Let us speak and sing the praises of the Most! High! God! for He hath deigned and delighted to give us for a prophet His very own smikeol!!
Just listen to how the words lilt from his pie orifice! How it is almost like listening to the trilling of songbirds!
smikeol hath said that we OLGs (or was that ESPs?) have too long been followers of TVT (NBC?) and our hearts - and minds! - are therefore tainted, and the only way back to purity is to follow smikeol and his Words! of Truth! given to him from Jesus by way of docvic(praise be his name!)
Behold, we have smikeol, a Prophet of the Most High God!
I don't believe that fact matters much to any parent(s) who lost their kid(s) at Columbine. As I recall there was a similar situation like that which occurred in MN not long ago.
Um... WTH are you saying that all those parents who lost their kids at Columbine did so because of their own FEAR? They all so feared for their children that it was their FEAR that made those other two kids build bombs in their garage and then bring rifles and guns to school and try to wipe out their classmates and teachers?
Darn, somebody should round up all those parents and put them on trial for murder...
And by the way, a LAW works all the time, in every situation, no matter what. Yes, helium will keep a balloon up for only so long, but it is the LAW of gravity that brings it down when the helium is spent.
An airplane uses fuel, speed, and lift to go up, but the LAW of gravity is used in combination with other things to bring the plane back down. Planes and balloons don't go up and STAY up indefinitely.
And yes, I reject the "law of believing" as a LAW. There is a difference between a law and a principle. One is NOT the other.
In my many years in The Way International, during the many classes I attended, and while literally sitting at the feet of this man, I NEVER heard Victor Paul Wierwille claim that believing was a "crude approximation of a law." However, Wierwille did claim "mathematical exactness and scientific precision," in the same breath as "the law of believing."
Now, if you're going to do that, you'd better be accurate, since you are crossing the line from Christianity into Science and Mathematics.
The scientific definition of a true law does NOT fit the concepts of belief, trust, and faith, which are all guiding principles in Christianity, and are NOT LAWS.
The world was once FILLED with people who BELIEVED WITH ALL THEIR HEARTS that THE WORLD WAS FLAT. And they feared that if they ventured too far off toward the horizon, that they would drop off the edge of the world into a pit of vicious mythological animals.
Now if believing were a law, and fear is believing, those men who so feared dropping off the face of the earth would have done so!
As a matter of fact, if believing were a true law, that worked for saints and sinners alike, as is stated in that class, folks, we would be living in a flat world.
It took some pretty brave people to strike out on their own to challenge the horizon to see if the belief was in fact a fallacy. And an accident in navigation proved just that: the world was round.
I don't care what you believe with all your heart, just because you believe it does not make it so.
But then again, that's what The Way International has always and is still selling people. There is only safety in what they teach, and if you venture too far away from the safety of the household, only devastation awaits you.
Um, wth & Mike--- are you living in a flat world?
There is a "Flat Earth Society" if you should so choose to join:
Not wanting to throw a wet rag in here, please allow me to give my nickles? worth.
Most of you know I still 'push the barrow' for the Lord:If I read What the Hays' post right,what was said is I believe pretty close to the banana(don't worry, it's aussie slang).
Believing in the positive or negative sense is real, it is just that it is not as black or white as TWI propounds(i believe TWI again uses this manipulatively to condemn and keep people in bondage)
When Selina and I finally got around to signing up for family corps,we had to come up with BIG x amount of dollars for the first block of tuition for us and the five kids, not to mention airfares, the New Zealand dollar being 1/2 the amount of U.S.D. etc..
Through it all Selina kept a mental picture of us all sitting in front of a 'wishing well' at the entrance to Indiana Campus(bearing in mind we had never seen any pictures of the campus.)
When we arrived at campus through a series of small miracles lo and behold..the wishing well.
On the negative side of believing,I keep newspaper clippings of incidents where I believe spiritual powers or 'laws ' are in operation and display them in our(please don't gag !)advance class.
