Well if anything, "simple believing", has once again been demonstrated to be a lie. It's an umbrella term for countless natural/mental phenomena. Is it even possible to be on the same page when discussing it with those who promote/defend it? It's a shifty doctrine by nature.
Maybe T-Bone, the idol is the only unifying, or shareable, aspect between people who subscribe to The Law of Believing, . . . is that what was meant?
As noted already in my previous post, I don't have issues (i.e., problems) in the effects of believing. (So I'm not addressing any.)
You want a definition for believing? Well, it may not be the most complete or best there is, but I trust that you won't mind if I borrow one from someone else that I think isn't bad.
Very simply put, believing is to take God at His Word.
How that's taught and/or learned isn't as easy or as simple to grasp.
Far easier to spot, is what it's not, or how it's not done right.
While we can probably discuss what about it was taught (right, poorly, or just plain wrong) in PFAL and TWI, I'm not aware of any secret way that it was ever taught to "group B."
However, as for my own thoughts on the matter, well... it would have to be more bite size (that'd probably take a bit of work on your part to piece together).
For starters, I see believing as being an issue of the heart. What do you think or see the heart is?
okay . . I will try here.
It sounds like you're saying Believing is Obedience.
Obedience exactly to what, is what's open to interpretation. (His Word, which is not defined)
To me you are suggesting that the heart is someone's free will.
Well if anything, "simple believing", has once again been demonstrated to be a lie. It's an umbrella term for countless natural/mental phenomena. Is it even possible to be on the same page when discussing it with those who promote/defend it? It's a shifty doctrine by nature.
Maybe T-Bone, the idol is the only unifying, or shareable, aspect between people who subscribe to The Law of Believing, . . . is that what was meant?
edited for clarity
If you're referring to my silly Star Wars / Raiders of the Lost Ark mash-up in post # 72 with the idol and the Force – then yes – in the context of TWI followers perhaps one of the common bonds may be the high regard some folks have for VP and how that lends "credibility" to the law of believing.
Yeah – I know movie references are a dumb way to express my thoughts – but I was trying to bring some levity to the discussion. I was hoping to channel something funny while I bowed before the miniature commemorative statue of Steve Martin (in his stand-up comic days) that I have on a shelf; oh yeah, it's got the white suit – appropriate accessories - matching snap-on white hair, snap-on banjo, and snap-on arrow thru the head.
As a side note – I became a little disillusioned with my Steve Martin idol when one day I spotted a similar looking figurine in a window display – it was a miniature commemorative statue of Saturday Night Fever. This little John Travolta had the same white suit but had a snap-on "styled" dark hair accessory and an even smaller statue of L. Ron Hubbard that clips to Travolta's shoulder….but don't laugh and you might think I'm a horrible person for saying this - but I'm thinking of buying it….I mean…I can't dance for $hi_t and I'm thinking with a little inspiration from a dance idol maybe I'll be able to bust a move.
It's just not much in my nature to think or act like a prosecuting attorney and "lay the case out before you" and try to persuade you with it into thinking a certain way.
(SNIP)
A
Yeah, silly me. Thinking the thread might be useful for something other than tearing down.
(And for thinking that someone might have wanted a deeper or more meaningful discussion to a question asked of me.)
I am sorry if I've given you that impression from my posts. I do not look at you or anyone else who posts at Grease Spot (or even the lurkers, for that matter) as "the accused" – and as if I wanted to bring some "criminal action" against someone for their doctrinal offence. Perhaps you've noticed the quote at the bottom of all my posts – but I will bring it up into the body of this post:
"The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside." [from Closing of the American Mindby Allan Bloom]
I'm not interested in bringing anyone to my way of thinking – that's anyone – whether in or out or on the way out or on the way in to TWI. I really just want to draw their attention to the fact that there are options…other possibilities…other ideas and perspectives that have merit besides the typical thought process of the TWI mindset. My viewpoint is just one among a myriad of viewpoints at Grease Spot.
My intent is just to get people to think outside the box – whether it's the TWI "box" or some other box – or even their own unique perspective. Heck, intellectually I am even challenged by other posters here – to think outside the little comfortable box I've carved out for myself.
