I'm thinking her house burned from negative believing...thus the fire engine....uhhh....nevermind....
You know what killed that little boy? I'll tell you. He saw the raging fire consuming the house and, without a thought for his own safety and well-being, dashed valiantly across the street, just as the firetruck came screeching to a halt in front of the house. Squashed him flatter than the winner of the local Twiggy lookalike contest.
You know what killed that little boy? I'll tell you. He saw the raging fire consuming the house and, without a thought for his own safety and well-being, dashed valiantly across the street, just as the firetruck came screeching to a halt in front of the house. Squashed him flatter than the winner of the local Twiggy lookalike contest.
Yes....all because of the boy's sister's uncle's niece had allowed his thoughts to run unchecked and boom....
You know what killed that little boy? I'll tell you. He saw the raging fire consuming the house and, without a thought for his own safety and well-being, dashed valiantly across the street, just as the firetruck came screeching to a halt in front of the house. Squashed him flatter than the winner of the local Twiggy lookalike contest.
1 hour ago, OldSkool said:
Yes....all because of the boy's sister's uncle's niece had allowed his thoughts to run unchecked and boom....
Actually, the Twig that met across the street was having a Burn the Chaff Day. The boy was running over there to donate some Playboy magazines (actually they were The Way Magazines but he told his Mom they were Playboy). But it was not meant to be. An hour earlier Twiggy's doppelganger's stepdad was a repentant gang-banger and had already thrown in his entire collection of doggy-porn videos (all 55 volumes) as well as the CF&S class onto the Burn the Chaff bonefire. The fire quickly got out of control - and good thing someone had the believing to dial 911. Do you know what saved those Way Magazines from the fire? The firetruck running over that little boy.
After investigating the fire, Fire Marshal Bill stated that VHS tapes are very flammable and probably acted as an accelerant to spread the fire. In honor of the valiant boy's life and to curtail any further unbridled thinking or inbreeding Fire Marshal Bill announced they will host a Renewed Mind Class at the Fire Station with pole dancing contests during the breaks.
Fire Marshal Bill said they are preserving all evidence from the fire - especially any video tapes that were not damaged by the fire. "We need to look over every piece of evidence very very carefully...this could take a long long time...and a lot of popcorn."
Edited by T-Bone this post is on fire !!!!!!! "let me stand next to your post" alternate words by Jimi wannabe
The Law of Believing has an element of grandiosity . . . super magical thinking . . . You can do anything . . . because of the deep constant pain the leader must hide from . . . having no identity/ego and constantly blasted by the superego . . he (VPW) must reimagine himself
The follower is there to mirror that image. They must follow along in this game. Finding the best parking spots at the grocery store . . . proving VPW's reality.
All the biblical stuff is just dressing up ego inflation. The Word, The Word . . . nothing but VPWs fantasy realm. Toss out the verses and look at his mind.
When I read John 5:30 now it sounds like power given from authority. Jesus acted as another rational responsible being would. Using power he already had and exercising the right as a higher authority would.
When thinking "all nine all the time" it's as if you're giving yourself over and God is totally running your being. That is enmeshment. That is not a relationship. Well, toxic, yes.
It was E.W. Kenyon who first presented to the church the idea of 'now faith'; that faith 'is a confession'; that 'what I confess, I possess'; and that we create reality with the words of our mouths - 'Faith's confessions create realities'.
We create meaning with our minds.
There is countless objects and patterns around us. We choose to assign meaning to them.
If someone has never seen a cup before they might just call it a thing. They might not even notice it amidst a bunch of other things.
Once someone decides "this object is for holding and drinking liquids and I am calling it a "cup", will you as well?" Then the object has meaning. In a way through logos it is called into existence. In our minds. But it was always there. Our reality did change.
Edited by Bolshevik italic part quoted, not the rest, my believing sucks
I re-watched the 1998 sci-fi movie Sphere the other day. It’s based on a novel of the same name by Michael Crichton. In my opinion, the book is a lot better than the movie – and I don’t know why cuz it has good actors who do a great job – maybe it’s the made-for-TV kind of vibe I get from the lackluster special effects…but that’s besides my point – which is the movie is a hypothetical approach to drill down into some unintended consequencesif there really were such a thing as the law of believing.
***caution spoiler alert – if you haven’t seen the movie yet stop reading this and come back after you’ve seen it – I’ll wait right here ***
One of the great thought-provoking things about the sci-fi genre is the philosophical perspective of “what if”. Take for example the 1933 classic The Invisible Man . IMDB’s brief summary gives the “what if” - “A scientist finds a way of becoming invisible, but in doing so, he becomes murderously insane.” Which brings to mind the proverbial saying “ 'power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely' conveys the opinion that, as a person's power increases, their moral sense diminishes. Origin - the short version "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is the best known quotation of the 19th century British politician Lord Acton.” see phrases.org
In Sphere, a spaceship is discovered under three hundred years' worth of coral growth at the bottom of the ocean. A team of experts explore this ultra-futuristic spacecraft under the sea, find a way to review the ship’s logs and find a large sphere hovering in the cargo bay…As the story unfolds we find out that everyone who comes in contact with this unearthly sphere gains the ability to make anything they imagine a reality…At first the team of experts (a marine biologist, mathematician, astrophysicist and a psychologist) are not even aware of this ability but as each creepy event plays out one of the ways in which the whodunit is revealed is by sedating a person with enough drugs to induce a dreamless state.
What intrigued me about the premise of this movie was how the story fleshed out almost like a lab experiment approach – a controlled environment – limited to four people in an underwater habitat on the floor of the Pacific Ocean…In PFAL we were taught the law of believing works for saint and sinner alike…Being a big sci-fi fan I sometimes imagine stories of my own – don’t think I’ll ever do anything with any of my nonsense I just love to write (can you tell? ) – anyway I have one story called Planet of the Gods – and it’s sort of a Woody Allen-ish satire on the law of believing – everyone in this world has the ability to create their own reality – it’s chaotic cuz people, things, events, situations, whatever wind up getting undone…redone…cancelled…re-instated…created…destroyed…re-created…yada yada yada ad nauseum.
What I didn’t consider in my own fictional story was the subconscious factor if there truly was a law of believing - the part of the mind of which one is not fully aware but which influences one's actions and feelings. The movie Sphere explores exactly that aspect! And instead of the setting be an entire world – it’s just four people trying to figure out why these terrifying events are plaguing them. The movie got me to think more deeply about the unintended consequences if the law of believing was for real. Just think if your deepest fears, desires, fantasies, imagination, loves, and hatreds were unleashed into the real world…literally brought into concretion, all because you failed to keep them in check, were simply unaware you had them…didn’t think it was anything to be concerned about…or regardless of anything else you thought it was your God-given privilege to exercise your rights… I’m not talking about self-fulfilling prophecy (where our beliefs and expectations influence our behavior at the subconscious level ) or the placebo effect (a patient’s beliefs effects the “treatment” they experience) in psychology and sociology - see positive psychology article .
I think if there really was a law of believing as defined by wierwille – the world would be in a continuous fvcked up state of flux. We would be a world of little ugly fickle self-centered gods wreaking havoc on ourselves and others. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In my opinion, the book is a lot better than the movie – and I don’t know why
Books upon which movies are based/made are usually better than the movie... because it's pretty much impossible to fit everything into the movie that's in the book. So, the screenplay writer has to do his/her best to be true to the story's essence in a time frame audiences can cope with... if it's too long, too many people, even if they don't get bored, are going to have to get up and miss something when they have to pee.
9 hours ago, T-Bone said:
I think if there really was a law of believing as defined by wierwille – the world would be in a continuous fvcked up state of flux. We would be a world of little ugly fickle self-centered gods wreaking havoc on ourselves and others. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And cutting to the main point, I think you were trying to make, that's a reasonable way to look at it.
I think if there really was a law of believing as defined by wierwille – the world would be in a continuous fvcked up state of flux. We would be a world of little ugly fickle self-centered gods wreaking havoc on ourselves and others. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
That's a really good point and one I never thought of. What kind of God would set that sort of chaos in motion?
After spending a few months working the topic pretty vigoursly I have come to see most everywhere I look some guru (Christian or otherwise) is selling the idea of "tapping into the power of God." I firmly believe that this thinking was started by Phineas Parkhurst Quimby/Mary Eddy Baker/ E.W. Kenyon types - especially Kenyon - and as a result, God is a source of power to be tapped into like some kind of cosmic keg that pours pints of power as long as we stay focused in our believing, as if our minds were the controlling mechanism for all of life. In my experience most of these gurus market these concepts openly while clandestinely luring people in with great promises that simply do not deliver.
After spending a few months working the topic pretty vigoursly I have come to see most everywhere I look some guru (Christian or otherwise) is selling the idea of "tapping into the power of God." I firmly believe that this thinking was started by Phineas Parkhurst Quimby/Mary Eddy Baker/ E.W. Kenyon types - especially Kenyon - and as a result, God is a source of power to be tapped into like some kind of cosmic keg that pours pints of power as long as we stay focused in our believing, as if our minds were the controlling mechanism for all of life. In my experience most of these gurus market these concepts openly while clandestinely luring people in with great promises that simply do not deliver.
Great points!
Luring people in with great promises is the old get-rich-quick-scheme for suckers who seek to improve their quality of life, fast and cheap. “A get-rich-quick scheme is a plan to obtain high rates of return for a small investment. The term "get rich quick" has been used to describe shady investments since at least the early 20th century” .
From: Wikipedia - get rich quick scheme
(…just an FYI from a former-sucker: don’t waste your time and money…)
Speaking of gurus – popular experts on the law of believing/magical thinking – they feign generosity saying they want to let you in on their little secret…Well, here’s a secret within a secret – the only ones getting rich by the law of believing/magical thinking are the con artists selling books on the law of believing/magical thinking.
I remember one of wierwille’s spiels ages ago - using a small part of Proverbs 23:7 as a proof-text of how everything about your life is shaped by your believing: “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he”…whereas the context of the passage Proverbs 23:6-8 is actually talking about a selfish person who has the goal of taking advantage of others for their own personal gain. Here it is in The Amplified Bible of Proverbs 23:6-8
Do not eat the bread of a selfish man,
Or desire his delicacies;
For as he thinks in his heart, so is he [in behavior—one who manipulates].
He says to you, “Eat and drink,”
Yet his heart is not with you [but it is begrudging the cost].
The morsel which you have eaten you will vomit up,
And you will waste your compliments.
