follow your reasoning: her fear may have caused her to do this. But you don't answer the question directly. VP said it was fear that killed the little boy. Do you believe that?
Oldies said" the mother was always afraid to have the child walk home alone, so she always met him, and never taught him the correct way to cross the street."
What mother doesn't teach their kid to look both ways before crossing the street? Come on with that excuse, Oldies....
In case you missed it :)
Then you said: "I do not believe that she transitted her fear through the atmosphere and it killed the boy."
But that is what was taught, and what the Way's def of believing is. That is why we are going back and forth here.
:blink: This may be how YOU interpreted it, but it is obviously not how most interpreted it, and I am sure is not what VP meant. But, we'll never know.....................
Now that I've read a few more of your recent posts explaining about the woman not teaching her kid to cross the street, I don't know what to say. I thought VP said that it was the fear in the heart of that woman that killed that little boy. If even today, you don't follow his reasoning, or I don't. He was teaching that believing equals receiving, and fear was the negative side of believing, and it too equaled receiving.
And the quote in post 192 (your post) says
God is the one who makes things happen, not my believing.
You attributed that to VPW. Like I said, you did it to prove he wasn't teaching an atheistic law. Correct.
Now you speculate (I suppose... I've never heard any suggestion to this effect before) that the woman may not have taught her child to cross the street. I follow your reasoning: her fear may have caused her to do this. But you don't answer the question directly. VP said it was fear that killed the little boy. Do you believe that?
Yes that's the way I remember he taught it.
But what kind of fear and how did it actually work? Negative thought waves of doubt and worry transmitted through the atmosphere? Or, not ever teaching her kid to cross properly because she always thought and wanted him to be picked up?
Oldies said" the mother was always afraid to have the child walk home alone, so she always met him, and never taught him the correct way to cross the street."
In case you missed it :)
Then you said: "I do not believe that she transitted her fear through the atmosphere and it killed the boy."
But that is what was taught, and what the Way's def of believing is. That is why we are going back and forth here.
:blink: This may be how YOU interpreted it, but it is obviously not how most interpreted it, and I am sure is not what VP meant. But, we'll never know.....................
I can say the same about YOUR interpretation. VP didn't say that fear was "negative thought waves transmitted through the atmosphere" that caused calamities, did he? That was how YOU took it. I didn't take it that way.
I quoted you quoting VP accurately; it was a different one of your posts, Oldies
Forgive the double post... rather than editing, since I might finish the edit after Oldies replies.
I think chit happens. That's what killed that little boy. I admit, both fear and faith are powerful forces that will affect "our receiving." Certainly Jesus taught that faith "moves mountains."
"Be it unto you according to your faith."
"If thou canst believe. All things are possible to him that believeth."
etc.
All that is fine. But it would be just plain wrong to assert that a mother's fear of her little boy being killed in an autoMObile accident is the reason it happened. And that's what DrW did in the class. That's all I'm saying, Oldies.
OK, we are indeed posting at the same time. Just read your reply, and thank you. I was beginning to lose faith in you! Give you up as "not ready" or something!
On the positive side, then. You feel that Jesus taught that believing was a "law"? That is, like the law of gravity. Was Jesus teaching his disciples "keys to the more abundant life" that he came to give?
I have feared for many years that I'd lose my good looks as I get older. Hasn't happened yet. Just the opposite.
I have believed diligently for years for my IQ to drop 10-15 points, just to even things up with some of you geniuses here. Hasn't happened yet. If anything, it's going up.
I am walking living breathing proof - ain' no such thing as dat dere deal believing, dat danged ol' thing a muh dag dabbit, now.
I also agree with Oldie's above, and also Oldie’s green gas of negative believing (he used different words). By sheer logic, however, if it’s green gas in the negative, it’s green gas in the positive. Meaning, the power comes from God and not our minds. In which case, it doesn’t really work for saint and sinner alike. I bet Oldies’s would agree with that too. Just guessin’. :)
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
What The Hey
If there were 'no law of believing' then there would likewise be 'no law of love' for one can not exist without the other. They are inextricably bound like the sides from the same coin. One might do better arguing away the law of love before they do the law of believing. But some people's arguments are so intellectual I have no doubt they could argue away that law too. The saddest part of it is, I honestly believe there are enough fools out there eager and willing to listen to them.
