"One of the most amazing things about this is it's the same old lie that the devil has told for centuries. He just keeps repackaging it. And, the lie is that people can be like God in the sense that we can initiate things from within our minds. And, the thoughts we have within our little craniums somehow go forward into the universe. They go out of our craniums, into the universe and they bring us red sports cars or they bring bad things to those we don't like or one thing or another. And, it is a total lie and it's total nonsense. The sad thing is when it infiltrates the church, which it has to way too large a degree. In essence, what this law of attraction says is that whatever you get is because of something you thought
SNIP
Sometimes it's called the law of believing.But, it's not true."
..........................
It was bad enough when people (on previous threads) were comparing VPW to a modern day David.
And, now, here you are comparing JAL to a modern day Paul.
There is nothing Biblical about VPW or JAL. It's a farce to think they (were/are) doing something of Biblical proportions.
If Jesus didn't forgive Judas, then why was Judas there right to the end? Jesus knew that Judas would betray him. What do you think would have happened if Jesus would have stood up during the last supper and said, "Hey, guys! I hate to tell you this, but Judas Iscariot here, is planning to betray me. He's going to take 30 pieces of silver from the high priest for showing them how they can arrest me. What's up, Judas?" What do you think would have happened?
I can just see Peter saying "Damn you, Judas, I KNEW you were screwy! C'mon guys, let's rearrange his face". Nothing was stopping Jesus from doing that. He apparently also knew that Judas would kill himself. He gave Judas every chance to cancel his plans to betray him; he also gave Judas every chance to not kill himself.
Just a quick question, Geisha. If it's OK for Jesus to say of Judas, a grown adult, it would have been better if he had never been born, then why isn't it OK for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to do the same?
I never said Jesus wouldn't forgive him....no where does it say that Judas wanted, accepted, or asked for forgiveness...instead, it tells us clearly that he killed himself. As you point out, Judas was given every chance to repent. Jesus made appeal after appeal to him. Loving and tender appeals. Compare the love John had for Jesus to the hatred Judas had for him....take a look. John was right next to Jesus laying against Him. Judas was there lying to Him. When Jesus dipped the bread and gave it to Judas....John was right there to hear Him...it was Peter who prompted John to ask. No where does it say Peter tried to rearrange Judas face.
How hard of heart must Judas have been to ignore those heart melting appeals from Jesus?
Again, read the scriptures....read Jesus' own words for the answers. He said Judas was lost. Should end the discussion for most but, take a closer look if that is not enough. He is called the Son of Perdition!!
Jesus said it was better if Judas had never have been born, because he knew the Son of Man face to face...was once close to Him but he rejected and betrayed Him. Just as it tells us that the punishment for false teachers is exceptional and (it would be better for them if they never knew the way of truth)...so will be Judas' punishment. Jesus was making a point about the serious nature of eternal punishment and you equate his words with abortion? It was a warning.
Maybe the OT account of David and Ahithophel will help clarify things for you....maybe not.
Just a quick question, Geisha. If it's OK for Jesus to say of Judas, a grown adult, it would have been better if he had never been born, then why isn't it OK for a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to do the same?
This is baiting. It's not the least bit relevant to the topic at hand. It's only purpose is to inflame and provoke controversy. Take it somewhere else if you really must discuss it.
quote: JAL, above all things, loves to hear the cheer of the crowd. He'll do whatever it takes to get it. That's my opinion, anyway.
Similarities between JL and Paul. Both were serving God as best as they knew. Both changed their minds about certain things. Paul didn't start his ministry until 14 years after his conversion. Paul spoke to a different audience as well (Gentiles instead of Jews). JL changed his mind about the law of believing in what? 1988? I'm sure Paul liked the cheering of the crowd, too.
This was written in response to my statement that "JAL above all things loves to hear the cheer of the crowd. He'll do whatever it takes to get it. That's my opinion anyway".
I'll admit that is a statement that cannot be backed up with any hard evidence. It's just my opinion as I stated earlier. that is what this forum is all about.