And here’s an interesting sermon I found online that also challenges the proponents of the magical thinking slant on Proverbs 23:7:
“There is a widely held belief that the following verse “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he..” (Prov 23:7 KJV) means that human beings have the power to visualize and shape their reality and then manifest a new creation from the probabilities of their thoughts. Some even believe under the erroneous guise of Quantum Physics, that they can mentally turn thoughts into physical matter in a given place and time, and create their life experience physically, financially, relationally, emotionally and spiritually. However, the Bible says the complete opposite.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa 55:8-9 NIV)
In the original Hebrew, Proverbs 23:7-8 is very different. It says “for he is like one who is inwardly calculating." Eat and drink!" he says to you, but his heart is not with you. You will vomit up the morsels that you have eaten, and waste your pleasant words.” (ESV)
The verse is actually saying that a mean, cheap and stingy person watches every mouthful of food his guest eats in bitter resentment as he counts what it is costing him. It is very clear that it has nothing to do with thoughts changing or shaping reality…
… It is true that thoughts are very important because they can INFLUENCE and AFFECT reality, (i.e., one’s health, attitude, behavior, success or failure). They can also create the perceived SUBJECTIVE mental reality by how a person positively or negatively reacts to their surroundings or events, but they cannot create their own OBJECTIVE physical reality and control time and space, or matter or even people….”
from: Sermon Central - As a man thinks in his heart, so is he?
I think one of life’s great protracted and sublime lessons is that there are no shortcuts to anything worthwhile – whether it’s a career, relationships, self-improvement, whatever…if it’s anything that’s truly rewarding it’s going to take time and effort…
reflecting on my own former attitude when I was in TWI, “investing” my thoughts, hopes and dreams in magical thinking and pipe dreams fostered at least two bad habits: 1. Being impatient (listen to the inner-baby whine: “I want it now. Wah, wah, wah. When am I gonna get it. Wah, wah, wah…Who do I have to badger to get what I want? ...uhm…er… oh yeah, forgot about God… hey God, when are you gonna get it for me – I’m only asking for the millionth time! Wah, wah wah.”)
2. The misappropriation of brain power.
The number 2 point – the misappropriation of brain power is a big deal. In light of my earlier post which talked about things like self-fulfilling prophecy where our beliefs and expectations influence our behavior at the subconscious level or the placebo effect - a patient’s beliefs effects the “treatment” they experience – that is perhaps the real and often untapped pragmatic powder keg...or rather power keg…with a time-release fuse …. …in my opinion, a good use of brain power is to periodically evaluate our mental habits - are they developing useful skills? Are we focusing our brain power on realistic goals? Do we assess our behavior to see if the things we do over and over again really serve our best interest?
…followers of magical thinking might want to take their definition of “believing” down a notch or two – to maybe just some good old-fashioned self-reliance…you know, that pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps stuff…to improve your situation…develop a skill set…whatever, by your own hard work and self-determination rather than getting titillated by some pie-in-the-sky-sales-rep.
Speaking of gurus – popular experts on the law of believing/magical thinking – they feign generosity saying they want to let you in on their little secret…Well, here’s a secret within a secret – the only ones getting rich by the law of believing/magical thinking are the con artists selling books on the law of believing/magical thinking.
I really appreciate your post. I wanted to respond to the entire post I only have so much time so I'll be back to discuss more shortly.
When I was working the topic I actually started out with the self-help gurus, such as Rhonda Byrne with her Oprah approve book "The Secret" and you completely hit the nail on the head and drive that sucker home. They all seemingly operate pyramid schemes of various sorts and they all seemingly push the idea that there is this magical, hidden, knowledge that they can impart if you just buy something of theirs. The concepts still trace back to Quimby and others that took a secular route with their magical thinking crap. The step they took was actually logical, though it's based on a lie. That step is if you can heal yourself by your positive thoughts then you can also command riches by your positive thoughts. Now, I'm not letting the religous gurus off the hook either because Wierwill sold his classes and books as well. But the secular side is just as variegated and corrupt as the religous side. And you are so very very correct in noting the ones getting the loot from their magical thinking are the con artists selling their wares.
I realy enjoyed your insight on Provergs 23 as well. I covered it briefly and you added some really cool insight. James Allen in his book "As a Man Thinketh" is typically the departure point for that twisted doctrine. And you have to completely ignore the rest of the verse to make it say what James Allen says it means. Twisted scripture for certain.
Hey OldSkool, I swear I’m not trying to monopolize this thread (note: I stink at Monopoly anyway…might be from bad experiences of playing it as a kid with my best friend – he would always have to be the banker – and let’s just say there was always some embezzling and cooking the books going on…but he was older and bigger than me so I never complained….and now in 2021 we’re some 58 years passed the statute of limitations for me to bring legal action over Monopoly Money malfeasance ) (additional note: it’s possible my previous parenthetical statements are in fact a monopolizing attempt – in which case I’m providing a literary example of hypocrisy )
takes a big breath in to continue
I was reading your article again – which triggered something I remembered from a book and then I got sidetracked - or maybe I’ll call it backtracking on magical thinking mentioned earlier…soooooooo below are some excerpts I hope you and other Grease Spotters might find informative.
First, quoting from page 10 of your article:
"Mark 11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
This verse is situated in between Jesus cursing a fig tree and it dying from the roots up. There is much significance in Jesus cursing this fig tree that is beyond the scope of this discussion, however, he used this event as an illustration that begins with “Have faith in God.” Then he moves on to say doubt not the things you say because God will back you up when you have faith in God! If it sounds like I am contradicting myself, I am not. Let’s consider Jesus Christ for a moment. If ANYONE would have taught The Law of Believing it would have been Jesus Christ. Yet let’s see what Jesus said of himself as recorded in John.
John 5:30 - I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
Our Lord Jesus Christ plainly said he couldn’t do anything by himself. The context of John 5:30 is Jesus healed a man who couldn’t walk and the Jewish religious leaders wanted to kill him for it because he healed on the Sabbath day. Jesus plainly stated that he couldn’t do anything by himself. If The Law of Believing were truly interwoven throughout scripture wouldn’t he have said so at times like these? Itis only by having faith in God that Jesus was able to do the powerful works he performed during his ministry to Israel. As we bring this work to a close remember John 14:12
John 14:12 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. Keep your faith focused on God! Trust him to do the things he says he will. It’s the relationship of a father with his children. That's the same relationship we have because of what Christ accomplished as our Lord and redeemer."
= = = = = = = = =
That is such a big point you make in your article ! That even Jesus recognized the limitations of human beings – and he included himself…other than your article I don’t recall coming across that particular idea except in one book that pokes holes in the law of believing by saying if that were true then Jesus would be one of the most pessimistic-doom-that-came-into-the-room-fatalistic-cynical-defeatist persons you’d ever want to meet. This book came out about the same time I left TWI – back then I had such a voracious appetite to read anything that challenged me to think outside TWI’s theological box… anyway…the book is Beyond Seduction: A Return to Biblical Christianity by Dave Hunt and like your article mentions E.W. Kenyon founder of the Word of Faith/positive confession movement and the ridiculous idea of Jesus bringing setbacks and catastrophes on himself and others. From page 33, under the section, What About the “Negative Confessions” of God and Christ? :
“Foundational to the Positive Confession movement is the belief that there is a power inherent within words which causes whatever one says to come to pass, and that one must therefore be extremely careful only to make positive statements. E.W. Kenyon, who is the founder of this movement, taught that Jesus “was always positive in His message.” One need not read very far in the New Testament to prove that statement false. In fact, if it is true that we create what we speak, then we must charge Jesus with bringing disaster not only upon Himself but upon others as well. His numerous “negative confessions,” such as “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20), must have been the cause of the poverty that plagued Him and His disciples. And the same must be said of His frequent statements to His followers that He was going to be crucified, even insisting upon this fact when Peter attempted to urge upon Him a more “positive” attitude (Matthew 16:21 - 23).
If “you get what you say,” then Christ’s numerous “negative confessions” not only brought upon Himself poverty, suffering, and death but brought it upon the entire world as well. Was not His prophecy of the coming destruction of Jerusalem a “negative confession” that caused this very tragedy in 70 A.D.? And are not the prophecies of Jesus and His apostles concerning the great tribulation, the rule of Antichrist, and the coming Battle of Armageddon “negative confessions” that will bring these horrible events upon the world? And what about Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the many other Old Testament prophets who made repeated “negative confessions” of judgement upon Israel and many other nations?”
= = = = = = = =
On magical thinking, I found this interesting article in Psychology Today – I like some of the probing challenges it brings up – like, trying to pin down a plausible link of causation…anyway here’s some excerpts and if you’re interested in reading the whole article, there is a link following my excerpts:
“One of my patients suffers from chronic constipation due to irritable bowel syndrome. During the literally 20 years since she was first diagnosed, her symptom pattern has remained remarkably consistent: She has perhaps 1-2 bowel movements per week, occasionally accompanied by some mild cramping. Even she admits the symptoms are more a bother than a worry.
And yet, every time I prescribe a new medicine for one of her other ailments, within a day or two she calls me up complaining that it's causing her to become constipated. When I ask if she means that while on the new medicine she has fewer bowel movements or more abdominal pain, her answer is always no.
And yet she adamantly refuses to continue with the new medication, insisting it's the cause of a symptom complex she's had for two decades. And no matter how cogently I argue that the new medicine can't be to blame (and I'm always careful to pick medicines not known to cause or exacerbate constipation), she refuses to continue with it.
Though certainly she could be right about 1 or even 2 pills exacerbating her constipation, the likelihood that all 16 pills I've given her have caused the same exact symptom in the context of the symptom already existing is just too far-fetched. A much more likely explanation is that she's indulging in magical thinking.
Magical thinking is defined as believing that one event happens as a result of another without a plausible link of causation. For example: "I got up on the left side of the bed today; therefore it will rain."
The problem with this definition, however, is that exactly what constitutes "a plausible link of causation" can be difficult to pin down. If we were to take this phrase to its logical extreme, we'd have to consider a belief in anything that hasn't been scientifically proven to represent magical thinking. On the other hand, rejecting the use of any and all criteria with which to judge cause and effect leaves us vulnerable to believing that anything can cause anything—or even worse, that an effect can occur without a cause at all.
Perhaps, then, a more nuanced definition of magical thinking would be believing in things more strongly than either evidence or experience justifies. Though I can't prove the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, because it has every day since I've been alive, such a belief couldn't then be said to represent magical thinking. But because every person who's ever jumped off a building or a bridge has gone down and not up, believing that flapping my arms hard enough would enable me to float into the sky certainly would.
Problems with this definition remain, however. For one thing, simply in order to live we have to believe things without proof. If we refused to believe what our doctors, plumbers, electricians, barbers, or nannies told us without first being shown incontrovertible evidence, our lives would come to a grinding halt. For another thing, some questions we burn to answer aren't necessarily provable or disprovable…”
…How can we stop thinking magically?
Magical thinking remains a subtle obstacle to making good decisions. But the more we observe ourselves, the more we can reduce our tendency to indulge in it:
1. Consciously identify your desires and biases. Write them down. Try to identify their cause. Work to free yourself from them to the best of your ability.
2. Demand proof when proof seems demonstrable. Try to remain intellectually "agnostic" toward what hasn't been proven or isn't provable, even if you find yourself emotionally inclined to believe it. Try to regard your belief as just that—an inclination—so that you're not tempted to act with more confidence in your belief than is justified.
3. Beware the tendency to let others think for you. This is as insidious as it is widespread. A journalist presents a position about a topic of the day and has his or her opinion accepted as fact. One friend makes a statement about another and everyone accepts it as true without bothering to investigate themselves. Though I don't agree with many of the principles espoused by Ayn Rand in her book, The Fountainhead, the point she makes about how so many of us subjugate our judgment to others is worth taking to heart (a great read, by the way, which I highly recommend).