But have they truly disproven the law of believing? No, they have only proven that they have no need for it. What they have proven is that they have no need for God. Intellectuals don't need God. All they need is their deceptive reasoning because faith and believing are requirements for those who trust in something bigger than themselves and in what they can't see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
That's true. Every parent at one time or another entertains thoughts about something bad happening to their children. But not every parent is obsessed with such thoughts. I suppose it might have been coincidental that the woman mentioned in PFAL just so happened to have a fear that her son would get run over by a car and lo and behold that's what happened. I suppose if the child had died another way VP would have had to find another example to make his point. Afterall -- it wouldn't have fit in very well if the child died in some other fashion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
speaking of the Book of Job...
some scholars say that the "happy ending" of the Book of Job was an add-on...
and that Job simply died after "realizing the nature of God" and such
just sayin
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
And some scholars believe Job never existed. Just sayin. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
yep
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Well, I guess VP must have been obsessed with fear for years - for he got what he believed for - Cancer
LCM must have been obsessing for years over losing his job - and, lo and behold, look what happened - his long time fear caught up with him.
These people operated the principle of believing in the negative and look what happened to them.
You cannot refute this, this is VP's own words, backed up by people on here who believe him.
Why would anyone want to idolize leadership that was full of fear for years?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
So, why don't we find the ''woman who believed negatively and whos son was killed by the car"?
You know, get her take on it. How much fear did she have? Was she ''obsessed" about it? How did VP find out about it?
What mother doesn't teach their kid to look both ways before crossing the street? Come on with that excuse, Oldies....
Is there / was there such a woman???????
I am beginning to think he pulled it out of his arse so he could have a really dramatic/horrifying example. <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Even I didn't like my last post. You're right. It was unclear. Thanks for pointing that out, Oldies. You quoted VP with this:
God is the one who makes things happen, not my believing.
VPW
I want to acknowledge that I understand and agree with the purpose of your posting that. You were asserting once again that he didn't teach "the law of believing" in an atheistic way. It's the "law" thing that I'm getting at. I feel you've proven your point about it not being atheistic.
But what killed that little boy, Oldies? Was it the fear in the heart of that mother? (That's one question with two question marks.)
Let's just keep it to that. According to your current understanding, Oldies, what killed that little boy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Dan, I think you misquoted me. I believe I said this:
This quote is from PFAL and to the best of my recollection, VPW made the above comment in the context of believing God's promises in the Word.
Was not spoken in the context of bad things, like disease and death, etc.
What killed the little boy? Obviously the car that hit him. Look, this was a teaching tool of VPW. I can see the point he was making about fear and the way I took at that one was , the mother was always afraid to have the child walk home alone, so she always met him, and never taught him the correct way to cross the street.
I do not believe that she transitted her fear through the atmosphere and it killed the boy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
I quoted you quoting VP accurately; it was a different one of your posts, Oldies
Here's your post I quoted from. It's post #192
Now that I've read a few more of your recent posts explaining about the woman not teaching her kid to cross the street, I don't know what to say. I thought VP said that it was the fear in the heart of that woman that killed that little boy. If even today, you don't follow his reasoning, or I don't. He was teaching that believing equals receiving, and fear was the negative side of believing, and it too equaled receiving.
And the quote in post 192 (your post) says
God is the one who makes things happen, not my believing.
You attributed that to VPW. Like I said, you did it to prove he wasn't teaching an atheistic law. Correct.
Now you speculate (I suppose... I've never heard any suggestion to this effect before) that the woman may not have taught her child to cross the street. I follow your reasoning: her fear may have caused her to do this. But you don't answer the question directly. VP said it was fear that killed the little boy. Do you believe that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bliss
Oldies said" the mother was always afraid to have the child walk home alone, so she always met him, and never taught him the correct way to cross the street."