You might be surprised how often "I had a great fear about this" pops up.
In your neck of the woods, cast your mind back a number of years to when a serial rapist/killer was making appointments with real estate women and then ambushing them.
He was caught when his last victim managed to get away.Virtually her first words were " I had had a great fear that I was going to be his next victim" (and she was).Too many more to mention.
I yearn to discuss these things with thinkers, not emotional complainers. There is much yet to learn about these things.
And when will you do this Mike? The opportunities have presented themselves many times and you refuse to participate but choose rather to hold to doctrines of devils, words of men and your own selfish motives.
Your angle of illusion and illusion of an angle escapes even your own spiritual understanding.
Did the woman who was the first victim of the serial killer walk around in fear that she would be the victim of a serial killer? Probably not.
And how about his last victim? I'd wager that after it became known a serial killer was in the neighborhood, that a lot more than just one woman was "afraid she'd be his next victim." But were they all victims?
Absolutely not.
Doesn't pass the test for a true law.
A true law works for everyone in the same way, exactly the same way, all the time, every time.
I brought up the ridiculousness of claiming believing was a law-
and specifically, that the hypothetical mother murdered her hypothetical son
by way of her believing and using the driver as the murder weapon
(he had no choice-it was "A LAW". I pointed out how the survival of almost
every child whose parents worry about them as a complete FAILURE of the so-called
"LAW" which, apparently, fails more than 90% of the time.
(Could you imagine if GRAVITY had a 90% failure rate?)
Further, suffering comes to people who have NO people worrying about them.
So, the response this person gave to all that was this...
quote:
Originally posted by What The Hay:
quote:
Every morning, millions of children get home alive and unharmed.
I don't believe that fact matters much to any parent(s) who lost their kid(s) at Columbine. As I recall there was a similar situation like that which occurred in MN not long ago.
You might actually try READING my posts sometime. With understanding.
Columbine proves my point. According to your so-called "LAW", the tragedy there was
primarily due to great fear on behalf of the parents and students of the high school,
which by far exceeded the fear of parents and students in the rest of the country.
Only incidentally do the actual shooters become involved.
quote:
quote:
What you believe will surely come to pass, whether positive or negative. We've heard this all before.
Faith (doesn't matter if it is positive or negative .. Romans 10:17) comes by hearing. Faith, positive or negative still comes that way, even in 2005.
You can SAY "negative faith" is in the Bible, but, amazingly, no concordance
SHOWS this error-ridden phrase to appear in Scripture.
Fear is not good, fine. Faith in God is fine. If you still think "faith" is
independent upon the reliability of that which is believed, you're still thinking
Session One, and you're STILL divorced from the Bible.
quote:
But I can choose who or what I want to listen to just as easily as you can. But most people choose to listen to the "roar of the crowd." It's more like the roar of the lion rather than the crowd I believe. (1 Peter 5:8)
Labelling what other people believe doesnt affect them. That's sociology, not
Scripture.
quote:
Believing (whether it's negative or positive ) is nothing more than a seed one plants in their heart, and what one sows they ultimately reap - positive or negative
Now, THAT's what was taught in Session One.
quote:
- it just depends on what is sown.
NO.
WHAT is believed,
and WHO believes it does NOT enter the picture.
Adding those as factors is NOT what was taught.
It is changing pfal.
When you add to pfal, do you still have pfal?
Why add to pfal?
The failed "LAW" needs lots of excuses to explain its failure.
quote:
Plant a seed in the right conditions and it eventually sprouts and grows.
When did "conditions" come up in the class? You believed and it HAD to come to
pass, it was a "LAW."
You added "conditions" to pfal.
Why?
Because you needed excuses to explain the failure of this "LAW".
quote:
That shouldn't be a mystery to anyone here. Jesus taught the same thing in the gospel - in the parable of the sower and the seed.