We all tend to cling not only to the things we believe but the reasoning that leads us to believe them. Despite all my efforts, I've not yet been able to break through my patient's magical thinking about the cause of her constipation. So I continue to do what I've done: chant to manifest the wisdom to somehow find a way to succeed, having proven to myself many times over that chanting has the power to yield wisdom I didn't know I had—a power, however, that can only ever be proven by someone to themselves.”
From: Psychology Today - magical thinking
Edited by T-Bone typos - disappear by "magical editing"
Hey OldSkool, I swear I’m not trying to monopolize this thread (note: I stink at Monopoly anyway…might be from bad experiences of playing it as a kid with my best friend – he would always have to be the banker – and let’s just say there was always some embezzling and cooking the books going on…but he was older and bigger than me so I never complained….and now in 2021 we’re some 58 years passed the statute of limitations for me to bring legal action over Monopoly Money malfeasance ) (additional note: it’s possible my previous parenthetical statements are in fact a monopolizing attempt – in which case I’m providing a literary example of hypocrisy )
Hey, no worries, I am enjoying going over the topic the way we are. The article I wrote is by no means the end of the subject for me. I wrote it and put it out there for discussion, and perhaps selfishly, so I could learn more from discussion and other's points of view.
I read the article you posted and of course your post and enjoyed the read/insight. For me, as it relates to the law of believing there is so much to carry away in application on a personal level because the magical thinking aspect, where there is literally no correlation between anything, yet a huge leap of logic occurs and leads to people being blamed, accused, lauded, etc because their believing was negative/positive. That's been a vital piece of the puzzle for me in learning to restore some sense of reason to my faith. Thanks for the link and taking the time to post.
I guess this next bit from me really goes outside the topic quite a ways but maybe it ties into our discussion here or needs it's own subtopic. The following quote from your post illustrates both sides of the sword:
Quote
We all tend to cling not only to the things we believe but the reasoning that leads us to believe them. Despite all my efforts, I've not yet been able to break through my patient's magical thinking about the cause of her constipation. So I continue to do what I've done: chant to manifest the wisdom to somehow find a way to succeed, having proven to myself many times over that chanting has the power to yield wisdom I didn't know I had—a power, however, that can only ever be proven by someone to themselves.”
His patient appears hopelessly trapped in a trap of her own mental choosing. I can relate to that state because of course I have lived it myself when I used to live by the law of believing. You simply couldn't talk me out of my own insanity on the desires I wanted to make happen according to my will. Yet he cuts right to the quick when he says
"that chanting has the power to yield wisdom I didn't know I had—a power, however, that can only ever be proven by someone to themselves.”
So this brings up my other off topic point. Matters of faith cannot be substantiated/unsubstantiated by rules of reason alone. In the scheme of things our very highly cherished sciences are shifting sand because the rules of logic have changed, and even the age of reason is a concept that only has a few hundred years at it's foundation. We are warned biblically time and again about puffing ourselves up with knowledge and even the fall of creation centers around the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man has elevated his knowledge and rules of reason far above simple faith in God, yet it's a slippery slope or we wouldn't be here talking about it. Yet, matters of faith start with what a person has proven to themselves with the things of God and cannot be nullified by rules of the natural world because God is a supernatural entity. Anywho, more later, again - thanks for the post!
We are warned biblically time and again about puffing ourselves up with knowledge and even the fall of creation centers around the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man has elevated his knowledge and rules of reason far above simple faith in God,
THAT is a juicy nugget. Thanks.
I wonder if any of us have known a subculture built on "puffing ourselves up with knowledge?" Isn't that what TWI has been all about from its inception... other than Wierwille's malignant narcissism, that is.
Hey, no worries, I am enjoying going over the topic the way we are. The article I wrote is by no means the end of the subject for me. I wrote it and put it out there for discussion, and perhaps selfishly, so I could learn more from discussion and other's points of view.
I read the article you posted and of course your post and enjoyed the read/insight. For me, as it relates to the law of believing there is so much to carry away in application on a personal level because the magical thinking aspect, where there is literally no correlation between anything, yet a huge leap of logic occurs and leads to people being blamed, accused, lauded, etc because their believing was negative/positive. That's been a vital piece of the puzzle for me in learning to restore some sense of reason to my faith. Thanks for the link and taking the time to post.
I guess this next bit from me really goes outside the topic quite a ways but maybe it ties into our discussion here or needs it's own subtopic. The following quote from your post illustrates both sides of the sword:
His patient appears hopelessly trapped in a trap of her own mental choosing. I can relate to that state because of course I have lived it myself when I used to live by the law of believing. You simply couldn't talk me out of my own insanity on the desires I wanted to make happen according to my will. Yet he cuts right to the quick when he says
"that chanting has the power to yield wisdom I didn't know I had—a power, however, that can only ever be proven by someone to themselves.”
So this brings up my other off topic point. Matters of faith cannot be substantiated/unsubstantiated by rules of reason alone. In the scheme of things our very highly cherished sciences are shifting sand because the rules of logic have changed, and even the age of reason is a concept that only has a few hundred years at it's foundation. We are warned biblically time and again about puffing ourselves up with knowledge and even the fall of creation centers around the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man has elevated his knowledge and rules of reason far above simple faith in God, yet it's a slippery slope or we wouldn't be here talking about it. Yet, matters of faith start with what a person has proven to themselves with the things of God and cannot be nullified by rules of the natural world because God is a supernatural entity. Anywho, more later, again - thanks for the post!
12 hours ago, Rocky said:
THAT is a juicy nugget. Thanks.
I wonder if any of us have known a subculture built on "puffing ourselves up with knowledge?" Isn't that what TWI has been all about from its inception... other than Wierwille's malignant narcissism, that is.
OldSkool, I believe I share a similar sentiment as far as anything being a final wrap, end of discussion, the last word, definitive or conclusive….And I believe we may both have the same “selfish” reason for putting our thoughts out there for discussion – I’ve said many times on Grease Spot that my beliefs are in a constant state of flux. Well, what is that? From Quora “in a (constant) state of flux means a state of uncertainty about what should be done (usually following some important event) preceding the establishment of a new direction of action.” For me, important events are things like intense realizations of all the lies I bought into by con artists like wierwille… important events are things like being hit right between the eyes by the logic and perspective from someone who has a completely different viewpoint than me… I talked about that wonderfully enlightening experience on another thread:
On 8/4/2021 at 4:27 PM, T-Bone said:
and if I may add some more positive stuff ...if it wasn't for all the atheists, agnostics, as well as any other viewpoint that is different from TWI – I would probably still harbor a fundamentalism/spiritualism/Gnosticism mindset – even though I was out of TWI and didn't get involved with another ministry or church. I would be a burnt-out-believer-without-a-Twig – and probably would never have gotten into reevaluating TWI-doctrine....or going on to checking out philosophy of religion...My hat goes off to all the atheists and agnostics that I have debated with for keeping it real – which inspired me to try and be more honest and open...helping me unravel the nature of a belief system...and many times forcing me to stay grounded in the plain and simple interpretation of Scripture...another thing I really admire is their bare-bones approach to life...to appreciate life right now and those you know and love and to do things just because it's the right thing to do and not because you're going to get some eternal reward...in my weird sense of humor I sometimes wonder if there just might be some higher power that I am as yet unfamiliar with – who had the wisdom and benevolence to synchronize me with Grease Spot.
And as that definition of being in a constant state of flux says – from those type of important events I’ve mentioned, I’m usually uncertain about what should be done or how to proceed from there…and believe it or not – this feels great…even luxurious! What’s the rush?!?! There's no deadline to meet. The delay won't hurt the sale of my new book "Oh The $hit I Don't Know Would Blow Your Mind".
Geez Louise - when I was in TWI, I remember so many times being swept up by the galvanizing words of wierwille or LCM – a call to go WOW…go in the way corps…or whatever it was – and I’d feel sort of guilty if I wasn’t chomping at the bit to do whatever they were promoting…Makes me think of the instructions you get before you undergo surgery or some procedure and have to be given a sedative or anesthesia – they tell you that afterwards you shouldn’t be signing any legal documents, making big purchases, etc. cuz you’ll probably still be under the influence of a drug…that’s one bit of advice you never get after you join a harmful and controlling cult and you’re about to guzzle down the Kool-Aid. You’re NEVER going to hear from a WOW or way corps recruiter “Now that you drank the Kool-Aid, you should wait awhile before you decide on anything. Live life and see how things work out without us always blowing smoke up your a$$."
About that faith and reason stuff you mention – I hear you on that one too. That’s probably one of the most basic issues I face a lot of the time – how to relate faith to reason. Faith deals with revelation – or some supernatural disclosure which could not be discovered by the unaided powers of human reason. Now reason is the natural ability of the human mind to discover truth. With science, truth is determined by verification – as in the scientific method – which is a lot of observation and experimentation. Flying a plane, launching a rocket into space are doable because scientists found out the truth about gravity – like there are ways to work around it. Science is practical – if it works, it’s true.
Scientific truth gives us no criteria for metaphysical or theological truth. So I think we’re looking for another definition of truth for the metaphysical or theological realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s called the correspondence theory of truth - from Wikipedia:“In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.” So basically, truth consists in some form of connection…correlation…resemblance…agreement between a belief and a fact. For me, this gets into how I look at the Bible – and there’s a lot of ways to look at the Bible – even as a Christian.
I believe the Bible is metaphysical truth (metaphysical = in a transcendent sense or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses) – that it is a revelation from God – written by people inspired of God. Taking into account that people are not perfect, have worldviews shaped by their times and culture, I think the Bible is best understood as metaphysical truth and not as scientific truth. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” – if I use the correspondence theory of truth, I can reason that the big bang theory might agree with Genesis 1:1 . excuse all my gobbledygook - but that's how I usually get my faith and reason to work together.
I’ve grown comfortable in this groove of uncertainty – it leaves me a lot of wiggle room – keeps rigor mortis from setting in…I think exploring my faith is a lot of fun…my belief system is never a done deal. I’m still mulling over a lot of things I read in a thought-provoking book Rocky recommended Love Wins . just see my initial thoughts about it - here - To reinforce what Rocky said – knowledge puffeth up – and that’s what I succumbed to when I was in TWI – thinking I had all the answers filled me with pride…nowadays the more I study the Bible, the more I philosophize, the more I talk with Grease Spotters, the more I realize how little I know…At least I don’t get bored…exploring is fun!
Edited by T-Bone the law of believing I'm an editor - I better obey the law and edit then
OldSkool, I believe I share a similar sentiment as far as anything being a final wrap, end of discussion, the last word, definitive or conclusive….And I believe we may both have the same “selfish” reason for putting our thoughts out there for discussion – I’ve said many times on Grease Spot that my beliefs are in a constant state of flux.
I've come to realize that for me at least this is what walking for God looks like. Where I used to think that the pinnacle was to know that I know that I know that I know, now I understand what it means to see through a glass darkly. None of us have it all figured out and most of us are taking a step at a time and trying to figure it out. I believe that we should always be learning more and allowing depth into what we believe and grow into those beliefs, or away from some beliefs as we mature and gain a greater understanding of God and his ways. We are supposed to be transformed, as in transforming, it's a process and a fun one at that.
