First you have the basic kind of believing that is detailed in PFAL, the Blue Book, etc., etc. etc..... "I'm believing for this." I'm believing for that"....The concept is not unique to The Way. In the 1950's and 1960's there were self-help books about it, songs about it, movies about it. Even today there is a best selling book that focuses on the concept. (I can't tell you the title because it's a Secret.)
The basic idea behind it is that you can change physical reality by releasing a magical power via your thoughts, for better or worse. There are detailed instructions set forth in various places that describe the process. For instance, the Blue Book shows a process that uses a camera as an analogy. According to this method, the more focused you become, the closer you will get to achieving whatever it is you're *believing for*. Other classes and writings teach us that speaking in tongues while concentrating will give an energizing boost to the process. A spiritual turbo charger, if you will. You have to become an active participant in the process.
Curiously, it seems to work much easier for negative results than positive. For instance, in the PFAL class, a mother had negative believing for her son's safety. Just like that... BOOM!....flattened like yesterday's pancake. And, it doesn't care who you are. "Works for saint and sinner alike." "If you believe you'll be dead this time next year you'd have to change the laws of the universe to make it out alive." Well, I guess you get the picture what this kind of believing is about.
Now on to the other kind. It's called *the manifestation of believing*. There are two whole pages devoted to it in the Advanced Class. Mostly just a bunch of what it is, what it is not and a page of scripture references that supposedly show it being used. About half of them are from the OT and Gospels. There's a definition of what it is in the syllabus. My understanding is that this definition is actually B.G. Leonard's definition, taken from the class that Leonard ran in Canada in 1953 or so. (Some of the wording has been slightly rearranged to mask its origin.) I could be wrong on this point. I welcome any correction.
Here is that definition from page 26:
The manifestation of Believing is your God-given ability whereby you may bring to pass the impossible at your command according to what God has revealed to you by Word of Knowledge, Words of Wisdom and Discerning of Spirits. It also inspires believing in others.
It is a special renewed mind believing according to the revelation of Word of Knowledge, Word of wisdom and Discerning of Spirits. It is for the deliverance of believers. It is for signs, miracles and wonders that cause the unbeliever to believe. It is the knowing awareness within you that at your command it will come to pass.
What it is not (a partial list):
*It is not believing action on the regular renewed mind believing according to the revealed Word.
*It is not the common faith.
*It is not the performing of miracles. The manifestation of Believing ceases when the result is manifested.
I hope this post doesn't wander too far into doctrinal territory, but it's about a conclusion I arrived at while studying I Corinthians 12-14, and it has to do with how all sorts of people, not just TWI, misunderstand the words about believing in I Corinthians 14:22...
"Wherefore tongues are a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not..."
TWI and just about every other commentator I've read count "them that believe" as people who are already Christians, and "them that believe not" as people who are NOT Christians, but I don't think that's how the verse should be understood. I think it means "tongues are a sign, not to those who are confident about being born again, but to those who lack such confidence."
Speaking in tongues builds up our confidence in the truth that we are indeed born again, as per I Corinthians 14:4 and Jude 1:20. People who are confident that they are born again don't NEED a sign. Speaking in tongues is not like some mystical battery charger that builds up our POWER to do the impossible!
I would agree to disagree Steve...specific times I've needed revelation, I s.i.t. much and when I needed the rev it was there ! One instance was locating a missing person...God led me straight to where they were ( in a city with NO clue as to where they could have gone )...other times in conjunction with believing to sell a house overnight ( for cash ) to get to the states, other times for eg. to minister deliverance to a young relative in a coma...she was up out of it virtually instantaneously....so, really, no-one will convince me that it's all just some mental exercize !! I'm sorry if so few saw any real signs, miracles, wonders in their walk ? Could it be an American thing ? I enjoyed hearing Kenneth Copeland share once how in African nations the people 'struggled' to believe for financial abundance, yet they had no problems believing in healings whereas the western world find it easier to believe in/for abundance yet not healing ? go figure !
First, acknowledge that VPW's grasp of the English language was very limited. He often mixed up parts of speech. He also invented words (so as to build a cult mentality).