I would also like to add a few more points:
usually when I post something I have a very wide target audience. It's not just for the benefit of the poster I'm responding to on a particular point, or even the other Grease Spotters. It goes beyond that; for example I'm sure lots of Grease Spotter are sick and tired of me referring to the pajama party incident from my family corps days. Besides being a good incident to highlight certain questionable practices of VP there's something else; I actually do care about people whether they are in or out or on the way out or on the way in to TWI. I have this small hope that someone who was there that day – someone who was in Family Corps 11 or 10; and it triggers some kind of response that will get them to re-evaluate that experience.
And there's always something on Grease Spot that can inspire one to re-think their perspective anyway. Of late, I draw a lot of….inspiration….maybe even some direction….guidance from two posts on the Decorum and discussion tones thread – the first is Wordwolf's post # 1 and the other one is Raf's post # 5; I'm not going to give a detailed list of the things that really inspired me – but overall let's just say it helped remind me of the purpose of Grease Spot and to hash things out peacefully when viewpoints collide.
I know i am not perfect and don't always come across as one motivated by those two great posts - but that's what i'm shooting for. (uhm - that's shooting for the appropriate motivation - not shooting for perfection)
"Yeah, silly me. Thinking the thread might be useful for something other than tearing down.
(And for thinking that someone might have wanted a deeper or more meaningful discussion to a question asked of me.)" Yikes! Poor little TLC.....
I did not realize that part of the Socratic Method was playing the whine of being a victim of the answers to your own questions. Is he talking about the same Socrates as Aristotle? Just wondering.
"Yeah, silly me. Thinking the thread might be useful for something other than tearing down.
(And for thinking that someone might have wanted a deeper or more meaningful discussion to a question asked of me.)" Yikes! Poor little TLC..... :redface:/>
I did not realize that part of the Socratic Method was playing the whine of being a victim of the answers to your own questions. Is he talking about the same Socrates as Aristotle? Just wondering.
Oh, I'm sorry... was the banter a little too satirical for you to understand or relate to Socrates, Wilbur?
I hope identifying our differences in understanding on the topic of believing isn't considered "tearing down".
That's neither the topic of this thread, nor the direction it cares to go in, Bolshevik.
I am sorry if I've given you that impression from my posts. I do not look at you or anyone else who posts at Grease Spot (or even the lurkers, for that matter) as "the accused" and as if I wanted to bring some "criminal action" against someone for their doctrinal offence. [clipped]
No need to apologize, and quite honestly, I didn't think (at least, not previously) that you were trying to accuse me of some "doctrinal offence." (But those are certainly odd words that you chose to respond with.) Nor did I view the motive of your posts as subtly aimed at bringing someone into your way of thinking. I don't much care that you don't care to discuss my perspective on believing in the manner that I chose. C'est la vie.
You can't cause something to happen merely by thinking about it. Nor can you prevent something from happening merely by thinking about it. Thoughts do not change anything in the physical world. The so-called law of believing is, in fact, not a law at all. It's not mystical, magical, spiritual or supernatural and it surely doesn't work for saint or sinner alike. The human mind is a fragile mechanism. It doesn't like discord and the uneasiness of uncertainty. So, it tries to find logic and reason that will explain the discrepancies frustrating it. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It helps us give what appears to be meaning to aspects of life that would otherwise be meaningless and frustrating. This new age sort of thinking didn't originate with Wierwille. It was quite popular in various forms in the 1950's and 1960's. Some of those forms were theological while others were completely secular. The fearful mother cited in PFAL did not kill her little boy by worrying about his safety. If a mother's fears for the safety of her children could actually kill them, the human race would be teetering on extinction.
You can't cause something to happen merely by thinking about it. Nor can you prevent something from happening merely by thinking about it. Thoughts do not change anything in the physical world.
I dunno, waysider. Quantum physics is weird, and at times might seem to somewhat disagree with that.
The so-called law of believing is, in fact, not a law at all.
Do you have proof and/or facts to support that?