I was rereading OldSkool’s Word of Faith paper (you can download the PDF in the first post on this thread) – and this time around I became engrossed by some ideas in the following excerpts of OldSkool’s paper:
“For anyone unfamiliar with this doctrine, I am talking about The Law of Believing. This belief system is very formulaic and can be stated as “confession of belief yields receipt of confession” or in plain English – What you believe for or expect in this life you receive. The Law of Believing is supposed to be a universal law that works for saint and sinner alike; where positive thoughts bring positive results, and negative thoughts bring negative results.”
~ ~ ~ ~ It was E.W. Kenyon who first presented to the church the idea of 'now faith'; that faith 'is a confession'; that 'what I confess, I possess'; and that we create reality with the words of our mouths - 'Faith's confessions create realities'. Kenyon also taught the basic principles that make Positive Confession possible: that man is a little god 'in God's class and therefore can utilize the same universal forces that God does and which are available to Christian and non-Christian alike.”
End of excerpts from OldSkool’s paper
~ ~ ~ ~
It is tempting to think there might have been intent by some to capitalize on an age old “principle” by concocting a souped-up version of the fundamental basis for accomplishing something…but it’s not too farfetched that one could innocently confuse the biblical concept of faith with some secular or commonplace attitude. The fact that “the law of believing” caught on so easily in TWI makes me think the idea wasn’t totally foreign to our minds.
There are some similarities between secular or commonplace believing and religious faith. Please excuse my clunky terms to differentiate between the two. It’s not just a matter of semantics. Semantics is the study of meaning in context. How words, phrases and sentences evoke images and ideas.
As we learn a language, we attach meanings to words by grasping what objects and ideas each word refers to. Within many organizations that strive for harmony and conformity coupled with a top-down approach for cohesiveness, there you might find the psychological phenomenon of groupthink. When I was involved with The Way International there was a special language to learn - jargon, buzzwords and even redefining familiar words. Since language and thought are interconnected, words can shape concepts and may even lead to drastically different understandings of the same thing.
Secular or commonplace “believing” is something familiar to many – probably since the beginning of the human race. To accomplish something, one must believe in themselves that they can do it. In a similar vein is that “can-do attitude” - a belief that one can tackle whatever comes their way – and a willingness to do it.
Think of all the times in your life that you had a conviction that something could be done once you’ve set your mind to it. I think it’s more than just mere optimism. It’s a belief combined with a motivation to work on accomplishing the goal or completing the task. It doesn’t mean we will accomplish it immediately. We usually assume that if we stay committed to a REALISTIC goal – by giving it the appropriate time, energy, and effort – we should attain it.
Think about what it takes to learn to ride a bike, learning to play a musical instrument, learning another language, or learning a skill set for a totally new job. Bertrand Russell said, “believing is the most mental thing we do”. Believing is a normal everyday function of our minds – if it wasn’t, we would accomplish very little.
In the PFAL class the law of believing is stated as an equation - believing equals receiving. It is presented as a mathematical or logical sounding statement – that seems to hold promise…some may see it as an effective equivalency formula for success. But the more I thought about it - it seems like an incomplete formula. It speaks of a relationship between believing and receiving – but it does not specify HOW the two are connected or WHY they have the same value. It seems like there’s something missing – something was left out. I find myself asking “believing WHAT equals receiving WHAT?”
Think about another equation which many people are familiar with. Physicist Albert Einstein's formula E=mc2 describes the relationship between mass and energy. It expresses the fact that mass and energy have enough commonality that it gives them a transposable feature. Energy and matter are two sides of the same coin.
E=mc2 means that, from the standpoint of physics, energy and mass are interchangeable. It follows that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing. In the equation E is equal to mc2, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. One cannot leave out or alter any of the parameters and still have a viable formula.
For simple examples of matter and energy being interchangeable, think about what happens when the little old lady from Pasadena starts her 1964 Dodge. Granny turns the ignition key which completes a small circuit to the car battery, the material in the car battery uses a chemical reaction - the six pairs of lead plates submerged in a solution of 35% sulfuric acid to 65% of distilled water (per cell), releases electrical energy to the starter solenoid.
The solenoid ramps up the power to activate the small starter motor to engage the flywheel and rotates the crankshaft which moves the pistons at enough speed in the cylinders so that it sucks fuel and air into the cylinders and compresses it. That’s electrical energy into kinetic energy – energy in motion.
Inside the cylinders the expansion of the high-temperature and high-pressure gases are timed to combust by sparkplugs – the energy released applies direct force to the pistons, which move the crankshaft to propel the vehicle. Again, take note of the conversion of matter into energy - gasoline and oxygen are transformed into thermal energy in the cylinders which in turn becomes mechanical energy – moving the pistons and ultimately moving the car. Mechanical energy is the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy.
All these operations require specific parameters - measurable factors that sets the condition for proper operation.
Now all you motorheads out there cut me some slack for giving such a simple description of what happens inside an internal combustion engine. My point is not automotive accuracy but to show the versatile nature of matter and energy.
One doesn’t need to be a physicist and understand E=mc2 or even an ace mechanic to drive a car. But to ensure continued use of her 1964 Dodge, Granny from Pasadena must regard the specific requirements listed by the manufacturer.
What if Granny thought “fuel is fuel” and she decides to put diesel fuel in her gasoline powered car? Though they are both derived from crude oil - gasoline and diesel have different physical properties. Gasoline is much thinner. Diesel fuel has a thicker state of fluidity, almost like a lightweight oil. These physical differences come into play when diesel fuel attempts to make its way through a gasoline vehicle's fuel system and engine components. Since diesel fuel is thicker and denser than gasoline, the fuel pump will struggle to move the diesel mixture through the system. Also, the diesel fuel will not be able to easily pass through the fuel filter. Instead, it will clog up the fuel filter. And whatever amount of diesel that makes its way to the engine will clog the fuel injectors, making them inoperable. This will result in the engine gumming up and seizing.
The point is if you deviate from the specifications of an internal combustion engine, you may risk losing functionality. Believing diesel fuel is just as good as gasoline for powering a 1964 Dodge does NOT make it so. Believing does NOT equal receiving.
Another thing that bugs me about believing equals receiving is that “receiving” sounds so passive. I get the idea all I need to do is be prepared to catch whatever it is that should come my way. I guess to make it sound more accurate we could change it to “believing equals achieving” – but you know in TWI you shouldn’t mess with perfection. You gotta admit though – now it doesn’t sound like I’m so lazy or have a sense of entitlement – but rather conveys the idea that if one is armed with the right attitude one can successfully accomplish something…and…
…the catchy phrase is starting to sound like an abbreviated version of the success formula attributed to Napoleon Hill: what the mind of man can conceive and believe he can achieve…I wouldn’t be surprised if wierwille got it from Hill. But regardless of that – I think there is something to Hill’s formula – even though it still seems to lack a certain specificity for a reality check…Reality check – what’s that? That’s something which clarifies or serves as a reminder by correcting misconceptions and checking tangible reference points…it never hurts to remind ourselves of how things actually work in the real world. It’s not like Hill invented commonplace believing anymore than Einstein invented the flexibility of matter and energy. They’ve just articulated how certain things work.
If I imagine I could fly (unaided by anything) – just like the comic book character Superman – and act on that belief, by jumping from the top of a 102-story building – do you think I will achieve flight just like Superman? Of course not!
But there have been some who imagined flying was possible with some technical assistance – like the Wright Brothers. They did some exploring to find out the state of aeronautical knowledge of their time. They read about the works of Cayley, and Langley, and the hang-gliding flights of Otto Lilienthal. They corresponded with Octave Chanute concerning some of their ideas. The Wright Brothers had become so enamored with the thought of flight that they were determined to discover its secrets. They believed in the idea that humans could achieve flight so strongly that nothing would get in their way. They had a purpose.
They recognized that control of the flying aircraft would be the most crucial and hardest problem to solve. The Wright Brothers spent a great deal of time observing birds in flight. They noticed that birds soared into the wind and that the air flowing over the curved surface of their wings created lift. Birds change the shape of their wings to turn and maneuver. The Wrights believed that they could use this technique to obtain roll control by warping, or changing the shape, of a portion of the wing. The Wrights realized that if the wing on one side of the aircraft met the oncoming flow of air at a greater angle than the opposite wing, it would generate more lift on that side.
At the outset of their experiments, they regarded control as the unsolved third part of "the flying problem". They knew of some promising ideas that already existed to solve basic wing and engine design issues. What the Wright Brothers had to understand better was the lift force and so experimented with variables in the lift equation.
They conducted parametric studies (e.g. compare long, narrow wings with short, narrow ones) with nearly 200 different miniature metal wing foils in their wind tunnel, including stacked wings. Based on this data they determined the most efficient shape or configuration to create the most lift with the least drag. The Wright Brothers correctly reasoned that a free flying object had to be controlled about all three primary axes; roll, pitch, and yaw . Their aircraft were built with movable surfaces on the wing, elevator, and rudder. Control of the surface shape was in the hands of the pilot. They extensively tested these ideas by glider flights of the aircraft.
Compiling their efforts – let’s revisit Napoleon Hill’s “success formula” by plugging in and expanding upon what the Wright Brothers did:
1. The Wright Brothers conceived…imagined…planned…they developed and kept revising an action plan designed to guide their way to accomplishing their goals.
2. and believed…they acted on their plan …through research, observation, and experimentation (the scientific method).
3. they achieved - in 1903 the Wright brothers achieved the first powered, sustained, and controlled airplane flight; they surpassed their own milestone two years later when they built and flew the first fully practical airplane.
Realistic or practical goals will have specific objectives, benchmarks, milestones, and reality checks along the way to assess the effectiveness of our plans. Specifics are criteria - some measurable factors to quantify and qualify benchmarks and milestones and ultimately set the conditions for successfully achieving the goal. What is critical to understand is the value of specific criteria which helps determine if our circumstances or expectations conform to reality - the state of things as they really are or appear to be, rather than as we might wish them to be.
(* so as not to be a distraction, I listed my sources at the end of my post)
And now for the $64,000 question…
What is the difference between commonplace believing and religious faith?
While there are similarities, I think the biggest distinction is that faith is about transcending the self – in other words, moving beyond a fixation of the self and becoming preoccupied with another person – God!
In the previous example - the “believing” of the Wright Brothers was a state of mind through which their aims, desires, plans and purposes were translated into their physical equivalence – dreams, desires, plans, ingenuity gave birth to something others could see and use – a flying machine. All those “self” things were their greatest asset – self-control, self-reliance, self-determination, self-confidence, etc. - for it embraces everything that they control: mind and body. It is self-oriented. In religious faith we become God-oriented – concerns revolve around the character of God, what He does, His strength, His love, and what pleases Him.