In case you missed it :)
Then you said: "I do not believe that she transitted her fear through the atmosphere and it killed the boy."
But that is what was taught, and what the Way's def of believing is. That is why we are going back and forth here.
:blink: This may be how YOU interpreted it, but it is obviously not how most interpreted it, and I am sure is not what VP meant. But, we'll never know.....................
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yes that's the way I remember he taught it.
But what kind of fear and how did it actually work? Negative thought waves of doubt and worry transmitted through the atmosphere? Or, not ever teaching her kid to cross properly because she always thought and wanted him to be picked up?
I can say the same about YOUR interpretation. VP didn't say that fear was "negative thought waves transmitted through the atmosphere" that caused calamities, did he? That was how YOU took it. I didn't take it that way.
Dan, that wasn't VP I was quoting, it was Groucho Marx. Look at the quote again...
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
May I ask you this, Oldies? Do you believe that what DrW taught about "the law of believing" was consistent with what Jesus taught about faith?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
On the positive side, yes. On the negative side, no.
I think that's where VP could have gotten it wrong.... i.e., "The Law Of Believing on the Negative Side".
It doesn't make sense to me and as I look at the scripture I don't see where Jesus taught this...
Edited by oldiesmanLink to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Forgive the double post... rather than editing, since I might finish the edit after Oldies replies.
I think chit happens. That's what killed that little boy. I admit, both fear and faith are powerful forces that will affect "our receiving." Certainly Jesus taught that faith "moves mountains."
"Be it unto you according to your faith."
"If thou canst believe. All things are possible to him that believeth."
etc.
All that is fine. But it would be just plain wrong to assert that a mother's fear of her little boy being killed in an autoMObile accident is the reason it happened. And that's what DrW did in the class. That's all I'm saying, Oldies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Golly, I wasn't thinking evil of that mother; all I saw was the teaching concept.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
OK, we are indeed posting at the same time. Just read your reply, and thank you. I was beginning to lose faith in you! Give you up as "not ready" or something!
On the positive side, then. You feel that Jesus taught that believing was a "law"? That is, like the law of gravity. Was Jesus teaching his disciples "keys to the more abundant life" that he came to give?
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I have feared for many years that I'd lose my good looks as I get older. Hasn't happened yet. Just the opposite.
I have believed diligently for years for my IQ to drop 10-15 points, just to even things up with some of you geniuses here. Hasn't happened yet. If anything, it's going up.
I am walking living breathing proof - ain' no such thing as dat dere deal believing, dat danged ol' thing a muh dag dabbit, now.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
As written, I agree with this post.
As a whole, the 12 sessions of pfal are not atheistic- not in the usual sense of "antagonistic to religion"
nor in the specific sense Juedes meant- which was technically correct- of a 12 session class
where God was irrelevant.
However,
Juedes didn't say the entirety of pfal, all 12 sessions, were atheistic.
He said the so-called "LAW" of believing was "atheistic", that is, God was irrelevant to the
system. It required "laws of the universe", and occasionally mentioned God,
but He was incidental at best to any practical application of these supposed "laws".
Believing could get you RED DRAPES, or kill your child, or give a hypochondriac illnesses he
never had-just claimed he did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, here's what we agree on, and what we don't agree on.
"vpw got believing in reverse wrong"- check.
"We should believe the promises of God"- check.
"God made an immutable law for sinner and nonsinner of believing"- no check.
Believing God? Good thing.
Claiming that's some sort of "law"? Not so much.
We agree on quite a bit, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
OMG!
OMG!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
I also agree with Oldie's above, and also Oldie’s green gas of negative believing (he used different words). By sheer logic, however, if it’s green gas in the negative, it’s green gas in the positive. Meaning, the power comes from God and not our minds. In which case, it doesn’t really work for saint and sinner alike. I bet Oldies’s would agree with that too. Just guessin’. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
another spot
Sheesh. Another wayism slipped out.
Who says a sinner can't believe God? I think I am one...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
spot, that's what I was trying to say!
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.