The verb is: BELIEVE, and "believing" is a grammatical construction being part of the verb. The verb believe means:
: to accept or regard (something) as true
: to accept the truth of what is said by (someone)
: to have (a specified opinion)
(from Merriam-Webster online dictionary)
You can add synonyms like, have confidence in, trust in, etc. Generally, we believe someone (take their word for it) or something (that it is as stated).
If you believe someone, the emphasis is on that someone. I believe You said... it's about my confidence in You. I believe You are honest, trustworthy, a liar, a thief... It's about my believe in You.
When we get into this business of "believing" that shifts the emphasis. I am believing... who? what? I, I, I. Is that perhaps how the magical thinking gets in, the power of thinking positive, etc. It's all about I, me.
Where is all this is believing God? Where in any of it is prayer? is asking God for his help? is acknowledging Him (in all our ways) as the Giver of life, of healing, of everything.
I think this word, this expression, this "believing" is another of those sleight of hand tricks that VPW dragged in, to distract us from knowing and relying upon God. Instead of "I'm believing [who? or what?] for a house with red drapes," try "I trust God to meet my needs and I would like red drapes." Get rid of the jargon, and return to simplicity.
So Twinky ( ;) Jesus meant in Matthew 21:22 that whatsoever we ask in prayer ( regarding ? trusting ? truthfully ? ) we shall receive ?! It's a bit hard too btw when a 9 year old girl is in an induced coma to expect HER to believe ?!
Good points about Wierwille's mixing up parts of speech...
My reaction whenever anyone said to me that "believing connotes action" was to think: "No it doesn't" - believing can be passive, or you can act on whatever it is you believe (Wierwille probably didn't know what "connote" meant either!)
After a while I also got a bit confused as to Wierwille's dogmatic separation of the words "faith" and "believing" in the bible, even after we all could clearly see that they were translated from the same root word: faith is a noun, belief is a noun, to believe is a verb...
The definition of "the manifestation of believing" also seemed pretty contrived and based on a lot of nothing; maybe because of a a garbled understanding of "manifestations of the spirit" as nine special magical powers
The whole concept of "believing for" something owes more to magical thinking advocates like Florence Scovall Shinn than the bible. Someone tells you something, you either believe it or you don't; something is written in the bible, you either believe it or you don't - I guess I don't see anywhere in the bible where gritting your teeth and picturing something real clearly brings it to pass...
So Twinky ( Jesus meant in Matthew 21:22 that whatsoever we ask in prayer ( regarding ? trusting ? truthfully ? ) we shall receive ?! It's a bit hard too btw when a 9 year old girl is in an induced coma to expect HER to believe ?!
Allen....Believing is always required EXCEPT for children and the mentally infirm. Someone must believe for them. In your case, the young girl would not have had to believe even if she was awake. It was most likely you who was doing the believing. You were manifesting both Believing and healing....and it probably was a miracle.
I think that twinky made some good points that set a presidence for this forum. I see that we are crossing the streams between "everyday positive attitude/believing" and the manifestation.
Now when Jesus cursed the fig tree, I tend to think that is the manifestation and that is what he was then the day later telling the disciples to execute and also about mountain moving - wow (I might be wrong, in Jesus case, maybe he could pull that off with everyday believing). I got property to clear from old overgrowth, I will start with the shrubs.
When we keep a positive attitude, act on it (action) and "power it up by SITing" I see that as prayer with personal action. Personally, I do that consistently, I tend to SIT consistently (I'm retired but also did it at my job and on mission - no athiests in a foxhole - don't respond, Iv'e already heard it). When out fishing and hunting I don't SIT for the big Musky or Buck, I just thank God for a safe and fun day, same as watching sporting events, I SIT for the safety of my team (strangely I ommit the opposing team - "I be jerk").
You see, when SITing, it's a wide range of things it covers: main in the list is praising God and exercising holy spirit.
I don't think I am bugging God or Jesus Christ by SITing nor just plain thanking them for past (and future) events but what it does alot is to keep the dynamic duo in my thoughts even though it starts out selfish and later becomes gratitude and praise.
Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF, it's an Army Acronym) Why not believe in believing and at the same time trust your common sense.
Yes Krys and thanks for that ( I knew it but was just making a point ) ! and MRAP, nice nutshell...one either believes IN 'believing' or not, just like one either believes IN the 'authority' of the written Word...or not...peace out xx
The only power in a belief transaction is the power of the person who made the promise to keep it.
If God makes a promise to do something, and that thing gets done, then the only one who has exerted any power is God. If God makes a conditional promise, and if we demonstrate by failing to meet the condition that we don't trust God, then our lack of trust can be regarded as preventing God from bringing his promise to pass. But if we do have faith, and meet the condition, then it is STILL GOD'S POWER, not any "power of believing" from within us that bring's the promise to pass.
The title of the class... "POWER for Abundant Living"... was a lie from the get go!!!
So you're saying Jesus lied when he said "All things whatsoever YOU shall ask in prayer BELIEVING, YOU SHALL RECEIVE" ? or is it a 'translational error' ? or is it a 'figure of speech' ? ? They say that proof is in the pudding...I've seen the 'proof' not only with myself, but MANY others who literaly believed without a 'doubt' in their hearts....without using 'man's wisdom', please explain, I mean let's not start 'selecting' particular scriptures to believe or not believe ( otherwise, you're by default 'proving' V.P. was right in talking about 'Christians' that do such things
BTW Steve, ther's actually 1654 promises in KJV ( our study group went through KJV over three weeks noting them ) so I guess God's got plenty to 'live up to'
Dattssss roooigghhttt...we got tired of saying 'over 900 promises'...so we thought we'd actually count them...I'm not talking ALL promises either ( i.e. ones that only apply to Israel or such, but ones that WE can draw upon today ! much agape bro
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.SOURCE
Steve is not talking about whether or not Jesus lied nor is he examining the veracity of that particular scripture.
Oh, I thought Steve was arguing a 'doctrinal point'...the thing is, unless it's extrapolated out, it just stays...'doctrinal'...the way I see it, one can read it for mental stimulation, or bring it off the pages if you like and bring it forth for physical 'stimulation'...maybe THAT'S a good definition of 'believing' in itself ?! it's been referred to as 'mental assent'...now I know V.P. used that term, but it is not a 'new thing'... in reading the actions of Jesus Christ on numerous occasions he appeared to assault the disciples mental assent.
BTW, straw man argument or not, I'd tend to believe someone who has done it 'believing' and seen results, than someone who says it can't be done...it's called a testimony. It's a bit like s.i.t. I'd believe someone who genuinely s.i.t. ( regardless of whether people label it 'free vocalization' or pscycho babble or whatever ) than someone who admitted they faked it ! If all of this to'ing and fro'ing is merely labelled straw man, then what is really the point of discourse, in fact, what is even the point of Greasespot ?!
One of the points of GreaseSpot is to act as a place where we (all or individually) hang out a big sign warning everyone away from the corn field. That must continue until the cornfield doesn't exist any more.
Here we go again. This discussion is not about speaking in tongues. That certainly is a valid topic and has had many threads associated with it. However, interesting though a discussion of it may be, it's not what this thread is about.
"what is really the point of discourse, in fact, what is even the point of Greasespot ?!"
The point of discourse is to examine and exchange ideas and opinions relating to a given subject, in this case, the definition of "believing".
The point of GreaseSpot is to expose the true (dark) nature of The Way International. Specifically, the point of the forums is as follows:
"These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion.
In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant.
Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area."
edit: We no longer offer a forum for political discussion. However, there doesn't seem to be any shortage of such places on the web.
re-edit: You are more than welcome to open discussions on the two subjects you introduced or revisit an existing thread. Most of these usually take place in the doctrinal forum.
I should probably have emphasized more the aspect of practice, not doctrinal. What was believing? Was it what we told ourselves it was?
I was frequently instructed to believe more. I read, and listened, and discussed believing almost daily in TWI, for decades. At the end, I don't know what it was or what I was supposed to do.
I should probably have emphasized more the aspect of practice, not doctrinal. What was believing? Was it what we told ourselves it was?