An exhaustive biblical definition of faith is beyond the scope of this post – but I will touch briefly on the variety of usages in the Bible: there are simple acts of faith, the abiding disposition or habit of faith that distinguishes one as a believer, the subjective stance – the faith by which one believes, the content or object of faith which is the faith that is believed, and in I Corinthians 12:9 there’s a special faith which my NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible says is “trusting God with an inexplicable confidence in a specific situation for a specific outcome for which there is no divine promise.”
Commonplace believing is diminutive, in the sense that you’re self-oriented. It all revolves around you – which is a small orbit. Religious faith is enormous…it’s God-oriented…When you exercise your faith you leave the little orbit around self and put yourself in God’s sphere of influence.
When in faith we commit ourselves to trust in God, we are basically putting everything in God’s hands. God-oriented faith is a real commitment, a following through… Mental assent is different – it might be form of self-deception, perhaps along similar lines of procrastination and maybe not as obvious as hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is knowing what we ought to do but choosing not to do it. In mental assent, we may approve something as the right thing to do but we don’t realize we’re falling short of actually doing it.
Earlier I got into the commonplace believing of the Wright Brothers. While doing some reading for this post I came across an article that explains how we exercise our faith. I liked it because it has a different perspective from the Wright Brothers doing all the work to achieve controlled flight. When we exercise our faith – someone else has already done all the work for us – as a passenger we can kick back and just enjoy the flight…
anyway, I’ll leave you with this excerpt:
…three people board a commercial airliner to travel to a distant city. The first is an engineer who designs and builds airplanes. He is also a pilot. He knows how everything works. Furthermore, he is a personal friend of the pilot who will be flying that afternoon, and he knows him to be very competent. He boards the plane with full confidence. The second person is just the average business traveler. He knows a little bit about airplanes but just doesn’t think about it too much. He takes his seat and starts reading a magazine. The third is deathly afraid of flying. He breaks out in a cold sweat. It takes all he can do not to turn and flee down the gangway. With much fear and trembling, he gets on the plane, sits down, and hopes he can fall asleep and not wake up until they land.
So, the question is, “who has more faith in the plane?” The answer is that they all have the same amount of faith. All of them have boarded the plane and committed their safety to the plane and the crew. They will only arrive at their destination if the plane arrives. If the plane goes down, they will go down, too. All the people who got on the plane were committing themselves to the plane—they believed (or had faith) in the plane. Those who stayed at the airport, even if they had complete confidence that the plane would arrive as scheduled, did not exercise faith in the plane. They did not commit themselves to it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
12
10
15
Popular Days
Jul 28
16
Jul 25
7
Jul 27
7
Sep 27
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 9 posts
T-Bone 12 posts
Bolshevik 10 posts
OldSkool 15 posts
Popular Days
Jul 28 2021
16 posts
Jul 25 2021
7 posts
Jul 27 2021
7 posts
Sep 27 2022
7 posts
Popular Posts
Nathan_Jr
Todd Snider is so underrated.
Raf
TLC I don't think you have any idea how unbelievably condescending that sounds to those of us who spent a lifetime pursuing God and the things of God and leading people to Christ, only to have so
T-Bone
Great points! Luring people in with great promises is the old get-rich-quick-scheme for suckers who seek to improve their quality of life, fast and cheap. “A get-rich-quick scheme is a plan to obta
Posted Images
OldSkool
Im thinking her house burned from negative believing...thus the fire engine....uhhh....nevermind....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You know what killed that little boy? I'll tell you. He saw the raging fire consuming the house and, without a thought for his own safety and well-being, dashed valiantly across the street, just as the firetruck came screeching to a halt in front of the house. Squashed him flatter than the winner of the local Twiggy lookalike contest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Yes....all because of the boy's sister's uncle's niece had allowed his thoughts to run unchecked and boom....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Actually, the Twig that met across the street was having a Burn the Chaff Day. The boy was running over there to donate some Playboy magazines (actually they were The Way Magazines but he told his Mom they were Playboy). But it was not meant to be. An hour earlier Twiggy's doppelganger's stepdad was a repentant gang-banger and had already thrown in his entire collection of doggy-porn videos (all 55 volumes) as well as the CF&S class onto the Burn the Chaff bonefire. The fire quickly got out of control - and good thing someone had the believing to dial 911. Do you know what saved those Way Magazines from the fire? The firetruck running over that little boy.
After investigating the fire, Fire Marshal Bill stated that VHS tapes are very flammable and probably acted as an accelerant to spread the fire. In honor of the valiant boy's life and to curtail any further unbridled thinking or inbreeding Fire Marshal Bill announced they will host a Renewed Mind Class at the Fire Station with pole dancing contests during the breaks.
Fire Marshal Bill said they are preserving all evidence from the fire - especially any video tapes that were not damaged by the fire. "We need to look over every piece of evidence very very carefully...this could take a long long time...and a lot of popcorn."
Edited by T-Bonethis post is on fire !!!!!!! "let me stand next to your post" alternate words by Jimi wannabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I don't stop by here that often, but do peek in from time to time. This time around I found some interesting (to me) discussions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I think if you look deep down, truth be told, the curtains weren't that red.
I can't process it. Therefore it cannot be true. The curtains weren't red. They were lying. But that's my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Curtains don't lie, they hang. Could it be the rug you're thinking of?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The rug matches the curtains.
So I guess that means they're telling the truth. But I still can't process it. So no. I feel better if they're lying, so I'm gonna stick with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Law of Believing has an element of grandiosity . . . super magical thinking . . . You can do anything . . . because of the deep constant pain the leader must hide from . . . having no identity/ego and constantly blasted by the superego . . he (VPW) must reimagine himself
The follower is there to mirror that image. They must follow along in this game. Finding the best parking spots at the grocery store . . . proving VPW's reality.
All the biblical stuff is just dressing up ego inflation. The Word, The Word . . . nothing but VPWs fantasy realm. Toss out the verses and look at his mind.
Hope you're spending lots of time with your boy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
When I read John 5:30 now it sounds like power given from authority. Jesus acted as another rational responsible being would. Using power he already had and exercising the right as a higher authority would.
When thinking "all nine all the time" it's as if you're giving yourself over and God is totally running your being. That is enmeshment. That is not a relationship. Well, toxic, yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
italic part quoted, not the rest, my believing sucks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Bolsh!!! how you doing? You know I am, your kids gotta be about the same age? Mine will be 15 soon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Omg time flies. Yes they are!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I re-watched the 1998 sci-fi movie Sphere the other day. It’s based on a novel of the same name by Michael Crichton. In my opinion, the book is a lot better than the movie – and I don’t know why cuz it has good actors who do a great job – maybe it’s the made-for-TV kind of vibe I get from the lackluster special effects…but that’s besides my point – which is the movie is a hypothetical approach to drill down into some unintended consequences if there really were such a thing as the law of believing.
***caution spoiler alert – if you haven’t seen the movie yet stop reading this and come back after you’ve seen it – I’ll wait right here ***
One of the great thought-provoking things about the sci-fi genre is the philosophical perspective of “what if”. Take for example the 1933 classic The Invisible Man . IMDB’s brief summary gives the “what if” - “A scientist finds a way of becoming invisible, but in doing so, he becomes murderously insane.” Which brings to mind the proverbial saying “ 'power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely' conveys the opinion that, as a person's power increases, their moral sense diminishes. Origin - the short version "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" is the best known quotation of the 19th century British politician Lord Acton.” see phrases.org
In Sphere, a spaceship is discovered under three hundred years' worth of coral growth at the bottom of the ocean. A team of experts explore this ultra-futuristic spacecraft under the sea, find a way to review the ship’s logs and find a large sphere hovering in the cargo bay…As the story unfolds we find out that everyone who comes in contact with this unearthly sphere gains the ability to make anything they imagine a reality…At first the team of experts (a marine biologist, mathematician, astrophysicist and a psychologist) are not even aware of this ability but as each creepy event plays out one of the ways in which the whodunit is revealed is by sedating a person with enough drugs to induce a dreamless state.
What intrigued me about the premise of this movie was how the story fleshed out almost like a lab experiment approach – a controlled environment – limited to four people in an underwater habitat on the floor of the Pacific Ocean…In PFAL we were taught the law of believing works for saint and sinner alike…Being a big sci-fi fan I sometimes imagine stories of my own – don’t think I’ll ever do anything with any of my nonsense I just love to write (can you tell?
) – anyway I have one story called Planet of the Gods – and it’s sort of a Woody Allen-ish satire on the law of believing – everyone in this world has the ability to create their own reality – it’s chaotic cuz people, things, events, situations, whatever wind up getting undone…redone…cancelled…re-instated…created…destroyed…re-created…yada yada yada ad nauseum.
What I didn’t consider in my own fictional story was the subconscious factor if there truly was a law of believing - the part of the mind of which one is not fully aware but which influences one's actions and feelings. The movie Sphere explores exactly that aspect! And instead of the setting be an entire world – it’s just four people trying to figure out why these terrifying events are plaguing them. The movie got me to think more deeply about the unintended consequences if the law of believing was for real. Just think if your deepest fears, desires, fantasies, imagination, loves, and hatreds were unleashed into the real world…literally brought into concretion, all because you failed to keep them in check, were simply unaware you had them…didn’t think it was anything to be concerned about…or regardless of anything else you thought it was your God-given privilege to exercise your rights… I’m not talking about self-fulfilling prophecy (where our beliefs and expectations influence our behavior at the subconscious level ) or the placebo effect (a patient’s beliefs effects the “treatment” they experience) in psychology and sociology - see positive psychology article .
I think if there really was a law of believing as defined by wierwille – the world would be in a continuous fvcked up state of flux. We would be a world of little ugly fickle self-centered gods wreaking havoc on ourselves and others. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Edited by T-Bonetypos and formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Books upon which movies are based/made are usually better than the movie... because it's pretty much impossible to fit everything into the movie that's in the book. So, the screenplay writer has to do his/her best to be true to the story's essence in a time frame audiences can cope with... if it's too long, too many people, even if they don't get bored, are going to have to get up and miss something when they have to pee.
And cutting to the main point, I think you were trying to make, that's a reasonable way to look at it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
That's a really good point and one I never thought of. What kind of God would set that sort of chaos in motion?
After spending a few months working the topic pretty vigoursly I have come to see most everywhere I look some guru (Christian or otherwise) is selling the idea of "tapping into the power of God." I firmly believe that this thinking was started by Phineas Parkhurst Quimby/Mary Eddy Baker/ E.W. Kenyon types - especially Kenyon - and as a result, God is a source of power to be tapped into like some kind of cosmic keg that pours pints of power as long as we stay focused in our believing, as if our minds were the controlling mechanism for all of life. In my experience most of these gurus market these concepts openly while clandestinely luring people in with great promises that simply do not deliver.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Great points!
Luring people in with great promises is the old get-rich-quick-scheme for suckers who seek to improve their quality of life, fast and cheap. “A get-rich-quick scheme is a plan to obtain high rates of return for a small investment. The term "get rich quick" has been used to describe shady investments since at least the early 20th century” .
From: Wikipedia - get rich quick scheme
(…just an FYI from a former-sucker: don’t waste your time and money…)
Speaking of gurus – popular experts on the law of believing/magical thinking – they feign generosity saying they want to let you in on their little secret…Well, here’s a secret within a secret – the only ones getting rich by the law of believing/magical thinking are the con artists selling books on the law of believing/magical thinking.