Jesus didn't teach an immutable "Law of believing"-he taught to trust God, pray,
have confidence in God, and so on.
quote:
The only reason Mike can't plant this seed and expect much growth is because the ground here is rock hard.
No, we've seen this before and were scammed
once already. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
quote:
It's hardened by tradition, by religion, hardened by politics, by gossip, backbiting, and similar things people here want to talk about and listen to.
Labelling us out of your ignorance of our lives STILL doesn't change us.
quote:
At best, a different seed got planted and was sprouted.
Different than taught in Session One and by you? Yes-I agree.
quote:
quote:
Tell a lie, tell it big enough, and long enough, and loud enough, and the people will eventually believe you.
Quite a remark coming from someone who doesn't understand (or believe in) the law of believing and therefore rejects it.
A) It's true.
B) It was one rule for pfal's success.
C) We "understand" the failed "law" of believing just fine. That's why we reject it.
We reject the "flat earth" doctrine also.
quote:
But frankly speaking, I do think they understand the law of believing because they couldn't make such a remark if they didn't.
Well, you're the one who claimed they didn't. Make up your mind.
quote:
They're just not being very truthful with us about it, so who's the one pushing the lie?
Believing is not a law because it fails to produce the results as stated in pfal. When its incredibly high failure rate is brought up, dozens of excuses never introduced in pfal pop up like mushrooms after a rain. WHO's being "untruthful", and
who's "pushing the lie"? Hint: someone keeps pushing something known to be untrue.
{quote]But let's not find fault with them just because they are not being truthful. Let's not find fault with them because they're BLAMELESS. Let's find fault with the one calling them LIARS for confronting lies with truth.
quote:
Most people aren't even true to themselves so why listen to them?
Here comes the
famous WTH sermons that have nothing to do with us..
quote:
It all starts right back at Romans 10:17. Well, that's what got us all in the soup to start with - listening to someone other than - well you know who...
Yeah-listening to vpw got us all in the soup for sure. Next thing you know, we're
buying all kinds of lies without subjecting them to critical evaluation,
vpw said the mother was responsible for the sole reason of FEAR, and keeping FEAR.
Funny. I just re-read the exact same section that another Dr. of Theology had just read, and NO WHERE does VPW ever blame the mother herself for causing the death of her child. But he does blame her fear.
"Bombs don't kill people-EXPLOSIONS DO."
"Guns don't kill people-BULLETS DO."
Someone gets the gun, loads it, points it, and pulls the trigger.
If WTH was an attorney, he'd claim they weren't responsible for the victim dying from
I'm sorry folks, but I just don't have the time to spend on every single detail that comes up against me, not even close. But the important things I make time for.
Translation: I shall ignore what I have no answers for.
quote:
I've pointed out here OFTEN that Dr was very careful to mention in several places that "Believing equals receiving" is a crude approximation of the law of believing.
And you've been wrong each time. The phrase he used is "simply stated", which you have CHANGED and DECIDED means "crudely approximated." When you changed the word of vpw, you no longer had the word of vpw. You had "private interpretation."
quote:
Many here have NOT been so careful to note the fine tuning Dr gave us in expressing this law.
Not ONE session says "This is the specifics on believing,
which I call a law. This is how it works, and why it fails to work. If you follow these instructions precisely, you will get the results 100 times out of 100." If it HAD, there would have been a basis for making this claim. There, of course, WAS no such session because there IS no way to make believing work like a "LAW". You have to completely define ALL the conditions before even STARTING. THAT's not a "LAW". Under that type of "science", people "proved" Blacks had less cranial space than whites-
until someone did tests that DIDN'T define all the conditions....
I'm not even going to address your misunderstanding of gravity. Feel free to have the
scientists here try to explain it AGAIN. We HAVE discussed it before.....
quote:
I'm still learning about this latest angle, but so far it looks like what we were taught in the FOUNDATIONAL class was just the beginning of what needs to be learned about believing. The adversary does not have any power in the spiritual realm, and from that perspective (God's) the law never even appears to be violated.