With that being said, I'll respond to you and of course you're welcome to disagree. I don't think even JAL would draw a comparison between himself and the Apostle Paul. I do not think Paul's motivation in his preaching and writing was to hear the "cheer of the crowd". If he were interested only in accolades he would have remained a pharisee. I'm sure he appreciated hearing that people enjoyed his teachings, who wouldn't? That is different though from doing the work with the purpose of hearing praise.
I like John L. a lot. I don't think his life is about searching for God as I see him continue to split off and do his own thing. There are other things that he's done that are fact that have already been expressed in this thread.
These are just my observations that lead me to my own conclusions. Nevetheless I really love John a lot, and I wish him all the best. I just think he's wrong, very wrong and I would caution anyone from being involved with his ministry. I don't think it will kill someone to listen to a teaching or two. However, to allow oneself to look to his organization as the primary vehicle for worship and spiritual nurture would be a dangerous thing.
I guess I could just say "Ditto". I found his condescending kindergarten delivery quite irritating and distracting.
I think it's disingenuous for him to make this kind of declaration contradicting his entire life's teachings without the following:
1) An acknowledgment that he used to teach this doctrine
2) A clear explanation of why what he's taught for the past 30 years is wrong.
Chris Geer used to do this and I always found it both confusing and somewhat arrogant. These guys seem to assume that whatever they say should be taken ex cathedra just because THEY say it.
"But John, you used to say that whatever I believed for, I would receive"
That's INSANE!
"So you're saying that you spent 30 years teaching an insane, devilish doctrine? Then, why should I trust your judgment now? What made you change your beliefs? Why should I change mine?"
Because you know it's not true. Because last week you got the flu and you weren't thinking about that AT ALLL, were you?"
"But....you also teach that one person's experience is not a guarantee for truth. But now I'm supposed to change by beliefs because I had a bad experience?"
Anyway, I don't see how these guys expect people to just throw away what we've been taught--what THEY taught for passionately without explaining why it's wrong. JAL makes a fainthearted attempt at some clarification by stating that Jesus got revelation to curse the fig tree, but that doesn't come close to being an honest, humble examination of the topic.
Wierwille taught there is a special kind of "believing", the Manifestation of Believing, that involves "believing" for something that's already been revealed to you via the revelation manifestations...predicting the inevitable... (see post #19 for definition.) He used the fig tree incident as an example. He went on to say it applied to every miraculous event mentioned in the O.T, as well....the walls of Jericho, the parting of The Red Sea, etc.... Men of God could "believe" for them because the outcome had already been revealed to them....That never made sense to me, even as I sat there hearing it for the first time, in the Advanced Class, all those years ago. It's like saying you are believing someone is going to ring your doorbell, as you watch them approach your front door. Where is there any "believing" in that? That makes it more like some kind of mental/verbal trickery, a dishonesty of sorts. And, to make it even more perplexing, the last part of the definition says, "It also imparts believing in others." Wierwille went on to explain that the kind of believing it imparts is the "law of believing" variety. But, wait a minute! We've just witnessed JL debunking that sort of "believing". So, at least that much of the definition, by virtue of sheer logic, must be erroneous. (If JL is correct in stating that "It's a lie. It's nonsense.") Of course, anyone who has spent any time on the front page of The GreaseSpot Cafe could have told you that it's nonsense long ago. It makes you wonder what's coming next. Is JL going to reveal to us all that thoroughly and throughly mean exactly the same thing? Will he reveal that apistia and apeitheia were misrepresented in the PFAL class and don't carry the connotations we were led to accept? I'm with you, Jerry. Unless he is willing to admit he taught this stuff himself, explain why he changed his mind and offer an apology regarding the matter, I don't see why anyone would seriously give him the time of day. Of course, if he were to do so, it would cast a shadow of incredulity on anything and everything else he has taught for so many years.