I remember one of wierwille’s spiels ages ago - using a small part of Proverbs 23:7 as a proof-text of how everything about your life is shaped by your believing: “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he”…whereas the context of the passage Proverbs 23:6-8 is actually talking about a selfish person who has the goal of taking advantage of others for their own personal gain. Here it is in The Amplified Bible of Proverbs 23:6-8
Do not eat the bread of a selfish man,
Or desire his delicacies;
For as he thinks in his heart, so is he [in behavior—one who manipulates].
He says to you, “Eat and drink,”
Yet his heart is not with you [but it is begrudging the cost].
The morsel which you have eaten you will vomit up,
And you will waste your compliments.
And here’s an interesting sermon I found online that also challenges the proponents of the magical thinking slant on Proverbs 23:7:
“There is a widely held belief that the following verse “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he..” (Prov 23:7 KJV) means that human beings have the power to visualize and shape their reality and then manifest a new creation from the probabilities of their thoughts. Some even believe under the erroneous guise of Quantum Physics, that they can mentally turn thoughts into physical matter in a given place and time, and create their life experience physically, financially, relationally, emotionally and spiritually. However, the Bible says the complete opposite.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa 55:8-9 NIV)
In the original Hebrew, Proverbs 23:7-8 is very different. It says “for he is like one who is inwardly calculating." Eat and drink!" he says to you, but his heart is not with you. You will vomit up the morsels that you have eaten, and waste your pleasant words.” (ESV)
The verse is actually saying that a mean, cheap and stingy person watches every mouthful of food his guest eats in bitter resentment as he counts what it is costing him. It is very clear that it has nothing to do with thoughts changing or shaping reality…
… It is true that thoughts are very important because they can INFLUENCE and AFFECT reality, (i.e., one’s health, attitude, behavior, success or failure). They can also create the perceived SUBJECTIVE mental reality by how a person positively or negatively reacts to their surroundings or events, but they cannot create their own OBJECTIVE physical reality and control time and space, or matter or even people….”
from: Sermon Central - As a man thinks in his heart, so is he?
I think one of life’s great protracted and sublime lessons is that there are no shortcuts to anything worthwhile – whether it’s a career, relationships, self-improvement, whatever…if it’s anything that’s truly rewarding it’s going to take time and effort…
reflecting on my own former attitude when I was in TWI, “investing” my thoughts, hopes and dreams in magical thinking and pipe dreams fostered at least two bad habits:
1. Being impatient (listen to the inner-baby whine: “I want it now. Wah, wah, wah. When am I gonna get it. Wah, wah, wah…Who do I have to badger to get what I want? ...uhm…er… oh yeah, forgot about God… hey God, when are you gonna get it for me – I’m only asking for the millionth time! Wah, wah wah.”)
2. The misappropriation of brain power.
The number 2 point – the misappropriation of brain power is a big deal. In light of my earlier post which talked about things like self-fulfilling prophecy where our beliefs and expectations influence our behavior at the subconscious level or the placebo effect - a patient’s beliefs effects the “treatment” they experience – that is perhaps the real and often untapped pragmatic powder keg...or rather power keg…with a time-release fuse
…. …in my opinion, a good use of brain power is to periodically evaluate our mental habits - are they developing useful skills? Are we focusing our brain power on realistic goals? Do we assess our behavior to see if the things we do over and over again really serve our best interest?
…followers of magical thinking might want to take their definition of “believing” down a notch or two – to maybe just some good old-fashioned self-reliance…you know, that pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps stuff…to improve your situation…develop a skill set…whatever, by your own hard work and self-determination rather than getting titillated by some pie-in-the-sky-sales-rep.
Edited by T-Bonetypos and formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I really appreciate your post. I wanted to respond to the entire post I only have so much time so I'll be back to discuss more shortly.
When I was working the topic I actually started out with the self-help gurus, such as Rhonda Byrne with her Oprah approve book "The Secret" and you completely hit the nail on the head and drive that sucker home. They all seemingly operate pyramid schemes of various sorts and they all seemingly push the idea that there is this magical, hidden, knowledge that they can impart if you just buy something of theirs. The concepts still trace back to Quimby and others that took a secular route with their magical thinking crap. The step they took was actually logical, though it's based on a lie. That step is if you can heal yourself by your positive thoughts then you can also command riches by your positive thoughts. Now, I'm not letting the religous gurus off the hook either because Wierwill sold his classes and books as well. But the secular side is just as variegated and corrupt as the religous side. And you are so very very correct in noting the ones getting the loot from their magical thinking are the con artists selling their wares.
I realy enjoyed your insight on Provergs 23 as well. I covered it briefly and you added some really cool insight. James Allen in his book "As a Man Thinketh" is typically the departure point for that twisted doctrine. And you have to completely ignore the rest of the verse to make it say what James Allen says it means. Twisted scripture for certain.
More later. Thanks again!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hey OldSkool, I swear I’m not trying to monopolize this thread (note: I stink at Monopoly anyway…might be from bad experiences of playing it as a kid with my best friend – he would always have to be the banker – and let’s just say there was always some embezzling and cooking the books going on…but he was older and bigger than me so I never complained….and now in 2021 we’re some 58 years passed the statute of limitations for me to bring legal action over Monopoly Money malfeasance
) (additional note: it’s possible my previous parenthetical statements are in fact a monopolizing attempt – in which case I’m providing a literary example of hypocrisy 
)
takes a big breath in to continue
I was reading your article again – which triggered something I remembered from a book and then I got sidetracked - or maybe I’ll call it backtracking on magical thinking mentioned earlier…soooooooo below are some excerpts I hope you and other Grease Spotters might find informative.
First, quoting from page 10 of your article:
"Mark 11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.
This verse is situated in between Jesus cursing a fig tree and it dying from the roots up. There is much significance in Jesus cursing this fig tree that is beyond the scope of this discussion, however, he used this event as an illustration that begins with “Have faith in God.” Then he moves on to say doubt not the things you say because God will back you up when you have faith in God! If it sounds like I am contradicting myself, I am not. Let’s consider Jesus Christ for a moment. If ANYONE would have taught The Law of Believing it would have been Jesus Christ. Yet let’s see what Jesus said of himself as recorded in John.
John 5:30 - I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
Our Lord Jesus Christ plainly said he couldn’t do anything by himself. The context of John 5:30 is Jesus healed a man who couldn’t walk and the Jewish religious leaders wanted to kill him for it because he healed on the Sabbath day. Jesus plainly stated that he couldn’t do anything by himself. If The Law of Believing were truly interwoven throughout scripture wouldn’t he have said so at times like these? Itis only by having faith in God that Jesus was able to do the powerful works he performed during his ministry to Israel. As we bring this work to a close remember John 14:12
John 14:12 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. Keep your faith focused on God! Trust him to do the things he says he will. It’s the relationship of a father with his children. That's the same relationship we have because of what Christ accomplished as our Lord and redeemer."
= = = = = = = = =
That is such a big point you make in your article ! That even Jesus recognized the limitations of human beings – and he included himself…other than your article I don’t recall coming across that particular idea except in one book that pokes holes in the law of believing by saying if that were true then Jesus would be one of the most pessimistic-doom-that-came-into-the-room-fatalistic-cynical-defeatist persons you’d ever want to meet. This book came out about the same time I left TWI – back then I had such a voracious appetite to read anything that challenged me to think outside TWI’s theological box… anyway…the book is Beyond Seduction: A Return to Biblical Christianity by Dave Hunt and like your article mentions E.W. Kenyon founder of the Word of Faith/positive confession movement and the ridiculous idea of Jesus bringing setbacks and catastrophes on himself and others. From page 33, under the section, What About the “Negative Confessions” of God and Christ? :
“Foundational to the Positive Confession movement is the belief that there is a power inherent within words which causes whatever one says to come to pass, and that one must therefore be extremely careful only to make positive statements. E.W. Kenyon, who is the founder of this movement, taught that Jesus “was always positive in His message.” One need not read very far in the New Testament to prove that statement false. In fact, if it is true that we create what we speak, then we must charge Jesus with bringing disaster not only upon Himself but upon others as well. His numerous “negative confessions,” such as “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20), must have been the cause of the poverty that plagued Him and His disciples. And the same must be said of His frequent statements to His followers that He was going to be crucified, even insisting upon this fact when Peter attempted to urge upon Him a more “positive” attitude (Matthew 16:21 - 23).
If “you get what you say,” then Christ’s numerous “negative confessions” not only brought upon Himself poverty, suffering, and death but brought it upon the entire world as well. Was not His prophecy of the coming destruction of Jerusalem a “negative confession” that caused this very tragedy in 70 A.D.? And are not the prophecies of Jesus and His apostles concerning the great tribulation, the rule of Antichrist, and the coming Battle of Armageddon “negative confessions” that will bring these horrible events upon the world? And what about Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the many other Old Testament prophets who made repeated “negative confessions” of judgement upon Israel and many other nations?”
= = = = = = = =
On magical thinking, I found this interesting article in Psychology Today – I like some of the probing challenges it brings up – like, trying to pin down a plausible link of causation…anyway here’s some excerpts and if you’re interested in reading the whole article, there is a link following my excerpts:
“One of my patients suffers from chronic constipation due to irritable bowel syndrome. During the literally 20 years since she was first diagnosed, her symptom pattern has remained remarkably consistent: She has perhaps 1-2 bowel movements per week, occasionally accompanied by some mild cramping. Even she admits the symptoms are more a bother than a worry.
And yet, every time I prescribe a new medicine for one of her other ailments, within a day or two she calls me up complaining that it's causing her to become constipated. When I ask if she means that while on the new medicine she has fewer bowel movements or more abdominal pain, her answer is always no.
And yet she adamantly refuses to continue with the new medication, insisting it's the cause of a symptom complex she's had for two decades. And no matter how cogently I argue that the new medicine can't be to blame (and I'm always careful to pick medicines not known to cause or exacerbate constipation), she refuses to continue with it.
Though certainly she could be right about 1 or even 2 pills exacerbating her constipation, the likelihood that all 16 pills I've given her have caused the same exact symptom in the context of the symptom already existing is just too far-fetched. A much more likely explanation is that she's indulging in magical thinking.
Magical thinking is defined as believing that one event happens as a result of another without a plausible link of causation. For example: "I got up on the left side of the bed today; therefore it will rain."
The problem with this definition, however, is that exactly what constitutes "a plausible link of causation" can be difficult to pin down. If we were to take this phrase to its logical extreme, we'd have to consider a belief in anything that hasn't been scientifically proven to represent magical thinking. On the other hand, rejecting the use of any and all criteria with which to judge cause and effect leaves us vulnerable to believing that anything can cause anything—or even worse, that an effect can occur without a cause at all.
Perhaps, then, a more nuanced definition of magical thinking would be believing in things more strongly than either evidence or experience justifies. Though I can't prove the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, because it has every day since I've been alive, such a belief couldn't then be said to represent magical thinking. But because every person who's ever jumped off a building or a bridge has gone down and not up, believing that flapping my arms hard enough would enable me to float into the sky certainly would.