So long as your understanding REQUIRES all information conform to the false doctrine
of the "law of believing", you'll waste your time.
quote:
There are so many details that have to be looked into here, but the complaints I always hear about how we were taught this law always come from people who have never or seldom grappled with the more advanced aspects of this law, only the foundational expressions of it in the Foundational Class.
It fails on its own rules as stated in BOTH Session One AND the Blue Book.
It's propped up by people like you who add all sorts of "exceptions".
quote:
I yearn to discuss these things with thinkers, not emotional complainers.
Translation: I wish everyone would agree with me for once and validate my false doctrines. All the people here, at all their IQ levels and education levels and
experience with pfal, all refute my doctrine.
quote:
There is much yet to learn about these things. For those who want to think a little deeper on this I'm repeating my post of last night, the one to which I referred to boldfaced words here.
Translation: I was refuted yesterday, so I'm going to try to ignore it and call for
a do-over. Here's how I try to claim that the mother killed that boy in the
hypothetical example-let's ignore all the real-world examples people brought up.
quote:
"God didn't kill that boy.
You know what killed that boy?
The fear
in the heart
in the life
of that mother.
--because that mother was just desperately afraid something was going to happen to her little Johnny. And she kept that fear and kept it, till one day it happened.
"Why? Because it's a law. It's a law. That which you are afraid of is what you are going to receive.
She was afraid of her boy,
she was afraid he was going to get killed.
She was afraid she was going to lose him and she did just that.
God didn't do it!
She did it with her own negative believing."
God was innocent-the mother was a murderer.
quote:
We've been over this umpteen times, but for the new people
God did not do it.
NO ONE SAID HE DID!
We object to you calling the mother the murderer.
quote:
Why doesn't anyone here focus on and discuss the "contributing factors" mentioned here?
Because the mother didn't murder her child. All mothers worry when their kids are out of their sight. All the made-up examples of any class don't change that.
This does NOT guarantee the kids die-which means this "law" that means you kill your
kid by worrying isn't a "law".
quote:
Why doesn't anyone here focus on and discuss the "ultimately made possible" mentioned here?
A) It's a lie.
B) It blames a mother for a death she had nothing to do with.
C) It's based on a made-up example.
quote:
The woman focused on fear, when she had good advice to do the opposite.
What we select in our focus is important.
If we see ourselves developing great fear, it's wise to put on the brakes, learn how to control our minds, and find the protective promises of God to believe.
Controlling your mind is a good thing. It does NOT mean that this woman killed her
son.
quote:
What we should NOT do is condemn ourselves. If we see others falling into the fear trap, we should not condemn them, but help the out with kind words.
Translation: Yes, this woman killed her son, but don't condemn her for it.
Aaaaannd, here comes the commercial!
quote:
It is in THIS point (not Dr's teaching) that our TVT (Twi Verbal Tradition) went awry, and our experiences soured.
Did the woman who was the first victim of the serial killer walk around in fear that she would be the victim of a serial killer? Probably not.
And how about his last victim? I'd wager that after it became known a serial killer was in the neighborhood, that a lot more than just one woman was "afraid she'd be his next victim." But were they all victims?
Absolutely not.
Doesn't pass the test for a true law.
A true law works for everyone in the same way, exactly the same way, all the time, every time.
At least I can't get into it today, and I could yesterday. I tried several methods of accessing it, and all I got was *error - page not found*, or *error - page does not exist*.
David, I just tried it and logged to ezboard, then clicked on sites visited then got in. So if you're registered on ezboard you should be able to get in.
As I said before, most of us are already registered from Waydale or the first Greasespot.
And what did Jesus pray? He prayed "THY will be done" He didn't say, "give me red drapes" and he didn't demand that God give him a Harley. He believed God would take care of him. There's a difference.
He even asked that he not have to be crucified. He wanted to avoid all that torture and pain, BUT said that he would do whatever is God's will.