Similarities between JL and Paul. Both were serving God as best as they knew. Both changed their minds about certain things. Paul didn't start his ministry until 14 years after his conversion. Paul spoke to a different audience as well (Gentiles instead of Jews). JL changed his mind about the law of believing in what? 1988? I'm sure Paul liked the cheering of the crowd, too. This analogy is probably a 50% match, but still relevant IMO.
We have biblical accounts of Paul's life and ministry and I think its safe to say he served God quite well. But how can we tell if JL was serving God as he best knew how? We can't. Even so, if the best he knew was wrong and counterfeit then how does that count for much . Guess he gets a reprieve and a kudo for sincerity and zeal?
Both changed their minds about certain things ? While very early on while Paul was yet to become a Christian, he certainly changed his mind about Jesus Christ &.Christianity as a part of his conversion ...but what major doctrines did Paul change his mind about AFTER his ministry was in full swing? What counterfeit immutable spiritual laws did Paul once teach as Christian leader .... and then renounce? I can't think of any.
I don't get the 14 years comparison unless the "similarity" is supposed to be between Paul's 14 years of learning and JL's 20+ years of teaching false doctrines as a leader and then changing his mind . But again an invalid comparison. Paul was probably not teaching false doctrines during those 14 years.
You are "sure" that Paul liked the cheering of the crowd ? How so? What evidence is there of this ? I see no records of Paul having cheering crowds in Acts. Jeering crowds...yes, but no cheering ones. In his writings Paul never mentions that he liked the cheering of the crowd. So how can you be "sure" with absolutely no evidence?
50 percent match? I don't see much past zero percent.
Needs to meet with CHRISTIANS who know what it is to BELIEVE God.
I should so love to see some of these ex-Way leaders in really challenging situations...as a Christian in Afghanistan; as a peasant in some parts of Africa; in a slum in India; or even on a soap box - in Beijing. If they survived unscathed and their model for believing stood up after six months of that - they might have something worth teaching. Maybe they would realize how shallow they are now. If JAL survived, he could even have something to talk about.
John Lynn points out what he thinks believing IS and what it AIN'T. Some here are one dimensional; they get in parrot mode. RAWK...law of believing...RAWK...false doctrine. They put any and all discussion about believing in that one box. That's all they need to know. Like the glassy eyed plantation owner in the 1967 movie 'In the heat of the night' who slapped Sidney Poiter (and got immediately reciprocated). He knew all he needed to know.
Per JL, believing is NOT...
your thoughts going out into the universe and causing you to get a sports car or anything else
your thoughts affecting anything outside your body
believing IS...
as a man thinketh in his heart so is he
your thoughts definitely affect things inside your body
if you pray faithfully for something that is God's will, that's not just your thoughts going out into the universe, because God is now involved
Just because some people had that wrong in some situations doesn't mean they were teaching 'false doctrine'. The issue was muddied. JL saw that, so did others. Gotta go for now.
Just because some people had that wrong in some situations doesn't mean they were teaching 'false doctrine'. The issue was muddied. JL saw that, so did others. Gotta go for now.
You need to call a spade a spade. Clearly, VPW, JL, and many others were teaching false doctrine, including you and I.
You know that old guy, on the 5 O'clock news that got swindled out of his life savings? He didn't really lose his money....just the paper it was printed on.... <_<
Just because some people had that wrong in some situations doesn't mean they were teaching 'false doctrine'. The issue was muddied. JL saw that, so did others. Gotta go for now.
You're funny. On one side you want the right divided Word to be absolute truth. But on the other if people get it muddied you don't want it to be false doctrine. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
The LOB as we are acronyming it could have been taught as simply a decision as to what a person is going to believe in.
In the PFAL material I boiled it down to that - the "law" is (and I've posited this enlightening obseravation before) nothing more than common sense.
The emphasis in PFAL on "believing" however puts the emphasis in the wrong place (and I know all the same bible verses where someone believes or doesn't believe, and mustard seeds and mountains moving, etc. etc. etc.)