Problems with this definition remain, however. For one thing, simply in order to live we have to believe things without proof. If we refused to believe what our doctors, plumbers, electricians, barbers, or nannies told us without first being shown incontrovertible evidence, our lives would come to a grinding halt. For another thing, some questions we burn to answer aren't necessarily provable or disprovable…”
…How can we stop thinking magically?
Magical thinking remains a subtle obstacle to making good decisions. But the more we observe ourselves, the more we can reduce our tendency to indulge in it:
1. Consciously identify your desires and biases. Write them down. Try to identify their cause. Work to free yourself from them to the best of your ability.
2. Demand proof when proof seems demonstrable. Try to remain intellectually "agnostic" toward what hasn't been proven or isn't provable, even if you find yourself emotionally inclined to believe it. Try to regard your belief as just that—an inclination—so that you're not tempted to act with more confidence in your belief than is justified.
3. Beware the tendency to let others think for you. This is as insidious as it is widespread. A journalist presents a position about a topic of the day and has his or her opinion accepted as fact. One friend makes a statement about another and everyone accepts it as true without bothering to investigate themselves. Though I don't agree with many of the principles espoused by Ayn Rand in her book, The Fountainhead, the point she makes about how so many of us subjugate our judgment to others is worth taking to heart (a great read, by the way, which I highly recommend).
Edited by T-BoneWe all tend to cling not only to the things we believe but the reasoning that leads us to believe them. Despite all my efforts, I've not yet been able to break through my patient's magical thinking about the cause of her constipation. So I continue to do what I've done: chant to manifest the wisdom to somehow find a way to succeed, having proven to myself many times over that chanting has the power to yield wisdom I didn't know I had—a power, however, that can only ever be proven by someone to themselves.”
From: Psychology Today - magical thinking
typos - disappear by "magical editing"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Hey, no worries, I am enjoying going over the topic the way we are. The article I wrote is by no means the end of the subject for me. I wrote it and put it out there for discussion, and perhaps selfishly, so I could learn more from discussion and other's points of view.
I read the article you posted and of course your post and enjoyed the read/insight. For me, as it relates to the law of believing there is so much to carry away in application on a personal level because the magical thinking aspect, where there is literally no correlation between anything, yet a huge leap of logic occurs and leads to people being blamed, accused, lauded, etc because their believing was negative/positive. That's been a vital piece of the puzzle for me in learning to restore some sense of reason to my faith. Thanks for the link and taking the time to post.
I guess this next bit from me really goes outside the topic quite a ways but maybe it ties into our discussion here or needs it's own subtopic. The following quote from your post illustrates both sides of the sword:
His patient appears hopelessly trapped in a trap of her own mental choosing. I can relate to that state because of course I have lived it myself when I used to live by the law of believing. You simply couldn't talk me out of my own insanity on the desires I wanted to make happen according to my will. Yet he cuts right to the quick when he says
"that chanting has the power to yield wisdom I didn't know I had—a power, however, that can only ever be proven by someone to themselves.”
So this brings up my other off topic point. Matters of faith cannot be substantiated/unsubstantiated by rules of reason alone. In the scheme of things our very highly cherished sciences are shifting sand because the rules of logic have changed, and even the age of reason is a concept that only has a few hundred years at it's foundation. We are warned biblically time and again about puffing ourselves up with knowledge and even the fall of creation centers around the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Man has elevated his knowledge and rules of reason far above simple faith in God, yet it's a slippery slope or we wouldn't be here talking about it. Yet, matters of faith start with what a person has proven to themselves with the things of God and cannot be nullified by rules of the natural world because God is a supernatural entity. Anywho, more later, again - thanks for the post!
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
THAT is a juicy nugget. Thanks.
I wonder if any of us have known a subculture built on "puffing ourselves up with knowledge?" Isn't that what TWI has been all about from its inception... other than Wierwille's malignant narcissism, that is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
OldSkool, I believe I share a similar sentiment as far as anything being a final wrap, end of discussion, the last word, definitive or conclusive….And I believe we may both have the same “selfish” reason for putting our thoughts out there for discussion – I’ve said many times on Grease Spot that my beliefs are in a constant state of flux. Well, what is that? From Quora “in a (constant) state of flux means a state of uncertainty about what should be done (usually following some important event) preceding the establishment of a new direction of action.” For me, important events are things like intense realizations of all the lies I bought into by con artists like wierwille… important events are things like being hit right between the eyes by the logic and perspective from someone who has a completely different viewpoint than me… I talked about that wonderfully enlightening experience on another thread:
And as that definition of being in a constant state of flux says – from those type of important events I’ve mentioned, I’m usually uncertain about what should be done or how to proceed from there…and believe it or not – this feels great…even luxurious! What’s the rush?!?! There's no deadline to meet. The delay won't hurt the sale of my new book "Oh The $hit I Don't Know Would Blow Your Mind".
Geez Louise - when I was in TWI, I remember so many times being swept up by the galvanizing words of wierwille or LCM – a call to go WOW…go in the way corps…or whatever it was – and I’d feel sort of guilty if I wasn’t chomping at the bit to do whatever they were promoting…Makes me think of the instructions you get before you undergo surgery or some procedure and have to be given a sedative or anesthesia – they tell you that afterwards you shouldn’t be signing any legal documents, making big purchases, etc. cuz you’ll probably still be under the influence of a drug…that’s one bit of advice you never get after you join a harmful and controlling cult and you’re about to guzzle down the Kool-Aid. You’re NEVER going to hear from a WOW or way corps recruiter “Now that you drank the Kool-Aid, you should wait awhile before you decide on anything. Live life and see how things work out without us always blowing smoke up your a$$."
About that faith and reason stuff you mention – I hear you on that one too. That’s probably one of the most basic issues I face a lot of the time – how to relate faith to reason. Faith deals with revelation – or some supernatural disclosure which could not be discovered by the unaided powers of human reason. Now reason is the natural ability of the human mind to discover truth. With science, truth is determined by verification – as in the scientific method – which is a lot of observation and experimentation. Flying a plane, launching a rocket into space are doable because scientists found out the truth about gravity – like there are ways to work around it. Science is practical – if it works, it’s true.
Scientific truth gives us no criteria for metaphysical or theological truth. So I think we’re looking for another definition of truth for the metaphysical or theological realm. In reading up on philosophy, I lean toward one theory of what truth is – it’s called the correspondence theory of truth - from Wikipedia : “In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.” So basically, truth consists in some form of connection…correlation…resemblance…agreement between a belief and a fact. For me, this gets into how I look at the Bible – and there’s a lot of ways to look at the Bible – even as a Christian.
I believe the Bible is metaphysical truth (metaphysical = in a transcendent sense or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses) – that it is a revelation from God – written by people inspired of God. Taking into account that people are not perfect, have worldviews shaped by their times and culture, I think the Bible is best understood as metaphysical truth and not as scientific truth. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” – if I use the correspondence theory of truth, I can reason that the big bang theory might agree with Genesis 1:1 . excuse all my gobbledygook - but that's how I usually get my faith and reason to work together.
I’ve grown comfortable in this groove of uncertainty – it leaves me a lot of wiggle room – keeps rigor mortis from setting in…I think exploring my faith is a lot of fun…my belief system is never a done deal. I’m still mulling over a lot of things I read in a thought-provoking book Rocky recommended Love Wins . just see my initial thoughts about it - here - To reinforce what Rocky said – knowledge puffeth up – and that’s what I succumbed to when I was in TWI – thinking I had all the answers filled me with pride…nowadays the more I study the Bible, the more I philosophize, the more I talk with Grease Spotters, the more I realize how little I know…At least I don’t get bored…exploring is fun!
Edited by T-Bonethe law of believing I'm an editor - I better obey the law and edit then
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I've come to realize that for me at least this is what walking for God looks like. Where I used to think that the pinnacle was to know that I know that I know that I know, now I understand what it means to see through a glass darkly. None of us have it all figured out and most of us are taking a step at a time and trying to figure it out. I believe that we should always be learning more and allowing depth into what we believe and grow into those beliefs, or away from some beliefs as we mature and gain a greater understanding of God and his ways. We are supposed to be transformed, as in transforming, it's a process and a fun one at that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I was rereading OldSkool’s Word of Faith paper (you can download the PDF in the first post on this thread) – and this time around I became engrossed by some ideas in the following excerpts of OldSkool’s paper:
“For anyone unfamiliar with this doctrine, I am talking about The Law of Believing. This belief system is very formulaic and can be stated as “confession of belief yields receipt of confession” or in plain English – What you believe for or expect in this life you receive. The Law of Believing is supposed to be a universal law that works for saint and sinner alike; where positive thoughts bring positive results, and negative thoughts bring negative results.”
~ ~ ~ ~
It was E.W. Kenyon who first presented to the church the idea of 'now faith'; that faith 'is a confession'; that 'what I confess, I possess'; and that we create reality with the words of our mouths - 'Faith's confessions create realities'. Kenyon also taught the basic principles that make Positive Confession possible: that man is a little god 'in God's class and therefore can utilize the same universal forces that God does and which are available to Christian and non-Christian alike.”
End of excerpts from OldSkool’s paper
~ ~ ~ ~
It is tempting to think there might have been intent by some to capitalize on an age old “principle” by concocting a souped-up version of the fundamental basis for accomplishing something…but it’s not too farfetched that one could innocently confuse the biblical concept of faith with some secular or commonplace attitude. The fact that “the law of believing” caught on so easily in TWI makes me think the idea wasn’t totally foreign to our minds.
There are some similarities between secular or commonplace believing and religious faith. Please excuse my clunky terms to differentiate between the two. It’s not just a matter of semantics. Semantics is the study of meaning in context. How words, phrases and sentences evoke images and ideas.
As we learn a language, we attach meanings to words by grasping what objects and ideas each word refers to. Within many organizations that strive for harmony and conformity coupled with a top-down approach for cohesiveness, there you might find the psychological phenomenon of groupthink. When I was involved with The Way International there was a special language to learn - jargon, buzzwords and even redefining familiar words. Since language and thought are interconnected, words can shape concepts and may even lead to drastically different understandings of the same thing.
Secular or commonplace “believing” is something familiar to many – probably since the beginning of the human race. To accomplish something, one must believe in themselves that they can do it. In a similar vein is that “can-do attitude” - a belief that one can tackle whatever comes their way – and a willingness to do it.
Think of all the times in your life that you had a conviction that something could be done once you’ve set your mind to it. I think it’s more than just mere optimism. It’s a belief combined with a motivation to work on accomplishing the goal or completing the task. It doesn’t mean we will accomplish it immediately. We usually assume that if we stay committed to a REALISTIC goal – by giving it the appropriate time, energy, and effort – we should attain it.
Think about what it takes to learn to ride a bike, learning to play a musical instrument, learning another language, or learning a skill set for a totally new job. Bertrand Russell said, “believing is the most mental thing we do”. Believing is a normal everyday function of our minds – if it wasn’t, we would accomplish very little.