It's not mystical, magical, spiritual or supernatural and it surely doesn't work for saint or sinner alike. The human mind is a fragile mechanism. It doesn't like discord and the uneasiness of uncertainty. So, it tries to find logic and reason that will explain the discrepancies frustrating it.
(clipped)
Well, I don't necessary disagree with that (given the context of the thread), or with much of the rest of your post.
You can't cause something to happen merely by thinking about it. Nor can you prevent something from happening merely by thinking about it. Thoughts do not change anything in the physical world.
TLC:
I dunno, wayside. Quantum physics is weird, and at times might seem to somewhat disagree with that.
Please enlighten me how quantum physics disagrees with my statement.
waysider:
The so-called law of believing is, in fact, not a law at all.
TLC:
Do you have proof and/or facts to support that?
Do you have proof or facts to support its reality? If it was a law, it would have a consistent, predictable outcome when applied. Mix 2 parts hydrogen with 1 part oxygen or drop something off a building. We know what will happen in both cases. It's consistent and predictable. You can't change the outcome of either event by virtue of your thoughts.
You can't cause something to happen merely by thinking about it. Nor can you prevent something from happening merely by thinking about it. Thoughts do not change anything in the physical world.
TLC:
I dunno, wayside. Quantum physics is weird, and at times might seem to somewhat disagree with that.
Please enlighten me how quantum physics disagrees with my statement.
If you carefully note the words that were used, I didn't say it disagrees.
I brought it up only because of experiments suggesting that reality doesn't exist until it's measured, and there's enough stuff around on the Internet on the subject that I don't see any need to be going into it any deeper.
waysider:
The so-called law of believing is, in fact, not a law at all.
TLC:
Do you have proof and/or facts to support that?
Do you have proof or facts to support its reality?
No, I don't.... but neither did I claim it to be a fact. Though, I suppose one might be able to make a case for it based on an interpretation of Rom 3:27, IF said verse was mutually accepted as support or proof of reality.
If it was a law, it would have a consistent, predictable outcome when applied. Mix 2 parts hydrogen with 1 part oxygen or drop something off a building. We know what will happen in both cases. It's consistent and predictable. You can't change the outcome of either event by virtue of your thoughts.
Okay, so they're reliably predictable from a sense knowledge vantage point. We have a nice, solid box that fits around it.
Saying "It's on the internet." is a total cop-out. It reminds me of how people in The Way used to say "It's spiritual" when they really didn't have an answer.
Do I have any facts to support my statement?
How about this. If it's a law, it should fulfill the criteria of anything being declared a law. It doesn't. That's a fact, Jack.
If you want to look at it realistically, you could exclude any mention of the Bible, altogether.
Wasn't it Wierwille who declared it to work for saint and sinner alike?
Saying "It's on the internet." is a total cop-out. It reminds me of how people in The Way used to say "It's spiritual" when they really didn't have an answer.
Well, call it whatever you want. I could care less whether you are or aren't moved in any way to investigate the matter further, or what you think of it. It's not an issue that I have any great insight into, or understanding of, and am only familiar enough with it to recognize that you might not be.
Do I have any facts to support my statement?
How about this. If it's a law, it should fulfill the criteria of anything being declared a law. It doesn't. That's a fact, Jack.
If you can't define pistis, faith, or believing (which doesn't seem to have been done here, that I can see), then how the heck do you know what criteria is or isn't consistent, and does or doesn't indicate it's a law? That's not a fact, Jack. It's just plain Sally silly.
If you want to look at it realistically, you could exclude any mention of the Bible, altogether.
Wasn't it Wierwille who declared it to work for saint and sinner alike?
Regardless of what VP said, Proverbs 23:7a states "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he."
Have you ever experienced anything in life where that is not true?
"I could care less whether you are or aren't moved in any way to investigate the matter further, or what you think of it."
In other words, you don't really have anything to offer in this regard. "Look it up yourself." doesn't really cut it.
