Ok-----I'm gonna flog the dead horse one more time. Or, for JonnyLingo and Templelady, "mush the dead sled dog".
(On account of them bein' up there in Alaska and all that.)
Anybody who stuck around TWI for any length of time knows that VeePee taught that if you were "born-again", you automatically qualified for a "sainthood certificate of authenticity".
(ie: born-again=saint)
Conversely, if you were not "born-again", you were a "sinner".
(not the same thing as "one who sins", fortunately, because that would exclude a WHOLE lot of people, not the least of which is myself.
Thus, " The 'law of believing' works whether it's operated by a "born-again believer" saint or a God rejecting lowlife, scum of the Earth "heathen" sinner."
It just won't work if you happen to be a saint who is out of fellowship or can't get your believing up. :wacko:
Sigh!!!----------This sainthood stuff really ain't all it's cracked up to be.
I heard a certain clergy's wife refer to anyone who did not have the class as a "rank unbeliever." To which I responded, " OH? How do you know this? Did God show you a black heart?"
I heard a certain clergy's wife refer to anyone who did not have the class as a "rank unbeliever." To which I responded, " OH? How do you know this? Did God show you a black heart?"
Would that be "rank" as in uninformed "sinner" or "rank" as in-----------"Oh, My!, This week old broccoli casserole sure is "rank"!!
Ok-----I'm gonna flog the dead horse one more time. Or, for JonnyLingo and Templelady, "mush the dead sled dog".
(On account of them bein' up there in Alaska and all that.)
Anybody who stuck around TWI for any length of time knows that VeePee taught that if you were "born-again", you automatically qualified for a "sainthood certificate of authenticity".
(ie: born-again=saint)
Conversely, if you were not "born-again", you were a "sinner".
(not the same thing as "one who sins", fortunately, because that would exclude a WHOLE lot of people, not the least of which is myself.
Thus, " The 'law of believing' works whether it's operated by a "born-again believer" saint or a God rejecting lowlife, scum of the Earth "heathen" sinner."
It just won't work if you happen to be a saint who is out of fellowship or can't get your believing up. wacko.gif
Sigh!!!----------This sainthood stuff really ain't all it's cracked up to be.
, 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.
Never taught him the correct way to cross the street?...Good gravy! Did I sleep through that part in the class?...
...What is being ignored here is the believing of the guy who drove the car. What?...he was a blow up doll that mindlessly steered the car into the boy?...What part did his believing play in this scenario?...If you follow Wierwille's teaching to it's logical conclusion...the guy driving must have "believed" that he was gonna kill a child with his automobile.
Look...this "law of believing" is asinine...it doesn't exist!...the guy who taught you this drugged and raped young girls...how stupid can you be?
I hate to insult people but...really!...how stupid can you be?????????????
Think about it for a minute...You're driving your car and suddenly you run some kid over and kill him because his mother was full of fear. I'm sorry, but that logic is just plain stupid...
Never taught him the correct way to cross the street?...Good gravy! Did I sleep through that part in the class?...
...What is being ignored here is the believing of the guy who drove the car. What?...he was a blow up doll that mindlessly steered the car into the boy?...What part did his believing play in this scenario?...If you follow Wierwille's teaching to it's logical conclusion...the guy driving must have "believed" that he was gonna kill a child with his automobile.
Look...this "law of believing" is asinine...it doesn't exist!...the guy who taught you this drugged and raped young girls...how stupid can you be?
I hate to insult people but...really!...how stupid can you be?????????????
Think about it for a minute...You're driving your car and suddenly you run some kid over and kill him because his mother was full of fear. I'm sorry, but that logic is just plain stupid...
Yeah, when you really think it out to it's logical conclusion it is beyond ridiculous.
If "All believing equals receiving" and then "All receiving equals believing" it follows then that whatever goes on in your life - it's all a direct result of your believing.
Step in a warm pile of dog poop while going to check the mail? You musta believed for it man! Inherit a gazillion dollars from a long-lost, late relative? Yer believing! A rock ding in your windshield? Believing! Lousey show at the movies? Your crumby believing again! Your Aunt Mabel sends you a fruitcake for Christmas? Buhleeeving!
It's beyond childish to think that there is some kind of powerbeam that emanates from our brain and that it affects everything in our environment, but that's what one MUST accept if you're to subscribe to this particular Wierwillian tenet.
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?
Dan, it might be a case that Oldies just had other things to do but I checked to see if he responded to this post and I don't see where he had. Now, I may be wrong but -- If you were to speak to me in such a condescending tone I wouldn't respond to you either. What do I mean by condescending?