I was frequently instructed to believe more. I read, and listened, and discussed believing almost daily in TWI, for decades. At the end, I don't know what it was or what I was supposed to do.
OK, in the least common denominator, it's a form of self delusion, convincing yourself that your thoughts are going to cause changes to occur in the physical world. Some of those changes involve your personal being (as in believing for healing) and some involve enacting changes to the world around and outside you. (such as believing for red drapes) Believing is a process wherein you convince yourself that your thoughts are causing reality to change for better or worse.
I would agree self-delusion was involved. There's also the times when we tell someone else "to believe". I think there's quite a bit if ego involved there. Believing could have been a term used to cover a number of things, is one thing that I wonder.
cute pictures...but can you please just explain WHAT Jesus meant in Matthew 21:22 ????!!! Anyone ???!!! Before re-directing it to 'doctrinal' section ( which is where I can see it being swept to )...please give your 'interpretation' of it? was it a 'gospel' thing only, did he lie, delude, grand stand, seduce, with his statement. Is it an interpretational error...what ??!!
cute pictures...but can you please just explain WHAT Jesus meant in Matthew 21:22 ????!!! Anyone ???!!! Before re-directing it to 'doctrinal' section ( which is where I can see it being swept to )...please give your 'interpretation' of it? was it a 'gospel' thing only, did he lie, delude, grand stand, seduce, with his statement. Is it an interpretational error...what ??!!
I cannot, Allan.
However, there must be some constraints on that "whatsoever" because I can think of a lot of things I could pray for that I might not necessarily receive.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
24
14
22
9
Popular Days
Aug 7
13
Aug 10
12
Aug 18
12
Aug 19
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Allan 24 posts
Steve Lortz 14 posts
waysider 22 posts
Bolshevik 9 posts
Popular Days
Aug 7 2015
13 posts
Aug 10 2015
12 posts
Aug 18 2015
12 posts
Aug 19 2015
9 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
Have you ever seen, heard of, read about anyone actually casting a mountain into the sea? I should think that should be your first clue that the verse is not meant to be interpreted literally.
Steve Lortz
There is NO POWER WHATSOEVER in believing... The only power in a belief transaction is the power of the person who made the promise to keep it. If God makes a promise to do something, and that thing
krys
One of the points of GreaseSpot is to act as a place where we (all or individually) hang out a big sign warning everyone away from the corn field. That must continue until the cornfield doesn't exist
waysider
Way doctrine allows for two distinct types of believing. (not just negative and positive.)
I'm pushed for time at the moment so I'll be back later with more detail.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
skyrider
Well.....twi's believing was **TO ALWAYS OBEY MOG-MANDATES.**
Even though we were taught that "believing connotes action".....you could NOT act
on your believing UNLESS the mog sanctioned it. For example, if you believed that God
was directing you to further your education [to advance your career, your livelihood,
and help your family]....it had to be cleared by your local leadership.
If you attended night school classes, then schedule your classes on nights when there
wasn't twig. What? If I miss ONE fellowship here or there....am I going to be pegged
as 'less committed?'
I don't think most long-time followers understand how institutionalized they are to twi's
regulations and rules UNTIL one exits.
When one exits....THEN the doors open wide for all that YOU really believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
First you have the basic kind of believing that is detailed in PFAL, the Blue Book, etc., etc. etc..... "I'm believing for this." I'm believing for that"....The concept is not unique to The Way. In the 1950's and 1960's there were self-help books about it, songs about it, movies about it. Even today there is a best selling book that focuses on the concept. (I can't tell you the title because it's a Secret.)
The basic idea behind it is that you can change physical reality by releasing a magical power via your thoughts, for better or worse. There are detailed instructions set forth in various places that describe the process. For instance, the Blue Book shows a process that uses a camera as an analogy. According to this method, the more focused you become, the closer you will get to achieving whatever it is you're *believing for*. Other classes and writings teach us that speaking in tongues while concentrating will give an energizing boost to the process. A spiritual turbo charger, if you will. You have to become an active participant in the process.