In the PFAL class the law of believing is stated as an equation - believing equals receiving. It is presented as a mathematical or logical sounding statement – that seems to hold promise…some may see it as an effective equivalency formula for success. But the more I thought about it - it seems like an incomplete formula. It speaks of a relationship between believing and receiving – but it does not specify HOW the two are connected or WHY they have the same value. It seems like there’s something missing – something was left out. I find myself asking “believing WHAT equals receiving WHAT?”
Think about another equation which many people are familiar with. Physicist Albert Einstein's formula E=mc2 describes the relationship between mass and energy. It expresses the fact that mass and energy have enough commonality that it gives them a transposable feature. Energy and matter are two sides of the same coin.
E=mc2 means that, from the standpoint of physics, energy and mass are interchangeable. It follows that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing. In the equation E is equal to mc2, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. One cannot leave out or alter any of the parameters and still have a viable formula.
For simple examples of matter and energy being interchangeable, think about what happens when the little old lady from Pasadena starts her 1964 Dodge. Granny turns the ignition key which completes a small circuit to the car battery, the material in the car battery uses a chemical reaction - the six pairs of lead plates submerged in a solution of 35% sulfuric acid to 65% of distilled water (per cell), releases electrical energy to the starter solenoid.
The solenoid ramps up the power to activate the small starter motor to engage the flywheel and rotates the crankshaft which moves the pistons at enough speed in the cylinders so that it sucks fuel and air into the cylinders and compresses it. That’s electrical energy into kinetic energy – energy in motion.
Inside the cylinders the expansion of the high-temperature and high-pressure gases are timed to combust by sparkplugs – the energy released applies direct force to the pistons, which move the crankshaft to propel the vehicle. Again, take note of the conversion of matter into energy - gasoline and oxygen are transformed into thermal energy in the cylinders which in turn becomes mechanical energy – moving the pistons and ultimately moving the car. Mechanical energy is the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy.
All these operations require specific parameters - measurable factors that sets the condition for proper operation.
Now all you motorheads out there cut me some slack for giving such a simple description of what happens inside an internal combustion engine.
My point is not automotive accuracy but to show the versatile nature of matter and energy.
One doesn’t need to be a physicist and understand E=mc2 or even an ace mechanic to drive a car. But to ensure continued use of her 1964 Dodge, Granny from Pasadena must regard the specific requirements listed by the manufacturer.
What if Granny thought “fuel is fuel” and she decides to put diesel fuel in her gasoline powered car? Though they are both derived from crude oil - gasoline and diesel have different physical properties. Gasoline is much thinner. Diesel fuel has a thicker state of fluidity, almost like a lightweight oil. These physical differences come into play when diesel fuel attempts to make its way through a gasoline vehicle's fuel system and engine components. Since diesel fuel is thicker and denser than gasoline, the fuel pump will struggle to move the diesel mixture through the system. Also, the diesel fuel will not be able to easily pass through the fuel filter. Instead, it will clog up the fuel filter. And whatever amount of diesel that makes its way to the engine will clog the fuel injectors, making them inoperable. This will result in the engine gumming up and seizing.
The point is if you deviate from the specifications of an internal combustion engine, you may risk losing functionality. Believing diesel fuel is just as good as gasoline for powering a 1964 Dodge does NOT make it so. Believing does NOT equal receiving.
Another thing that bugs me about believing equals receiving is that “receiving” sounds so passive. I get the idea all I need to do is be prepared to catch whatever it is that should come my way. I guess to make it sound more accurate we could change it to “believing equals achieving” – but you know in TWI you shouldn’t mess with perfection.
You gotta admit though – now it doesn’t sound like I’m so lazy or have a sense of entitlement – but rather conveys the idea that if one is armed with the right attitude one can successfully accomplish something…and…
…the catchy phrase is starting to sound like an abbreviated version of the success formula attributed to Napoleon Hill: what the mind of man can conceive and believe he can achieve…I wouldn’t be surprised if wierwille got it from Hill. But regardless of that – I think there is something to Hill’s formula – even though it still seems to lack a certain specificity for a reality check…Reality check – what’s that? That’s something which clarifies or serves as a reminder by correcting misconceptions and checking tangible reference points…it never hurts to remind ourselves of how things actually work in the real world. It’s not like Hill invented commonplace believing anymore than Einstein invented the flexibility of matter and energy. They’ve just articulated how certain things work.
If I imagine I could fly (unaided by anything) – just like the comic book character Superman – and act on that belief, by jumping from the top of a 102-story building – do you think I will achieve flight just like Superman? Of course not!
But there have been some who imagined flying was possible with some technical assistance – like the Wright Brothers. They did some exploring to find out the state of aeronautical knowledge of their time. They read about the works of Cayley, and Langley, and the hang-gliding flights of Otto Lilienthal. They corresponded with Octave Chanute concerning some of their ideas. The Wright Brothers had become so enamored with the thought of flight that they were determined to discover its secrets. They believed in the idea that humans could achieve flight so strongly that nothing would get in their way. They had a purpose.
They recognized that control of the flying aircraft would be the most crucial and hardest problem to solve. The Wright Brothers spent a great deal of time observing birds in flight. They noticed that birds soared into the wind and that the air flowing over the curved surface of their wings created lift. Birds change the shape of their wings to turn and maneuver. The Wrights believed that they could use this technique to obtain roll control by warping, or changing the shape, of a portion of the wing. The Wrights realized that if the wing on one side of the aircraft met the oncoming flow of air at a greater angle than the opposite wing, it would generate more lift on that side.
At the outset of their experiments, they regarded control as the unsolved third part of "the flying problem". They knew of some promising ideas that already existed to solve basic wing and engine design issues. What the Wright Brothers had to understand better was the lift force and so experimented with variables in the lift equation.
They conducted parametric studies (e.g. compare long, narrow wings with short, narrow ones) with nearly 200 different miniature metal wing foils in their wind tunnel, including stacked wings. Based on this data they determined the most efficient shape or configuration to create the most lift with the least drag. The Wright Brothers correctly reasoned that a free flying object had to be controlled about all three primary axes; roll, pitch, and yaw . Their aircraft were built with movable surfaces on the wing, elevator, and rudder. Control of the surface shape was in the hands of the pilot. They extensively tested these ideas by glider flights of the aircraft.
Compiling their efforts – let’s revisit Napoleon Hill’s “success formula” by plugging in and expanding upon what the Wright Brothers did:
1. The Wright Brothers conceived…imagined…planned…they developed and kept revising an action plan designed to guide their way to accomplishing their goals.
2. and believed…they acted on their plan …through research, observation, and experimentation (the scientific method).
3. they achieved - in 1903 the Wright brothers achieved the first powered, sustained, and controlled airplane flight; they surpassed their own milestone two years later when they built and flew the first fully practical airplane.
Realistic or practical goals will have specific objectives, benchmarks, milestones, and reality checks along the way to assess the effectiveness of our plans. Specifics are criteria - some measurable factors to quantify and qualify benchmarks and milestones and ultimately set the conditions for successfully achieving the goal. What is critical to understand is the value of specific criteria which helps determine if our circumstances or expectations conform to reality - the state of things as they really are or appear to be, rather than as we might wish them to be.
(* so as not to be a distraction, I listed my sources at the end of my post)
And now for the $64,000 question…
What is the difference between commonplace believing and religious faith?
While there are similarities, I think the biggest distinction is that faith is about transcending the self – in other words, moving beyond a fixation of the self and becoming preoccupied with another person – God!
In the previous example - the “believing” of the Wright Brothers was a state of mind through which their aims, desires, plans and purposes were translated into their physical equivalence – dreams, desires, plans, ingenuity gave birth to something others could see and use – a flying machine. All those “self” things were their greatest asset – self-control, self-reliance, self-determination, self-confidence, etc. - for it embraces everything that they control: mind and body. It is self-oriented. In religious faith we become God-oriented – concerns revolve around the character of God, what He does, His strength, His love, and what pleases Him.
An exhaustive biblical definition of faith is beyond the scope of this post – but I will touch briefly on the variety of usages in the Bible: there are simple acts of faith, the abiding disposition or habit of faith that distinguishes one as a believer, the subjective stance – the faith by which one believes, the content or object of faith which is the faith that is believed, and in I Corinthians 12:9 there’s a special faith which my NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible says is “trusting God with an inexplicable confidence in a specific situation for a specific outcome for which there is no divine promise.”
Commonplace believing is diminutive, in the sense that you’re self-oriented. It all revolves around you – which is a small orbit. Religious faith is enormous…it’s God-oriented…When you exercise your faith you leave the little orbit around self and put yourself in God’s sphere of influence.
When in faith we commit ourselves to trust in God, we are basically putting everything in God’s hands. God-oriented faith is a real commitment, a following through… Mental assent is different – it might be form of self-deception, perhaps along similar lines of procrastination and maybe not as obvious as hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is knowing what we ought to do but choosing not to do it. In mental assent, we may approve something as the right thing to do but we don’t realize we’re falling short of actually doing it.
Earlier I got into the commonplace believing of the Wright Brothers. While doing some reading for this post I came across an article that explains how we exercise our faith. I liked it because it has a different perspective from the Wright Brothers doing all the work to achieve controlled flight. When we exercise our faith – someone else has already done all the work for us – as a passenger we can kick back and just enjoy the flight…
anyway, I’ll leave you with this excerpt:
…three people board a commercial airliner to travel to a distant city. The first is an engineer who designs and builds airplanes. He is also a pilot. He knows how everything works. Furthermore, he is a personal friend of the pilot who will be flying that afternoon, and he knows him to be very competent. He boards the plane with full confidence. The second person is just the average business traveler. He knows a little bit about airplanes but just doesn’t think about it too much. He takes his seat and starts reading a magazine. The third is deathly afraid of flying. He breaks out in a cold sweat. It takes all he can do not to turn and flee down the gangway. With much fear and trembling, he gets on the plane, sits down, and hopes he can fall asleep and not wake up until they land.
So, the question is, “who has more faith in the plane?” The answer is that they all have the same amount of faith. All of them have boarded the plane and committed their safety to the plane and the crew. They will only arrive at their destination if the plane arrives. If the plane goes down, they will go down, too. All the people who got on the plane were committing themselves to the plane—they believed (or had faith) in the plane. Those who stayed at the airport, even if they had complete confidence that the plane would arrive as scheduled, did not exercise faith in the plane. They did not commit themselves to it.
from: Got Questions.org – faith vs belief
~ ~ ~ ~
references:
Wiki how – E=MC2
PBS – legacy of E = MC2
E=mc2 explained
University Today – how energy and matter are the same
Wikipedia – internal combustion engine
How a car’s ignition system works
what happens if you put diesel fuel in a gasoline car?
NASA – the Wright Brothers’ Invention Process
Wikipedia – the Wright Brothers
Lift equation used by the Wright Brothers
NASA – Modern Lift Equation
History of The Wright Brothers
THE WRIGHT BROTHERS’ TEST FLIGHTS IN 1902 WERE CRITICAL
Smithsonian Museum – Inventing a Flying Machine
Edited by T-BoneI have faith in my editing skills
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.