I was beginning to lose faith in you! Give you up as "not ready" or something!
After reading Abi's post it's difficult to follow it up with this crap but what the heck. You re-opened the door.
Subtle? Perhaps but, let's see how well you can spot the contradiction in his post. Shall I give you a clue? I think not. :)
I'm all ears. Enlighten me --- please! ;)
(P.S. -- post if you wish, or not as you wish.)
I won't be back here until (perhaps) 8 PM tomorrow evening.
A small thing called my *Day job*. ;)
Oh for you dmiller I'll give you a clue.
What did you DO with the film strip after you received it?
Although your analogy wasn't all that bad you left out one important ingredient. The five keys taught in PFAL didn't pertain to receiving just anything -- it specifically addressed what we needed to know in order to receive anything FROM God. In other words -- it pertains to what's available FROM God -- not man or an organization.
Hey there Larry, thanks for answering. :)
I'll answer the question first.
I still have that little strip of film. It's in a picture frame (under glass) along with two pieces of dove down (from one of the doves that docvic released), that ending up landing on his shoulder back at at AC 79, along with an unused ticket for TAKIT when they played in Minneapolis on Friday March 27, 1979.
So -- I'm a pack-rat. :) (But it's not hanging on a wall in my house).
It's in my collection of *twi memorabilia*, in the basement here.
Collecting dust, but I'm still loathe to get rid of things like that.
Now -- your paragraph where you said ----
Although your analogy wasn't all that bad you left out one important ingredient. The five keys taught in PFAL didn't pertain to receiving just anything -- it specifically addressed what we needed to know in order to receive anything FROM God. In other words -- it pertains to what's available FROM God -- not man or an organization
That makes sense (from a twi point of view), but it isn't practical, given what they practiced.
Twi did indeed teach that *all things came from God*, NOT an org, such as twi.
However (I don't know what year it started, but start it did) ---
twi started defining what was and what was not, from God.
'Nother words -- they wrote the rule book, and no arguements allowed.
Sure --- PFAL said one thing (I'll agree with that),
but what was being taught to the rank and file was something totally different.
(IMO).
Twi (whenever) decided to *dictate* to "believers" what they could (or could not) believe for.
Face-meltings became commonplace, people were humiliated, lives were ruined,
honest ministries were tossed aside like so much garbage, etc., etc.
All because of the overwhelming desire to DICTATE by the org.
Sure -- the class said nice things, some things believable (even).
Big F-nn deal. What they SAID, and what they PRACTICED were worlds apart.
They taught one thing, and expected something totally different.
(NOT new news to the folks here).
So -- I agree with you that they taught that (unexpected blessings) came from God,
but by the same token, they chose to define those attributes,
and expected us to believe it as gospel.
And as far as the *Law of Believing* CRAP --
They disproved their OWN THEORY, when they sent me that film strip.
It negated EVERY-D***-THING-THEY-TAUGHT-ABOUT-BELIEVING.
I have no arguement with you. You asked, I answered.
Just my imo, pov, and any other set of initials that might apply. :)
I still have that little strip of film. It's in a picture frame (under glass) along with two pieces of dove down (from one of the doves that docvic released), that ending up landing on his shoulder back at at AC 79, along with an unused ticket for TAKIT when they played in Minneapolis on Friday March 27, 1979.
<snip>
Well, there you have it. Contrary to what you previously stated . . . .
"B.) Didn't know what to do with it after I got it;"
. . . . apparently you did know what to do with it.
If you want to know, why don't you go to his site and read about him?
Or, why don't you take the time to do a search here?
He's come on here, given his credentials and talked to whom ever wanted to talk to him.
Why don't you go ask him those questions yourself?????
So, which group are you with - Geer's or are you still in TWI?
Your self-righteous, smug, nastiness gives you away.
Which group are you with?
We've got Geerites and innies here who love to spew their poison over simple discussions.
Since you are the same ilk, which group are you?
Don't lie and say you've been out for years and are not affiliated with anyone.
To speak to you regarding my status with TWI and other splinter groups would be stupid. You won't believe anything I say regarding my status. But for the sake of argument, I am not part of TWI or off shoots.
I still believe the Bible and I never considered VPW to have all the answers. Especially since no one does.
I took your challenge and read a little on Dr. JJ. As I thought, he proves himself to be the ultimate Trinitarian and would yell from the top of the mountains the exact opposite of what I believe. He mentions in his rebuttle of VPW that VP left out information which should have been mentioned. Funny... I thought the same thing about Dr.JJ. Like the verse that explains how we are to pray to Jesus....Let's see if I have it right?