Curiously, it seems to work much easier for negative results than positive. For instance, in the PFAL class, a mother had negative believing for her son's safety. Just like that... BOOM!....flattened like yesterday's pancake. And, it doesn't care who you are. "Works for saint and sinner alike." "If you believe you'll be dead this time next year you'd have to change the laws of the universe to make it out alive." Well, I guess you get the picture what this kind of believing is about.
Now on to the other kind. It's called *the manifestation of believing*. There are two whole pages devoted to it in the Advanced Class. Mostly just a bunch of what it is, what it is not and a page of scripture references that supposedly show it being used. About half of them are from the OT and Gospels. There's a definition of what it is in the syllabus. My understanding is that this definition is actually B.G. Leonard's definition, taken from the class that Leonard ran in Canada in 1953 or so. (Some of the wording has been slightly rearranged to mask its origin.) I could be wrong on this point. I welcome any correction.
Here is that definition from page 26:
The manifestation of Believing is your God-given ability whereby you may bring to pass the impossible at your command according to what God has revealed to you by Word of Knowledge, Words of Wisdom and Discerning of Spirits. It also inspires believing in others.
It is a special renewed mind believing according to the revelation of Word of Knowledge, Word of wisdom and Discerning of Spirits. It is for the deliverance of believers. It is for signs, miracles and wonders that cause the unbeliever to believe. It is the knowing awareness within you that at your command it will come to pass.
What it is not (a partial list):
*It is not believing action on the regular renewed mind believing according to the revealed Word.
*It is not the common faith.
*It is not the performing of miracles. The manifestation of Believing ceases when the result is manifested.
So there you go. Isn't it beauuuuuutiful?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I hope this post doesn't wander too far into doctrinal territory, but it's about a conclusion I arrived at while studying I Corinthians 12-14, and it has to do with how all sorts of people, not just TWI, misunderstand the words about believing in I Corinthians 14:22...
"Wherefore tongues are a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not..."
TWI and just about every other commentator I've read count "them that believe" as people who are already Christians, and "them that believe not" as people who are NOT Christians, but I don't think that's how the verse should be understood. I think it means "tongues are a sign, not to those who are confident about being born again, but to those who lack such confidence."
Speaking in tongues builds up our confidence in the truth that we are indeed born again, as per I Corinthians 14:4 and Jude 1:20. People who are confident that they are born again don't NEED a sign. Speaking in tongues is not like some mystical battery charger that builds up our POWER to do the impossible!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I would agree to disagree Steve...specific times I've needed revelation, I s.i.t. much and when I needed the rev it was there ! One instance was locating a missing person...God led me straight to where they were ( in a city with NO clue as to where they could have gone )...other times in conjunction with believing to sell a house overnight ( for cash ) to get to the states, other times for eg. to minister deliverance to a young relative in a coma...she was up out of it virtually instantaneously....so, really, no-one will convince me that it's all just some mental exercize !! I'm sorry if so few saw any real signs, miracles, wonders in their walk ? Could it be an American thing ? I enjoyed hearing Kenneth Copeland share once how in African nations the people 'struggled' to believe for financial abundance, yet they had no problems believing in healings whereas the western world find it easier to believe in/for abundance yet not healing ? go figure !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
First, acknowledge that VPW's grasp of the English language was very limited. He often mixed up parts of speech. He also invented words (so as to build a cult mentality).
The verb is: BELIEVE, and "believing" is a grammatical construction being part of the verb. The verb believe means:
: to accept or regard (something) as true
: to accept the truth of what is said by (someone)
: to have (a specified opinion)
(from Merriam-Webster online dictionary)
You can add synonyms like, have confidence in, trust in, etc. Generally, we believe someone (take their word for it) or something (that it is as stated).
If you believe someone, the emphasis is on that someone. I believe You said... it's about my confidence in You. I believe You are honest, trustworthy, a liar, a thief... It's about my believe in You.
When we get into this business of "believing" that shifts the emphasis. I am believing... who? what? I, I, I. Is that perhaps how the magical thinking gets in, the power of thinking positive, etc. It's all about I, me.
Where is all this is believing God? Where in any of it is prayer? is asking God for his help? is acknowledging Him (in all our ways) as the Giver of life, of healing, of everything.