Paul asked "thrice" that God would remove the "thorn" in his side and still didn't get answers to his prayer.
It just isn't that simple and it certainly isn't a law.
That "all things" obviously doesn't really mean "all things" otherwise the Pistons would already be champions. :)-->
I also have many many stories where I or someone I knew didn't see what we really and truly believed would come to pass.
I have just as many stories where I just knew and believed there was absolutely no way something was going to happen and it did. I believed the outcome would be completely different from what it was.
We can all tell stories on both sides the issue. For that reason alone you can't possibly say it's a law and that it works without fail, with a scientific precision and mathmatical exactness. If your understanding lines up with what vee pee taught, then yes, the problem is with your understanding. ;)-->
Mike...here's a question for you...since Jesus didn't WANT to go thru the crucifixion (no more than you or I would WANT to)///does that mean that he feared? (or had fear) Since he is/was a man..and a sinless man at that..did he fear?? Afterall..he did say" not my will but thy will be done" Right? IF he had fear..would that then be "sin"? I know I have fears & most of what I fear & feared in my life has never ever "come into fruition"...just curious what you "think" on this q.....JJ
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
50
49
36
97
Popular Days
Jun 18
120
Jun 19
84
Jun 24
72
Jun 17
47
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 50 posts
Catcup 49 posts
WordWolf 36 posts
Mike 97 posts
Popular Days
Jun 18 2005
120 posts
Jun 19 2005
84 posts
Jun 24 2005
72 posts
Jun 17 2005
47 posts
Steve!
Oh, we are so dang lucky here!
Why, do you ask?
Because we have smikeol!!!
We have been blessed beyond measure!
Let us speak and sing the praises of the Most! High! God! for He hath deigned and delighted to give us for a prophet His very own smikeol!!
Just listen to how the words lilt from his pie orifice! How it is almost like listening to the trilling of songbirds!
smikeol hath said that we OLGs (or was that ESPs?) have too long been followers of TVT (NBC?) and our hearts - and minds! - are therefore tainted, and the only way back to purity is to follow smikeol and his Words! of Truth! given to him from Jesus by way of docvic(praise be his name!)
Behold, we have smikeol, a Prophet of the Most High God!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Um... WTH are you saying that all those parents who lost their kids at Columbine did so because of their own FEAR? They all so feared for their children that it was their FEAR that made those other two kids build bombs in their garage and then bring rifles and guns to school and try to wipe out their classmates and teachers?
Darn, somebody should round up all those parents and put them on trial for murder...
And by the way, a LAW works all the time, in every situation, no matter what. Yes, helium will keep a balloon up for only so long, but it is the LAW of gravity that brings it down when the helium is spent.
An airplane uses fuel, speed, and lift to go up, but the LAW of gravity is used in combination with other things to bring the plane back down. Planes and balloons don't go up and STAY up indefinitely.
And yes, I reject the "law of believing" as a LAW. There is a difference between a law and a principle. One is NOT the other.
In my many years in The Way International, during the many classes I attended, and while literally sitting at the feet of this man, I NEVER heard Victor Paul Wierwille claim that believing was a "crude approximation of a law." However, Wierwille did claim "mathematical exactness and scientific precision," in the same breath as "the law of believing."
Now, if you're going to do that, you'd better be accurate, since you are crossing the line from Christianity into Science and Mathematics.
The scientific definition of a true law does NOT fit the concepts of belief, trust, and faith, which are all guiding principles in Christianity, and are NOT LAWS.
The world was once FILLED with people who BELIEVED WITH ALL THEIR HEARTS that THE WORLD WAS FLAT. And they feared that if they ventured too far off toward the horizon, that they would drop off the edge of the world into a pit of vicious mythological animals.
Now if believing were a law, and fear is believing, those men who so feared dropping off the face of the earth would have done so!
As a matter of fact, if believing were a true law, that worked for saints and sinners alike, as is stated in that class, folks, we would be living in a flat world.