Our Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
Hallowed be thy names
Thy Kingdoms come
Thy wills be done
on earth as it is in heaven...ect.
Jesus Christ himself was teaching the disciples how to pray and he left that out?
On a number of occassions, I have remarked the point that "truth on the lips of the towns greatest liar is still truth."
So as to not practice what I preach I will yeild to a few points. No doubt Dr. JJ has some 20 years of finding fault and throwing mud at TWI and that makes him an expert. I'm not. However, I do reserve the right to reject his rhetoric because I got something from VPW and alot of other people in here when they were standing with him.
I still believe the Bible is true...at least what I understand of it. Dr. JJ never sat through any teachings where VPW explained the 5 kinds of believing in the Bible. I sometimes listen to the church radio stations around here. They don't understand the 5 catagories of believing either. Hence, I firmly believe they do a lot more damage than TWI ever did.
So, there's another dose of my spewed poison over the discussion in here. As for smug and self-righteous? my face is not all narleyed out while I typing this.
I reserve the right to think the Bible is true and all the unbelief in the world isn't going to turn it into a lie. However, people will utlimately take a swipe at defaming and discrediting it. Do you believe that?
quote: Job's fear did NOT, directly or indirectly, harshly or softly, contribute to what happened to his children.
Job 3:25 - For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.
I know I'm going to love the explanation for this.
If you read this without PFAL glasses on - you'd say that Job was afraid something would happen and it did. That doesn't mean that his fear was the cause of his troubles.
The book of Job is a difficult book at best. I don't talk about it much because I heard too many people say that basically, the Devil made a bet with God and God allowed Job to be the ante.
I'll leave further discussion to others...
Is that all you got? This one verse from Job? If so you have very little.
Is that all you got? This one verse from Job? If so you have very little.
I never have been sure why so much emphasis has been put on Job 3:25; of course it was one of our classic 'retemories"...
I have always thought I Samuel chapter one was much more illustrative of the principle...most notably versus 6-7 and 17-18, and the answer to her prayer that immediately followed, though we want to read the whole thing for context i guess. I'll leave it to thse recent posters to read over and toss about here.
If "All believing equals receiving" and then "All receiving equals believing" it follows then that whatever goes on in your life - it's all a direct result of your believing.
True, but it also follows that believing and receiving are actually equivalent. That is, they are the same thing (assuming the claim is true).
if a implies b, and b implies a, then the only logical conclusion is a is actually b. (or b is actually a).
You'd then be able to read verses like
"whatsoever you desire when ye pray, recieve that you believe them, and ye shall have them"
You'd read about having receith like a grain of mustard seed..
quote: Job's fear did NOT, directly or indirectly, harshly or softly, contribute to what happened to his children.
Job 3:25 - For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.
I know I'm going to love the explanation for this.
Where does it say his fear caused it.
Wierwille took Job's expression of grief and turned it into an admission of culpability. It's horsehockey. A crying parent lost his children and said "the thing that I greatly feared has happened."
By the way, even if Job DID blame himself, that doesn't make it doctrine!
What else did Job say?
"Cursed is the day I was born... Why didn't I die at birth as I came from the womb? If I had died at birth, I would be at peace now."
Does that mean it's better for people to die at birth so they don't have to deal with life's sufferings? No! He was expressing grief, for Pete's sake, not doctrine.
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
waysider
Ok-----I'm gonna flog the dead horse one more time. Or, for JonnyLingo and Templelady, "mush the dead sled dog".
(On account of them bein' up there in Alaska and all that.)
Anybody who stuck around TWI for any length of time knows that VeePee taught that if you were "born-again", you automatically qualified for a "sainthood certificate of authenticity".
(ie: born-again=saint)
Conversely, if you were not "born-again", you were a "sinner".
(not the same thing as "one who sins", fortunately, because that would exclude a WHOLE lot of people, not the least of which is myself.
Thus, " The 'law of believing' works whether it's operated by a "born-again believer" saint or a God rejecting lowlife, scum of the Earth "heathen" sinner."
It just won't work if you happen to be a saint who is out of fellowship or can't get your believing up. :wacko:
Sigh!!!----------This sainthood stuff really ain't all it's cracked up to be.
edited to say: Ben Dare, Dundat!
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I heard a certain clergy's wife refer to anyone who did not have the class as a "rank unbeliever." To which I responded, " OH? How do you know this? Did God show you a black heart?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Would that be "rank" as in uninformed "sinner" or "rank" as in-----------"Oh, My!, This week old broccoli casserole sure is "rank"!!