It really matters where one places the emphasis those things - and once a person gets the believing/pistis/apetheia flow going in their head it can be made to pop up everywhere we look when in reality it's not an important piece of Christ's message in and of itself. In other words - of COURSE one has to believe, accept, trust, be confident in something - really, it's a duh idea. The issue is - what do you believe, trust, put confidence in or on.
Back in '69, '70, '71 I remember there was a fair amount of mysticism buzz in the Way around the "pistis" topic (and I suppose one could say what ISN'T "mysticism" in the core message of Christianity) - but there was a fair amount of shine on the eastern/oriental/middle versus far east foundation of the history of Jewish and Judeo-Christian thought, probably as an outcome of his early exposure to Glenn Clark, the visit to India and other influences. Frankly I've always thought that VPW dropped more of that stuff then he kept, looking at later years.
But really I agree with you johniam - with the caveat that PFAL and VPW straddled the fence on this early on and it's obvious that more than just a few people disagree on this.
I've said this before too...he took 36 hours for PFAL - that's enough time to make the first session clear. If it's not, what's that say? He could have cleaned this up - he never did, never wanted to change PFAL, so that was that. I guess I just realized early on that there was no "power in believing" in and of itself.
Weird. In a sense, I still believe in all of that nonsense. Just refuse to invoke it..
even if I could.. suppose I could have anything I want. Everything costs somebody, somewhere, something..
how ethical would it be to impose my will on others.. assuming that I would have the ability to do so to begin with..
I remember an old movie.. one of the key players was a Roman citizen. Gladly enjoyed the freedoms of citizenship, until he saw what kind of slavery was needed to provide his hot water..
he had no idea of the stench and human toil that provided his "abundance"..
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
14
13
15
32
Popular Days
Apr 30
17
May 9
17
May 8
13
May 2
12
Top Posters In This Topic
socks 14 posts
johniam 13 posts
Ham 15 posts
waysider 32 posts
Popular Days
Apr 30 2011
17 posts
May 9 2011
17 posts
May 8 2011
13 posts
May 2 2011
12 posts
Popular Posts
johniam
Very interesting. OK, he's condescending, he's a 13 dollar bill, he's a wanna be cult leader...nobody seems to want to deal with his actual message. Haven't had any dealings with his group. It was go
geisha779
I think you are right. It is really good that he is coming to these things that have so hurt us....but, maybe, he should just stop trying to teach each realization he is coming to in his own life. May
waysider
I'm not sure where to begin to comment on this. :o
waysider
In contrast, here is what JAL is NOW teaching.
(2:54-4:51)
"One of the most amazing things about this is it's the same old lie that the devil has told for centuries. He just keeps repackaging it. And, the lie is that people can be like God in the sense that we can initiate things from within our minds. And, the thoughts we have within our little craniums somehow go forward into the universe. They go out of our craniums, into the universe and they bring us red sports cars or they bring bad things to those we don't like or one thing or another. And, it is a total lie and it's total nonsense. The sad thing is when it infiltrates the church, which it has to way too large a degree. In essence, what this law of attraction says is that whatever you get is because of something you thought
SNIP
Sometimes it's called the law of believing.But, it's not true."
..........................
It was bad enough when people (on previous threads) were comparing VPW to a modern day David.
And, now, here you are comparing JAL to a modern day Paul.
There is nothing Biblical about VPW or JAL. It's a farce to think they (were/are) doing something of Biblical proportions.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I never said Jesus wouldn't forgive him....no where does it say that Judas wanted, accepted, or asked for forgiveness...instead, it tells us clearly that he killed himself. As you point out, Judas was given every chance to repent. Jesus made appeal after appeal to him. Loving and tender appeals. Compare the love John had for Jesus to the hatred Judas had for him....take a look. John was right next to Jesus laying against Him. Judas was there lying to Him. When Jesus dipped the bread and gave it to Judas....John was right there to hear Him...it was Peter who prompted John to ask. No where does it say Peter tried to rearrange Judas face.
How hard of heart must Judas have been to ignore those heart melting appeals from Jesus?