"If you can't define pistis, faith, or believing (which doesn't seem to have been done here, that I can see), then how the heck do you know what criteria is or isn't consistent, and does or doesn't indicate it's a law? That's not a fact, Jack. It's just plain Sally silly."
It doesn't matter one bit whether I or anyone else can give a definition of pistis that will suit you. It's not necessary for the purposes of defining a law. Believing is supposed to be a law, remember? ("God would have to change the laws of the universe"/"Works for saint and sinner, alike."....VPW) Since you're a fan of the internet, here is something pretty basic that might help you as you search it out yourself: WIKI
"A physical law or scientific law is a theoretical statement "inferred from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."
Imo, TLC's "understanding" of quantum theory and/or fact, is as objective as his compulsion to be a vic'n'twit apologist. Despite his cryptic, self-serving denials of being "one", methinks he doth protest too much. His persistent impulse to defend the indefensible seems to me to be a vain attempt at self-validation. Hard to rationalize insanity imo. Sorry TLC, but it ain't workin'......for you or any of us here trying to genuinely communicate with you. You have not demonstrated any authentic desire to communicate, imo.
Quantum theory along with its proven scientific fact does indeed open up all the possibilities of understanding HOW it is possible for God and/or Jesus Christ to actually DO what is attributed to Them in the Bible. And, the most current scientific and medical literature uses proven quantum theory (e.g. quantum electrochemistry, quantum biology, quantum physiology, etc.), to make incredible gains in the understanding and documenting of the most detailed information on the physiology and actual biophysiological and electrochemical function of the human brain. It does not prove any specific or iconoclastic belief in that brain. It simply lays out the actual FACTS regarding how EVERY human brain works. It is predictable, repeatable, and documentable. Hence, it is PROVEN.
Are there actual hormonal, electrochemical, and/or physiological changes in the synaptic electrochemistry and biophysiology of the human brain? Absolutely. However, these predictable, repeatable, and documentable FACTS do not prove any specific spiritual belief or "positive thoughts" as being "true". They simply prove the actual biophysiological and electrochemical realities of the function of the average human brain in ANY self-imposed belief system. ANY.
So, as I see it, quantum indeed sheds marvelous light on the real possibilities of God and Christ, and that They can do whatever they want. It also puts ALL human beliefs on an equal footing before that same One True God......and ALL His expressions of Himself around the universe as defined by "fruit of the Spirit" as listed in Gal 5:22,23. Thanks for reading this..........peace.
"I could care less whether you are or aren't moved in any way to investigate the matter further, or what you think of it."
In other words, you don't really have anything to offer in this regard.
(clipped)
Not in regards to quantum physics, for sure.
It doesn't matter one bit whether I or anyone else can give a definition of pistis that will suit you. It's not necessary for the purposes of defining a law. Believing is supposed to be a law, remember? ("God would have to change the laws of the universe"/"Works for saint and sinner, alike."....VPW)
(clipped)
I'll agree that it doesn't matter if the only point is to say that whatever VP and TWI taught was "magical thinking" that didn't fly (and/or pass the sniff test as a "law.").
And subsequently, neither does it matter whether believing is said to be (or not be) a law.
Because what was/is so prominently thought and taught as believing doesn't appear to me to always square up with what pistis means biblically.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
20
15
29
Popular Days
Jul 26
28
Jul 24
19
Jul 23
16
Jul 27
11
Top Posters In This Topic
T-Bone 23 posts
waysider 20 posts
Bolshevik 15 posts
TLC 29 posts
Popular Days
Jul 26 2016
28 posts
Jul 24 2016
19 posts
Jul 23 2016
16 posts
Jul 27 2016
11 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
Well, OK, here's the first part: "Perhaps the mere indication (from what I had posted previously) that I might not have been as "clueless as the rest of [some of you] back then" is part of the reason
T-Bone
Rocky thanks for that link to magical thinking – I've bookmarked it so I can review it a few times – good stuff. VP's skewed version of Christianity was a lot about being in control and manipulati
penworks
If I could put these two sentences in a flashing neon sign, I would. Speaking from experience, this lies at the heart of fanaticism.
waysider
TLC: "Let's change the subject."