Never mind. I think I know the answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Most likely both ;)
Her theory was that if you didn't hear a person speak in tongues, you had no proof they were saved so you had to assume...
And of course, the ONLY way to KNOW a person was saved was to make them take PFAL
It really took the wind out of one's sails when you met a person who already spoke in tongues...Now there was no bait.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
waysider, are you me? or did I just say that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Never taught him the correct way to cross the street?...Good gravy! Did I sleep through that part in the class?...
...What is being ignored here is the believing of the guy who drove the car. What?...he was a blow up doll that mindlessly steered the car into the boy?...What part did his believing play in this scenario?...If you follow Wierwille's teaching to it's logical conclusion...the guy driving must have "believed" that he was gonna kill a child with his automobile.
Look...this "law of believing" is asinine...it doesn't exist!...the guy who taught you this drugged and raped young girls...how stupid can you be?
I hate to insult people but...really!...how stupid can you be?????????????
Think about it for a minute...You're driving your car and suddenly you run some kid over and kill him because his mother was full of fear. I'm sorry, but that logic is just plain stupid...
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I was afraid someone would bring this up!!
;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Yeah, when you really think it out to it's logical conclusion it is beyond ridiculous.
If "All believing equals receiving" and then "All receiving equals believing" it follows then that whatever goes on in your life - it's all a direct result of your believing.
Step in a warm pile of dog poop while going to check the mail? You musta believed for it man! Inherit a gazillion dollars from a long-lost, late relative? Yer believing! A rock ding in your windshield? Believing! Lousey show at the movies? Your crumby believing again! Your Aunt Mabel sends you a fruitcake for Christmas? Buhleeeving!
It's beyond childish to think that there is some kind of powerbeam that emanates from our brain and that it affects everything in our environment, but that's what one MUST accept if you're to subscribe to this particular Wierwillian tenet.
I agree with Groucho, stupid - REALLY stupid...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
me too!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
George!
How did you find out about my Aunt Mabel's fruitcake?
You're spookin' me, man.
I was so afraid someone would find me out and now look what's happened!!!
This stuff is real, I tell ya.
I think you've even made a believer out of Ripley.
(or not)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Dan, it might be a case that Oldies just had other things to do but I checked to see if he responded to this post and I don't see where he had. Now, I may be wrong but -- If you were to speak to me in such a condescending tone I wouldn't respond to you either. What do I mean by condescending?
I was beginning to lose faith in you! Give you up as "not ready" or something!
What is Oldies to you -- a project?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hey there Larry, thanks for answering. :)
I'll answer the question first.
I still have that little strip of film. It's in a picture frame (under glass) along with two pieces of dove down (from one of the doves that docvic released), that ending up landing on his shoulder back at at AC 79, along with an unused ticket for TAKIT when they played in Minneapolis on Friday March 27, 1979.
So -- I'm a pack-rat. :) (But it's not hanging on a wall in my house).
It's in my collection of *twi memorabilia*, in the basement here.
Collecting dust, but I'm still loathe to get rid of things like that.
Now -- your paragraph where you said ----
That makes sense (from a twi point of view), but it isn't practical, given what they practiced.
Twi did indeed teach that *all things came from God*, NOT an org, such as twi.
However (I don't know what year it started, but start it did) ---
twi started defining what was and what was not, from God.
'Nother words -- they wrote the rule book, and no arguements allowed.
Sure --- PFAL said one thing (I'll agree with that),
but what was being taught to the rank and file was something totally different.
(IMO).
Twi (whenever) decided to *dictate* to "believers" what they could (or could not) believe for.
Face-meltings became commonplace, people were humiliated, lives were ruined,
honest ministries were tossed aside like so much garbage, etc., etc.
All because of the overwhelming desire to DICTATE by the org.
Sure -- the class said nice things, some things believable (even).
Big F-nn deal. What they SAID, and what they PRACTICED were worlds apart.
They taught one thing, and expected something totally different.
(NOT new news to the folks here).
So -- I agree with you that they taught that (unexpected blessings) came from God,
but by the same token, they chose to define those attributes,
and expected us to believe it as gospel.
And as far as the *Law of Believing* CRAP --
They disproved their OWN THEORY, when they sent me that film strip.
It negated EVERY-D***-THING-THEY-TAUGHT-ABOUT-BELIEVING.
I have no arguement with you. You asked, I answered.
Just my imo, pov, and any other set of initials that might apply. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Well, there you have it. Contrary to what you previously stated . . . .