I think this word, this expression, this "believing" is another of those sleight of hand tricks that VPW dragged in, to distract us from knowing and relying upon God. Instead of "I'm believing [who? or what?] for a house with red drapes," try "I trust God to meet my needs and I would like red drapes." Get rid of the jargon, and return to simplicity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
So Twinky ( ;) Jesus meant in Matthew 21:22 that whatsoever we ask in prayer ( regarding ? trusting ? truthfully ? ) we shall receive ?! It's a bit hard too btw when a 9 year old girl is in an induced coma to expect HER to believe ?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Good points about Wierwille's mixing up parts of speech...
My reaction whenever anyone said to me that "believing connotes action" was to think: "No it doesn't" - believing can be passive, or you can act on whatever it is you believe (Wierwille probably didn't know what "connote" meant either!)
After a while I also got a bit confused as to Wierwille's dogmatic separation of the words "faith" and "believing" in the bible, even after we all could clearly see that they were translated from the same root word: faith is a noun, belief is a noun, to believe is a verb...
The definition of "the manifestation of believing" also seemed pretty contrived and based on a lot of nothing; maybe because of a a garbled understanding of "manifestations of the spirit" as nine special magical powers
The whole concept of "believing for" something owes more to magical thinking advocates like Florence Scovall Shinn than the bible. Someone tells you something, you either believe it or you don't; something is written in the bible, you either believe it or you don't - I guess I don't see anywhere in the bible where gritting your teeth and picturing something real clearly brings it to pass...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Allen....Believing is always required EXCEPT for children and the mentally infirm. Someone must believe for them. In your case, the young girl would not have had to believe even if she was awake. It was most likely you who was doing the believing. You were manifesting both Believing and healing....and it probably was a miracle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MRAP
I think that twinky made some good points that set a presidence for this forum. I see that we are crossing the streams between "everyday positive attitude/believing" and the manifestation.
Now when Jesus cursed the fig tree, I tend to think that is the manifestation and that is what he was then the day later telling the disciples to execute and also about mountain moving - wow (I might be wrong, in Jesus case, maybe he could pull that off with everyday believing). I got property to clear from old overgrowth, I will start with the shrubs.
When we keep a positive attitude, act on it (action) and "power it up by SITing" I see that as prayer with personal action. Personally, I do that consistently, I tend to SIT consistently (I'm retired but also did it at my job and on mission - no athiests in a foxhole - don't respond, Iv'e already heard it). When out fishing and hunting I don't SIT for the big Musky or Buck, I just thank God for a safe and fun day, same as watching sporting events, I SIT for the safety of my team (strangely I ommit the opposing team - "I be jerk").
You see, when SITing, it's a wide range of things it covers: main in the list is praising God and exercising holy spirit.
I don't think I am bugging God or Jesus Christ by SITing nor just plain thanking them for past (and future) events but what it does alot is to keep the dynamic duo in my thoughts even though it starts out selfish and later becomes gratitude and praise.
Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF, it's an Army Acronym) Why not believe in believing and at the same time trust your common sense.
Be safe out there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Yes Krys and thanks for that ( I knew it but was just making a point ) ! and MRAP, nice nutshell...one either believes IN 'believing' or not, just like one either believes IN the 'authority' of the written Word...or not...peace out xx
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
There is NO POWER WHATSOEVER in believing...
The only power in a belief transaction is the power of the person who made the promise to keep it.
If God makes a promise to do something, and that thing gets done, then the only one who has exerted any power is God. If God makes a conditional promise, and if we demonstrate by failing to meet the condition that we don't trust God, then our lack of trust can be regarded as preventing God from bringing his promise to pass. But if we do have faith, and meet the condition, then it is STILL GOD'S POWER, not any "power of believing" from within us that bring's the promise to pass.
The title of the class... "POWER for Abundant Living"... was a lie from the get go!!!
Love.