Again, read the scriptures....read Jesus' own words for the answers. He said Judas was lost. Should end the discussion for most but, take a closer look if that is not enough. He is called the Son of Perdition!!
Jesus said it was better if Judas had never have been born, because he knew the Son of Man face to face...was once close to Him but he rejected and betrayed Him. Just as it tells us that the punishment for false teachers is exceptional and (it would be better for them if they never knew the way of truth)...so will be Judas' punishment. Jesus was making a point about the serious nature of eternal punishment and you equate his words with abortion? It was a warning.
Maybe the OT account of David and Ahithophel will help clarify things for you....maybe not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe you and/or John could start a thread in the doctrinal forum and explore this a bit more closely.
Just a thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This is baiting. It's not the least bit relevant to the topic at hand. It's only purpose is to inflame and provoke controversy. Take it somewhere else if you really must discuss it.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Oh please....it was a simple side conversation about Judas...asked answered and over now...I think you can deal with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'm ok if you're ok. As long as it really is "over now".....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Well if it is not...you can report me to the thread police.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Ignore buttons" and "reporting" have never been my style. I have no plans of changing that any time soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
This dude is insulting
He talks like he's teaching 1st graders
blech
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
This was written in response to my statement that "JAL above all things loves to hear the cheer of the crowd. He'll do whatever it takes to get it. That's my opinion anyway".
I'll admit that is a statement that cannot be backed up with any hard evidence. It's just my opinion as I stated earlier. that is what this forum is all about.
With that being said, I'll respond to you and of course you're welcome to disagree. I don't think even JAL would draw a comparison between himself and the Apostle Paul. I do not think Paul's motivation in his preaching and writing was to hear the "cheer of the crowd". If he were interested only in accolades he would have remained a pharisee. I'm sure he appreciated hearing that people enjoyed his teachings, who wouldn't? That is different though from doing the work with the purpose of hearing praise.
I like John L. a lot. I don't think his life is about searching for God as I see him continue to split off and do his own thing. There are other things that he's done that are fact that have already been expressed in this thread.
These are just my observations that lead me to my own conclusions. Nevetheless I really love John a lot, and I wish him all the best. I just think he's wrong, very wrong and I would caution anyone from being involved with his ministry. I don't think it will kill someone to listen to a teaching or two. However, to allow oneself to look to his organization as the primary vehicle for worship and spiritual nurture would be a dangerous thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Double post.
Edited by Broken ArrowLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A) When one is "talking down" to the audience, one sounds superior to them.
(Me, I like to presume everyone else is about as smart as I am- but may need me to use less
"high-faluting" words when making a case for something....and it's reasonable to think I
should "make a case" for any claim I'm making.
B) Please remember that JAL's audience is not "the general public." The general public has no
reason to take him seriously- and does not. JAL's audience is "ex-twi'ers." Ex-twi'ers have
the common history of twi, where many or most learned to shut off their thinking processes
and just accept what the teacher was teaching-some still do that, with a veneer of a LITTLE
thinking, and thinking A LITTLE thinking is ENOUGH thinking. So, JAL expects that a LITTLE
study is enough for the ex-twi crowd.
In other words, JAL thinks that you're still stupid enough to fall for light study and
patronizing talk as the pinnacle of Bible education. He also thinks you're stupid enough
that he can have a long history of teaching one thing, then turn around and teach
AGAINST it, and do so with no apologies- and you'll just say "OK" with no explanation
from him, or even an APOLOGY. There's no humility, no
"I was once foolish enough to teach this, but I know better NOW" or anything else that
shows he admits he ever was wrong and thinks he has IMPROVED. He exists at the
"the teacher is always right" level, and thinks you're feeble enough that he can keep
you as an audience member while he does that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I guess I could just say "Ditto". I found his condescending kindergarten delivery quite irritating and distracting.
I think it's disingenuous for him to make this kind of declaration contradicting his entire life's teachings without the following:
1) An acknowledgment that he used to teach this doctrine
2) A clear explanation of why what he's taught for the past 30 years is wrong.