T-Bone: "No, thanks."
TLC: "Well then, that was a short path to nowhere."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
LOL waysider! Short, sweet and spot on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Well if anything, "simple believing", has once again been demonstrated to be a lie. It's an umbrella term for countless natural/mental phenomena. Is it even possible to be on the same page when discussing it with those who promote/defend it? It's a shifty doctrine by nature.
Maybe T-Bone, the idol is the only unifying, or shareable, aspect between people who subscribe to The Law of Believing, . . . is that what was meant?
edited for clarity
Edited by BolshevikLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
okay . . I will try here.
It sounds like you're saying Believing is Obedience.
Obedience exactly to what, is what's open to interpretation. (His Word, which is not defined)
To me you are suggesting that the heart is someone's free will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
If you're referring to my silly Star Wars / Raiders of the Lost Ark mash-up in post # 72 with the idol and the Force – then yes – in the context of TWI followers perhaps one of the common bonds may be the high regard some folks have for VP and how that lends "credibility" to the law of believing.
Yeah – I know movie references are a dumb way to express my thoughts – but I was trying to bring some levity to the discussion. I was hoping to channel something funny while I bowed before the miniature commemorative statue of Steve Martin (in his stand-up comic days) that I have on a shelf; oh yeah, it's got the white suit – appropriate accessories - matching snap-on white hair, snap-on banjo, and snap-on arrow thru the head.
As a side note – I became a little disillusioned with my Steve Martin idol when one day I spotted a similar looking figurine in a window display – it was a miniature commemorative statue of Saturday Night Fever. This little John Travolta had the same white suit but had a snap-on "styled" dark hair accessory and an even smaller statue of L. Ron Hubbard that clips to Travolta's shoulder….but don't laugh and you might think I'm a horrible person for saying this - but I'm thinking of buying it….I mean…I can't dance for $hi_t and I'm thinking with a little inspiration from a dance idol maybe I'll be able to bust a move.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Yeah, silly me. Thinking the thread might be useful for something other than tearing down.
(And for thinking that someone might have wanted a deeper or more meaningful discussion to a question asked of me.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I am sorry if I've given you that impression from my posts. I do not look at you or anyone else who posts at Grease Spot (or even the lurkers, for that matter) as "the accused" – and as if I wanted to bring some "criminal action" against someone for their doctrinal offence. Perhaps you've noticed the quote at the bottom of all my posts – but I will bring it up into the body of this post:
"The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside." [from Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom]
I'm not interested in bringing anyone to my way of thinking – that's anyone – whether in or out or on the way out or on the way in to TWI. I really just want to draw their attention to the fact that there are options…other possibilities…other ideas and perspectives that have merit besides the typical thought process of the TWI mindset. My viewpoint is just one among a myriad of viewpoints at Grease Spot.
My intent is just to get people to think outside the box – whether it's the TWI "box" or some other box – or even their own unique perspective. Heck, intellectually I am even challenged by other posters here – to think outside the little comfortable box I've carved out for myself.
I would also like to add a few more points:
usually when I post something I have a very wide target audience. It's not just for the benefit of the poster I'm responding to on a particular point, or even the other Grease Spotters. It goes beyond that; for example I'm sure lots of Grease Spotter are sick and tired of me referring to the pajama party incident from my family corps days. Besides being a good incident to highlight certain questionable practices of VP there's something else; I actually do care about people whether they are in or out or on the way out or on the way in to TWI. I have this small hope that someone who was there that day – someone who was in Family Corps 11 or 10; and it triggers some kind of response that will get them to re-evaluate that experience.
And there's always something on Grease Spot that can inspire one to re-think their perspective anyway. Of late, I draw a lot of….inspiration….maybe even some direction….guidance from two posts on the Decorum and discussion tones thread – the first is Wordwolf's post # 1 and the other one is Raf's post # 5; I'm not going to give a detailed list of the things that really inspired me – but overall let's just say it helped remind me of the purpose of Grease Spot and to hash things out peacefully when viewpoints collide.