It took some pretty brave people to strike out on their own to challenge the horizon to see if the belief was in fact a fallacy. And an accident in navigation proved just that: the world was round.
I don't care what you believe with all your heart, just because you believe it does not make it so.
But then again, that's what The Way International has always and is still selling people. There is only safety in what they teach, and if you venture too far away from the safety of the household, only devastation awaits you.
Um, wth & Mike--- are you living in a flat world?
There is a "Flat Earth Society" if you should so choose to join:
http://www.flat-earth.org
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Not wanting to throw a wet rag in here, please allow me to give my nickles? worth.
Most of you know I still 'push the barrow' for the Lord:If I read What the Hays' post right,what was said is I believe pretty close to the banana(don't worry, it's aussie slang).
Believing in the positive or negative sense is real, it is just that it is not as black or white as TWI propounds(i believe TWI again uses this manipulatively to condemn and keep people in bondage)
When Selina and I finally got around to signing up for family corps,we had to come up with BIG x amount of dollars for the first block of tuition for us and the five kids, not to mention airfares, the New Zealand dollar being 1/2 the amount of U.S.D. etc..
Through it all Selina kept a mental picture of us all sitting in front of a 'wishing well' at the entrance to Indiana Campus(bearing in mind we had never seen any pictures of the campus.)
When we arrived at campus through a series of small miracles lo and behold..the wishing well.
On the negative side of believing,I keep newspaper clippings of incidents where I believe spiritual powers or 'laws ' are in operation and display them in our(please don't gag !)advance class.
You might be surprised how often "I had a great fear about this" pops up.
In your neck of the woods, cast your mind back a number of years to when a serial rapist/killer was making appointments with real estate women and then ambushing them.
He was caught when his last victim managed to get away.Virtually her first words were " I had had a great fear that I was going to be his next victim" (and she was).Too many more to mention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
And when will you do this Mike? The opportunities have presented themselves many times and you refuse to participate but choose rather to hold to doctrines of devils, words of men and your own selfish motives.
Your angle of illusion and illusion of an angle escapes even your own spiritual understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Did the woman who was the first victim of the serial killer walk around in fear that she would be the victim of a serial killer? Probably not.
And how about his last victim? I'd wager that after it became known a serial killer was in the neighborhood, that a lot more than just one woman was "afraid she'd be his next victim." But were they all victims?
Absolutely not.
Doesn't pass the test for a true law.
A true law works for everyone in the same way, exactly the same way, all the time, every time.
That's why it's a law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
a lot of folks are posting on this thread. i will read it all but i want to put my 2 cents in.
here in small town maine we were in one way or another family or close friends when we were introduced the twi
we were close and we had wonderful twigs great childrens fellowships etc.
when cfs came along i couldn't wait to be in on it.
we had our young teens take it with us.
it was embarrassing
vp was nothing less than a pervert!!!!!!1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
mike please seek help you need it more than any of us here
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
sorry i guess i'm on a roll tonite.
how do we even know the story about the mom and child was just another one of veepee's snow stories?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I brought up the ridiculousness of claiming believing was a law-
and specifically, that the hypothetical mother murdered her hypothetical son
by way of her believing and using the driver as the murder weapon
(he had no choice-it was "A LAW". I pointed out how the survival of almost
every child whose parents worry about them as a complete FAILURE of the so-called
"LAW" which, apparently, fails more than 90% of the time.
(Could you imagine if GRAVITY had a 90% failure rate?)
Further, suffering comes to people who have NO people worrying about them.
So, the response this person gave to all that was this...
You might actually try READING my posts sometime. With understanding.
Columbine proves my point. According to your so-called "LAW", the tragedy there was
primarily due to great fear on behalf of the parents and students of the high school,
which by far exceeded the fear of parents and students in the rest of the country.
Only incidentally do the actual shooters become involved.