"B.) Didn't know what to do with it after I got it;"
. . . . apparently you did know what to do with it.
Thanks for your reply. :)
Edited by Larry N MooreLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Yup!
Initially I didn't. (But) --I think I mighta-kinda-mentioned in a previous post,
that it was a welcome thing when I received it!!
Your reply is revealing also. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Here's a few pages,
where the *LAW* (of believing) has been discussed before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YID
To speak to you regarding my status with TWI and other splinter groups would be stupid. You won't believe anything I say regarding my status. But for the sake of argument, I am not part of TWI or off shoots.
I still believe the Bible and I never considered VPW to have all the answers. Especially since no one does.
I took your challenge and read a little on Dr. JJ. As I thought, he proves himself to be the ultimate Trinitarian and would yell from the top of the mountains the exact opposite of what I believe. He mentions in his rebuttle of VPW that VP left out information which should have been mentioned. Funny... I thought the same thing about Dr.JJ. Like the verse that explains how we are to pray to Jesus....Let's see if I have it right?
Our Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
Hallowed be thy names
Thy Kingdoms come
Thy wills be done
on earth as it is in heaven...ect.
Jesus Christ himself was teaching the disciples how to pray and he left that out?
On a number of occassions, I have remarked the point that "truth on the lips of the towns greatest liar is still truth."
So as to not practice what I preach I will yeild to a few points. No doubt Dr. JJ has some 20 years of finding fault and throwing mud at TWI and that makes him an expert. I'm not. However, I do reserve the right to reject his rhetoric because I got something from VPW and alot of other people in here when they were standing with him.
I still believe the Bible is true...at least what I understand of it. Dr. JJ never sat through any teachings where VPW explained the 5 kinds of believing in the Bible. I sometimes listen to the church radio stations around here. They don't understand the 5 catagories of believing either. Hence, I firmly believe they do a lot more damage than TWI ever did.
So, there's another dose of my spewed poison over the discussion in here. As for smug and self-righteous? my face is not all narleyed out while I typing this.
I reserve the right to think the Bible is true and all the unbelief in the world isn't going to turn it into a lie. However, people will utlimately take a swipe at defaming and discrediting it. Do you believe that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: Job's fear did NOT, directly or indirectly, harshly or softly, contribute to what happened to his children.
Job 3:25 - For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.
I know I'm going to love the explanation for this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
If you read this without PFAL glasses on - you'd say that Job was afraid something would happen and it did. That doesn't mean that his fear was the cause of his troubles.
The book of Job is a difficult book at best. I don't talk about it much because I heard too many people say that basically, the Devil made a bet with God and God allowed Job to be the ante.
I'll leave further discussion to others...
Is that all you got? This one verse from Job? If so you have very little.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Hey Larry. Good points. I see what you're getting at with the Oldies/anotherDan exchange. I repent.
Oldies, I sent you a PM yesterday... Do you have them turned off?
Edited by anotherDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I never have been sure why so much emphasis has been put on Job 3:25; of course it was one of our classic 'retemories"...
I have always thought I Samuel chapter one was much more illustrative of the principle...most notably versus 6-7 and 17-18, and the answer to her prayer that immediately followed, though we want to read the whole thing for context i guess. I'll leave it to thse recent posters to read over and toss about here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
True, but it also follows that believing and receiving are actually equivalent. That is, they are the same thing (assuming the claim is true).
if a implies b, and b implies a, then the only logical conclusion is a is actually b. (or b is actually a).
You'd then be able to read verses like
"whatsoever you desire when ye pray, recieve that you believe them, and ye shall have them"
You'd read about having receith like a grain of mustard seed..
"dost thou recieve that.."
"Lord I receive, help my unreceith"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Here's something I heard:
If "the law of believing works for saint and sinner alike," then why do I need to pray?
And - if fear is so powerful, then how weak is God?
Compare and contrast amongst yourselves... There will be a test on Monday...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Where does it say his fear caused it.
Wierwille took Job's expression of grief and turned it into an admission of culpability. It's horsehockey. A crying parent lost his children and said "the thing that I greatly feared has happened."
But did it happen BECAUSE he feared?
No, that is Wierwillian fiction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
By the way, even if Job DID blame himself, that doesn't make it doctrine!
What else did Job say?
"Cursed is the day I was born... Why didn't I die at birth as I came from the womb? If I had died at birth, I would be at peace now."
Does that mean it's better for people to die at birth so they don't have to deal with life's sufferings? No! He was expressing grief, for Pete's sake, not doctrine.
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.