I know i am not perfect and don't always come across as one motivated by those two great posts - but that's what i'm shooting for. (uhm - that's shooting for the appropriate motivation - not shooting for perfection)
Note post # 1 and #5 on Decorum thread
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
"Yeah, silly me. Thinking the thread might be useful for something other than tearing down.
(And for thinking that someone might have wanted a deeper or more meaningful discussion to a question asked of me.)" Yikes! Poor little TLC.....
I did not realize that part of the Socratic Method was playing the whine of being a victim of the answers to your own questions. Is he talking about the same Socrates as Aristotle? Just wondering.
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I hope identifying our differences in understanding on the topic of believing isn't considered "tearing down".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Oh, I'm sorry... was the banter a little too satirical for you to understand or relate to Socrates, Wilbur?
That's neither the topic of this thread, nor the direction it cares to go in, Bolshevik.
(In case you hadn't noticed.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
No need to apologize, and quite honestly, I didn't think (at least, not previously) that you were trying to accuse me of some "doctrinal offence." (But those are certainly odd words that you chose to respond with.) Nor did I view the motive of your posts as subtly aimed at bringing someone into your way of thinking. I don't much care that you don't care to discuss my perspective on believing in the manner that I chose. C'est la vie.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Let's boil the cabbage down, shall we?
You can't cause something to happen merely by thinking about it. Nor can you prevent something from happening merely by thinking about it. Thoughts do not change anything in the physical world. The so-called law of believing is, in fact, not a law at all. It's not mystical, magical, spiritual or supernatural and it surely doesn't work for saint or sinner alike. The human mind is a fragile mechanism. It doesn't like discord and the uneasiness of uncertainty. So, it tries to find logic and reason that will explain the discrepancies frustrating it. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It helps us give what appears to be meaning to aspects of life that would otherwise be meaningless and frustrating. This new age sort of thinking didn't originate with Wierwille. It was quite popular in various forms in the 1950's and 1960's. Some of those forms were theological while others were completely secular. The fearful mother cited in PFAL did not kill her little boy by worrying about his safety. If a mother's fears for the safety of her children could actually kill them, the human race would be teetering on extinction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Now there's a smelly proposition.
I dunno, waysider. Quantum physics is weird, and at times might seem to somewhat disagree with that.
Do you have proof and/or facts to support that?
Well, I don't necessary disagree with that (given the context of the thread), or with much of the rest of your post.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Yaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnnn..............
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
waysider:
You can't cause something to happen merely by thinking about it. Nor can you prevent something from happening merely by thinking about it. Thoughts do not change anything in the physical world.
TLC:
I dunno, wayside. Quantum physics is weird, and at times might seem to somewhat disagree with that.
Please enlighten me how quantum physics disagrees with my statement.
waysider:
The so-called law of believing is, in fact, not a law at all.
TLC:
Do you have proof and/or facts to support that?
Do you have proof or facts to support its reality? If it was a law, it would have a consistent, predictable outcome when applied. Mix 2 parts hydrogen with 1 part oxygen or drop something off a building. We know what will happen in both cases. It's consistent and predictable. You can't change the outcome of either event by virtue of your thoughts.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
I admire your patience waysider. It is a wonderful fruit of the spirit is it not?
Socrates ain't got nothin' on you!
Edited by DontWorryBeHappyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
If you carefully note the words that were used, I didn't say it disagrees.
I brought it up only because of experiments suggesting that reality doesn't exist until it's measured, and there's enough stuff around on the Internet on the subject that I don't see any need to be going into it any deeper.
No, I don't.... but neither did I claim it to be a fact. Though, I suppose one might be able to make a case for it based on an interpretation of Rom 3:27, IF said verse was mutually accepted as support or proof of reality.
Okay, so they're reliably predictable from a sense knowledge vantage point. We have a nice, solid box that fits around it.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Sounds like a bunch of fluff, TLC.
You said it "might seem to disagree".
O.K....In what way does it "seem" to disagree?
Saying "It's on the internet." is a total cop-out. It reminds me of how people in The Way used to say "It's spiritual" when they really didn't have an answer.
Do I have any facts to support my statement?