You can SAY "negative faith" is in the Bible, but, amazingly, no concordance
SHOWS this error-ridden phrase to appear in Scripture.
Fear is not good, fine. Faith in God is fine. If you still think "faith" is
independent upon the reliability of that which is believed, you're still thinking
Session One, and you're STILL divorced from the Bible.
Labelling what other people believe doesnt affect them. That's sociology, not
Scripture.
Now, THAT's what was taught in Session One.
NO.
WHAT is believed,
and WHO believes it does NOT enter the picture.
Adding those as factors is NOT what was taught.
It is changing pfal.
When you add to pfal, do you still have pfal?
Why add to pfal?
The failed "LAW" needs lots of excuses to explain its failure.
When did "conditions" come up in the class? You believed and it HAD to come to
pass, it was a "LAW."
You added "conditions" to pfal.
Why?
Because you needed excuses to explain the failure of this "LAW".
Jesus didn't teach an immutable "Law of believing"-he taught to trust God, pray,
have confidence in God, and so on.
No, we've seen this before and were scammedonce already. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Labelling us out of your ignorance of our lives STILL doesn't change us.
Different than taught in Session One and by you? Yes-I agree.
A) It's true.B) It was one rule for pfal's success.
C) We "understand" the failed "law" of believing just fine. That's why we reject it.
We reject the "flat earth" doctrine also.
Well, you're the one who claimed they didn't. Make up your mind. Believing is not a law because it fails to produce the results as stated in pfal. When its incredibly high failure rate is brought up, dozens of excuses never introduced in pfal pop up like mushrooms after a rain. WHO's being "untruthful", andwho's "pushing the lie"? Hint: someone keeps pushing something known to be untrue.
{quote]But let's not find fault with them just because they are not being truthful. Let's not find fault with them because they're BLAMELESS. Let's find fault with the one calling them LIARS for confronting lies with truth.
Here comes thefamous WTH sermons that have nothing to do with us..
Yeah-listening to vpw got us all in the soup for sure. Next thing you know, we're
buying all kinds of lies without subjecting them to critical evaluation,
like how a mother killed her child by worrying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"Bombs don't kill people-EXPLOSIONS DO."
"Guns don't kill people-BULLETS DO."
Someone gets the gun, loads it, points it, and pulls the trigger.
If WTH was an attorney, he'd claim they weren't responsible for the victim dying from
a gunshot wound to the head.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
damn if it is the law of gravity i wish my wifes boobs would go up! just kidding!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Translation: I shall ignore what I have no answers for.
And you've been wrong each time. The phrase he used is "simply stated", which you have CHANGED and DECIDED means "crudely approximated." When you changed the word of vpw, you no longer had the word of vpw. You had "private interpretation." Not ONE session says "This is the specifics on believing,which I call a law. This is how it works, and why it fails to work. If you follow these instructions precisely, you will get the results 100 times out of 100." If it HAD, there would have been a basis for making this claim. There, of course, WAS no such session because there IS no way to make believing work like a "LAW". You have to completely define ALL the conditions before even STARTING. THAT's not a "LAW". Under that type of "science", people "proved" Blacks had less cranial space than whites-
until someone did tests that DIDN'T define all the conditions....
I'm not even going to address your misunderstanding of gravity. Feel free to have the
scientists here try to explain it AGAIN. We HAVE discussed it before.....
So long as your understanding REQUIRES all information conform to the false doctrine
of the "law of believing", you'll waste your time.
It fails on its own rules as stated in BOTH Session One AND the Blue Book.
It's propped up by people like you who add all sorts of "exceptions".
Translation: I wish everyone would agree with me for once and validate my false doctrines. All the people here, at all their IQ levels and education levels and
experience with pfal, all refute my doctrine.
Translation: I was refuted yesterday, so I'm going to try to ignore it and call for
a do-over. Here's how I try to claim that the mother killed that boy in the
hypothetical example-let's ignore all the real-world examples people brought up.
God was innocent-the mother was a murderer.