Chris Geer used to do this and I always found it both confusing and somewhat arrogant. These guys seem to assume that whatever they say should be taken ex cathedra just because THEY say it.
"But John, you used to say that whatever I believed for, I would receive"
That's INSANE!
"So you're saying that you spent 30 years teaching an insane, devilish doctrine? Then, why should I trust your judgment now? What made you change your beliefs? Why should I change mine?"
Because you know it's not true. Because last week you got the flu and you weren't thinking about that AT ALLL, were you?"
"But....you also teach that one person's experience is not a guarantee for truth. But now I'm supposed to change by beliefs because I had a bad experience?"
Anyway, I don't see how these guys expect people to just throw away what we've been taught--what THEY taught for passionately without explaining why it's wrong. JAL makes a fainthearted attempt at some clarification by stating that Jesus got revelation to curse the fig tree, but that doesn't come close to being an honest, humble examination of the topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The Fig Tree Incident
Wierwille taught there is a special kind of "believing", the Manifestation of Believing, that involves "believing" for something that's already been revealed to you via the revelation manifestations...predicting the inevitable... (see post #19 for definition.) He used the fig tree incident as an example. He went on to say it applied to every miraculous event mentioned in the O.T, as well....the walls of Jericho, the parting of The Red Sea, etc.... Men of God could "believe" for them because the outcome had already been revealed to them....That never made sense to me, even as I sat there hearing it for the first time, in the Advanced Class, all those years ago. It's like saying you are believing someone is going to ring your doorbell, as you watch them approach your front door. Where is there any "believing" in that? That makes it more like some kind of mental/verbal trickery, a dishonesty of sorts. And, to make it even more perplexing, the last part of the definition says, "It also imparts believing in others." Wierwille went on to explain that the kind of believing it imparts is the "law of believing" variety. But, wait a minute! We've just witnessed JL debunking that sort of "believing". So, at least that much of the definition, by virtue of sheer logic, must be erroneous. (If JL is correct in stating that "It's a lie. It's nonsense.") Of course, anyone who has spent any time on the front page of The GreaseSpot Cafe could have told you that it's nonsense long ago. It makes you wonder what's coming next. Is JL going to reveal to us all that thoroughly and throughly mean exactly the same thing? Will he reveal that apistia and apeitheia were misrepresented in the PFAL class and don't carry the connotations we were led to accept? I'm with you, Jerry. Unless he is willing to admit he taught this stuff himself, explain why he changed his mind and offer an apology regarding the matter, I don't see why anyone would seriously give him the time of day. Of course, if he were to do so, it would cast a shadow of incredulity on anything and everything else he has taught for so many years.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
We have biblical accounts of Paul's life and ministry and I think its safe to say he served God quite well. But how can we tell if JL was serving God as he best knew how? We can't. Even so, if the best he knew was wrong and counterfeit then how does that count for much . Guess he gets a reprieve and a kudo for sincerity and zeal?
Both changed their minds about certain things ? While very early on while Paul was yet to become a Christian, he certainly changed his mind about Jesus Christ &.Christianity as a part of his conversion ...but what major doctrines did Paul change his mind about AFTER his ministry was in full swing? What counterfeit immutable spiritual laws did Paul once teach as Christian leader .... and then renounce? I can't think of any.
I don't get the 14 years comparison unless the "similarity" is supposed to be between Paul's 14 years of learning and JL's 20+ years of teaching false doctrines as a leader and then changing his mind . But again an invalid comparison. Paul was probably not teaching false doctrines during those 14 years.
You are "sure" that Paul liked the cheering of the crowd ? How so? What evidence is there of this ? I see no records of Paul having cheering crowds in Acts. Jeering crowds...yes, but no cheering ones. In his writings Paul never mentions that he liked the cheering of the crowd. So how can you be "sure" with absolutely no evidence?
50 percent match? I don't see much past zero percent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
JAL is such a sad case.
Needs to get out more.
Needs to meet with CHRISTIANS who know what it is to BELIEVE God.