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
So you're saying Jesus lied when he said "All things whatsoever YOU shall ask in prayer BELIEVING, YOU SHALL RECEIVE" ? or is it a 'translational error' ? or is it a 'figure of speech' ? ? They say that proof is in the pudding...I've seen the 'proof' not only with myself, but MANY others who literaly believed without a 'doubt' in their hearts....without using 'man's wisdom', please explain, I mean let's not start 'selecting' particular scriptures to believe or not believe ( otherwise, you're by default 'proving' V.P. was right in talking about 'Christians' that do such things
BTW Steve, ther's actually 1654 promises in KJV ( our study group went through KJV over three weeks noting them ) so I guess God's got plenty to 'live up to'
Dattssss roooigghhttt...we got tired of saying 'over 900 promises'...so we thought we'd actually count them...I'm not talking ALL promises either ( i.e. ones that only apply to Israel or such, but ones that WE can draw upon today ! much agape bro
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Allan
This is what is known as a straw man argument.
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent. SOURCE
Steve is not talking about whether or not Jesus lied nor is he examining the veracity of that particular scripture.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Oh, I thought Steve was arguing a 'doctrinal point'...the thing is, unless it's extrapolated out, it just stays...'doctrinal'...the way I see it, one can read it for mental stimulation, or bring it off the pages if you like and bring it forth for physical 'stimulation'...maybe THAT'S a good definition of 'believing' in itself ?! it's been referred to as 'mental assent'...now I know V.P. used that term, but it is not a 'new thing'... in reading the actions of Jesus Christ on numerous occasions he appeared to assault the disciples mental assent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
BTW, straw man argument or not, I'd tend to believe someone who has done it 'believing' and seen results, than someone who says it can't be done...it's called a testimony. It's a bit like s.i.t. I'd believe someone who genuinely s.i.t. ( regardless of whether people label it 'free vocalization' or pscycho babble or whatever ) than someone who admitted they faked it ! If all of this to'ing and fro'ing is merely labelled straw man, then what is really the point of discourse, in fact, what is even the point of Greasespot ?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
One of the points of GreaseSpot is to act as a place where we (all or individually) hang out a big sign warning everyone away from the corn field. That must continue until the cornfield doesn't exist any more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Here we go again. This discussion is not about speaking in tongues. That certainly is a valid topic and has had many threads associated with it. However, interesting though a discussion of it may be, it's not what this thread is about.
"what is really the point of discourse, in fact, what is even the point of Greasespot ?!"
The point of discourse is to examine and exchange ideas and opinions relating to a given subject, in this case, the definition of "believing".
The point of GreaseSpot is to expose the true (dark) nature of The Way International. Specifically, the point of the forums is as follows:
"These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion.
In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant.
Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area."
edit: We no longer offer a forum for political discussion. However, there doesn't seem to be any shortage of such places on the web.
re-edit: You are more than welcome to open discussions on the two subjects you introduced or revisit an existing thread. Most of these usually take place in the doctrinal forum.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I should probably have emphasized more the aspect of practice, not doctrinal. What was believing? Was it what we told ourselves it was?
I was frequently instructed to believe more. I read, and listened, and discussed believing almost daily in TWI, for decades. At the end, I don't know what it was or what I was supposed to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
OK, in the least common denominator, it's a form of self delusion, convincing yourself that your thoughts are going to cause changes to occur in the physical world. Some of those changes involve your personal being (as in believing for healing) and some involve enacting changes to the world around and outside you. (such as believing for red drapes) Believing is a process wherein you convince yourself that your thoughts are causing reality to change for better or worse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I would agree self-delusion was involved. There's also the times when we tell someone else "to believe". I think there's quite a bit if ego involved there. Believing could have been a term used to cover a number of things, is one thing that I wonder.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
cute pictures...but can you please just explain WHAT Jesus meant in Matthew 21:22 ????!!! Anyone ???!!! Before re-directing it to 'doctrinal' section ( which is where I can see it being swept to )...please give your 'interpretation' of it? was it a 'gospel' thing only, did he lie, delude, grand stand, seduce, with his statement. Is it an interpretational error...what ??!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
I cannot, Allan.
However, there must be some constraints on that "whatsoever" because I can think of a lot of things I could pray for that I might not necessarily receive.
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.