How about this. If it's a law, it should fulfill the criteria of anything being declared a law. It doesn't. That's a fact, Jack.
If you want to look at it realistically, you could exclude any mention of the Bible, altogether.
Wasn't it Wierwille who declared it to work for saint and sinner alike?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, call it whatever you want. I could care less whether you are or aren't moved in any way to investigate the matter further, or what you think of it. It's not an issue that I have any great insight into, or understanding of, and am only familiar enough with it to recognize that you might not be.
If you can't define pistis, faith, or believing (which doesn't seem to have been done here, that I can see), then how the heck do you know what criteria is or isn't consistent, and does or doesn't indicate it's a law? That's not a fact, Jack. It's just plain Sally silly.
Regardless of what VP said, Proverbs 23:7a states "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he."
Have you ever experienced anything in life where that is not true?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
You could always start your own thread...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"I could care less whether you are or aren't moved in any way to investigate the matter further, or what you think of it."
In other words, you don't really have anything to offer in this regard. "Look it up yourself." doesn't really cut it.
"If you can't define pistis, faith, or believing (which doesn't seem to have been done here, that I can see), then how the heck do you know what criteria is or isn't consistent, and does or doesn't indicate it's a law? That's not a fact, Jack. It's just plain Sally silly."
It doesn't matter one bit whether I or anyone else can give a definition of pistis that will suit you. It's not necessary for the purposes of defining a law. Believing is supposed to be a law, remember? ("God would have to change the laws of the universe"/"Works for saint and sinner, alike."....VPW) Since you're a fan of the internet, here is something pretty basic that might help you as you search it out yourself: WIKI
"A physical law or scientific law is a theoretical statement "inferred from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
In this thread, TLC has anthropromorphized both this thread and Quantum Physics. That's a type of magical thinking, I think.
Not important. Just pointing that out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DontWorryBeHappy
Imo, TLC's "understanding" of quantum theory and/or fact, is as objective as his compulsion to be a vic'n'twit apologist. Despite his cryptic, self-serving denials of being "one", methinks he doth protest too much. His persistent impulse to defend the indefensible seems to me to be a vain attempt at self-validation. Hard to rationalize insanity imo. Sorry TLC, but it ain't workin'......for you or any of us here trying to genuinely communicate with you. You have not demonstrated any authentic desire to communicate, imo.
Quantum theory along with its proven scientific fact does indeed open up all the possibilities of understanding HOW it is possible for God and/or Jesus Christ to actually DO what is attributed to Them in the Bible. And, the most current scientific and medical literature uses proven quantum theory (e.g. quantum electrochemistry, quantum biology, quantum physiology, etc.), to make incredible gains in the understanding and documenting of the most detailed information on the physiology and actual biophysiological and electrochemical function of the human brain. It does not prove any specific or iconoclastic belief in that brain. It simply lays out the actual FACTS regarding how EVERY human brain works. It is predictable, repeatable, and documentable. Hence, it is PROVEN.
Are there actual hormonal, electrochemical, and/or physiological changes in the synaptic electrochemistry and biophysiology of the human brain? Absolutely. However, these predictable, repeatable, and documentable FACTS do not prove any specific spiritual belief or "positive thoughts" as being "true". They simply prove the actual biophysiological and electrochemical realities of the function of the average human brain in ANY self-imposed belief system. ANY.
So, as I see it, quantum indeed sheds marvelous light on the real possibilities of God and Christ, and that They can do whatever they want. It also puts ALL human beliefs on an equal footing before that same One True God......and ALL His expressions of Himself around the universe as defined by "fruit of the Spirit" as listed in Gal 5:22,23. Thanks for reading this..........peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Not in regards to quantum physics, for sure.
I'll agree that it doesn't matter if the only point is to say that whatever VP and TWI taught was "magical thinking" that didn't fly (and/or pass the sniff test as a "law.").
And subsequently, neither does it matter whether believing is said to be (or not be) a law.
Because what was/is so prominently thought and taught as believing doesn't appear to me to always square up with what pistis means biblically.
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.