I should so love to see some of these ex-Way leaders in really challenging situations...as a Christian in Afghanistan; as a peasant in some parts of Africa; in a slum in India; or even on a soap box - in Beijing. If they survived unscathed and their model for believing stood up after six months of that - they might have something worth teaching. Maybe they would realize how shallow they are now. If JAL survived, he could even have something to talk about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
John Lynn points out what he thinks believing IS and what it AIN'T. Some here are one dimensional; they get in parrot mode. RAWK...law of believing...RAWK...false doctrine. They put any and all discussion about believing in that one box. That's all they need to know. Like the glassy eyed plantation owner in the 1967 movie 'In the heat of the night' who slapped Sidney Poiter (and got immediately reciprocated). He knew all he needed to know.
Per JL, believing is NOT...
your thoughts going out into the universe and causing you to get a sports car or anything else
your thoughts affecting anything outside your body
believing IS...
as a man thinketh in his heart so is he
your thoughts definitely affect things inside your body
if you pray faithfully for something that is God's will, that's not just your thoughts going out into the universe, because God is now involved
Just because some people had that wrong in some situations doesn't mean they were teaching 'false doctrine'. The issue was muddied. JL saw that, so did others. Gotta go for now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You need to call a spade a spade. Clearly, VPW, JL, and many others were teaching false doctrine, including you and I.
You know that old guy, on the 5 O'clock news that got swindled out of his life savings? He didn't really lose his money....just the paper it was printed on.... <_<
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
You're funny. On one side you want the right divided Word to be absolute truth. But on the other if people get it muddied you don't want it to be false doctrine. You want to have your cake and eat it too.
Sorry. It doesn't work that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The LOB as we are acronyming it could have been taught as simply a decision as to what a person is going to believe in.
In the PFAL material I boiled it down to that - the "law" is (and I've posited this enlightening obseravation before) nothing more than common sense.
The emphasis in PFAL on "believing" however puts the emphasis in the wrong place (and I know all the same bible verses where someone believes or doesn't believe, and mustard seeds and mountains moving, etc. etc. etc.)
It really matters where one places the emphasis those things - and once a person gets the believing/pistis/apetheia flow going in their head it can be made to pop up everywhere we look when in reality it's not an important piece of Christ's message in and of itself. In other words - of COURSE one has to believe, accept, trust, be confident in something - really, it's a duh idea. The issue is - what do you believe, trust, put confidence in or on.
Back in '69, '70, '71 I remember there was a fair amount of mysticism buzz in the Way around the "pistis" topic (and I suppose one could say what ISN'T "mysticism" in the core message of Christianity) - but there was a fair amount of shine on the eastern/oriental/middle versus far east foundation of the history of Jewish and Judeo-Christian thought, probably as an outcome of his early exposure to Glenn Clark, the visit to India and other influences. Frankly I've always thought that VPW dropped more of that stuff then he kept, looking at later years.
But really I agree with you johniam - with the caveat that PFAL and VPW straddled the fence on this early on and it's obvious that more than just a few people disagree on this.
I've said this before too...he took 36 hours for PFAL - that's enough time to make the first session clear. If it's not, what's that say? He could have cleaned this up - he never did, never wanted to change PFAL, so that was that. I guess I just realized early on that there was no "power in believing" in and of itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
then his life exhibited just that.
"I *wish* I were da man I knew to be..*
why couldn't he just "believed" for it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Maybe he just watched Pinocchio one too many times.
My link
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Maybe after decades of playing mind games, he is coming to the realization he never grew up to be a real boy..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Weird. In a sense, I still believe in all of that nonsense. Just refuse to invoke it..
even if I could.. suppose I could have anything I want. Everything costs somebody, somewhere, something..
how ethical would it be to impose my will on others.. assuming that I would have the ability to do so to begin with..
I remember an old movie.. one of the key players was a Roman citizen. Gladly enjoyed the freedoms of citizenship, until he saw what kind of slavery was needed to provide his hot water..
he had no idea of the stench and human toil that provided his "abundance"..
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.