NO ONE SAID HE DID!We object to you calling the mother the murderer.
Because the mother didn't murder her child. All mothers worry when their kids are out of their sight. All the made-up examples of any class don't change that.This does NOT guarantee the kids die-which means this "law" that means you kill your
kid by worrying isn't a "law".
A) It's a lie.B) It blames a mother for a death she had nothing to do with.
C) It's based on a made-up example.
Controlling your mind is a good thing. It does NOT mean that this woman killed her
son.
Translation: Yes, this woman killed her son, but don't condemn her for it.
Aaaaannd, here comes the commercial!
vpw said the woman killed her son. He was wrong.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Coolchef, according to Mike & WTH, you just need to keep believing, and before long, she'll be so perky she'll point skyward!
Dang, if we could only just believe hard enough, we could put all them plastic surgeons outa bidness!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Has anyone noticed (during all of this *brou-ha-ha* over Mike's ideas, pfal
*doctrine*, and perverted videos shown long ago) ----
that the intial link http://p211.ezboard.com/bpowerforabundantliving (originally posted by Belle) is now not accessible??
-->
At least I can't get into it today, and I could yesterday. I tried several methods of accessing it, and all I got was *error - page not found*, or *error - page does not exist*.
Makes ya wanna go hmmmmmmm.
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TOMMYZ
David, I just tried it and logged to ezboard, then clicked on sites visited then got in. So if you're registered on ezboard you should be able to get in.
As I said before, most of us are already registered from Waydale or the first Greasespot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
I got in. Go figure.
Just one of those computer glitches, I suppose.
But I do wonder how in the world they will be able to keep that stuff up without a legal battle of some sorts.
Or is TWI just so tired of the fight they're just gonna roll over?
I don't think so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
What did Jesus mean when he said in Matthew 21: 22 "All things whatsoever you ask in prayer BELIEVING, you shall receive" ??
The error lies maybe with our understanding or maybe...some peoples believing just sucks !!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Maybe it meant what it meant BEFORE you had the misconception that believing was some kind of axiomatic law.
Start thinking about believing as trust. Having faith that God will hear your prayer. Trusting Him and His goodness, and accepting His will.
Yes, the error lies in your understanding of the Christian concept of faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
And what did Jesus pray? He prayed "THY will be done" He didn't say, "give me red drapes" and he didn't demand that God give him a Harley. He believed God would take care of him. There's a difference.
He even asked that he not have to be crucified. He wanted to avoid all that torture and pain, BUT said that he would do whatever is God's will.
Paul asked "thrice" that God would remove the "thorn" in his side and still didn't get answers to his prayer.
It just isn't that simple and it certainly isn't a law.
That "all things" obviously doesn't really mean "all things" otherwise the Pistons would already be champions.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
I also have many many stories where I or someone I knew didn't see what we really and truly believed would come to pass.
I have just as many stories where I just knew and believed there was absolutely no way something was going to happen and it did. I believed the outcome would be completely different from what it was.
We can all tell stories on both sides the issue. For that reason alone you can't possibly say it's a law and that it works without fail, with a scientific precision and mathmatical exactness. If your understanding lines up with what vee pee taught, then yes, the problem is with your understanding.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Yes, yes. Blame the person because their "results" don't match up with what you "think" they should be.
Your believing sucks. You just don't measure up. You just need to get a passion (GAG ME) for the truth...
Sounds to me like you left The Way International, but the blame-seeking behavior you learned in TWI did not leave you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Second James
Mike...here's a question for you...since Jesus didn't WANT to go thru the crucifixion (no more than you or I would WANT to)///does that mean that he feared? (or had fear) Since he is/was a man..and a sinless man at that..did he fear?? Afterall..he did say" not my will but thy will be done" Right? IF he had fear..would that then be "sin"? I know I have fears & most of what I fear & feared in my life has never ever "come into fruition"...just curious what you "think" on this q.....JJ
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.