Perhaps you are refering to these elements: "the believers power of attorney" and "the syncronized confession"? Of course, I could possibly be wrong about those being the particular elements in regard to the law of believing that you were refering to.
A while back I made the comment (post# 442 when I was talking about salvation) confession did not have to be a verbal confession, that it does not necessarily mean something that one needs to say out loud. Then from TNDC p.54 Mike posted: ... Just to say the name of Jesus Christ is not all that is necessary ...
Just to say the name of Jesus Christ as it is written in Romans 10:9,10 does not produce: "confession unto salvation" for anyone. Obviously there is more involved in "confession unto salvation" than merely someone saying the name of Jesus Christ. The word for "confess" in Romans 10:9 is the word: homologeo. This word does not necessarily have anything to do with someone "speaking." It simply means to speak the same thing, which does not mean or imply one should "speak out" (exomologeo) the same thing.
To understand more of what this confession entails, one must take a look at Matthew 10. Specifically look at v.32 - It says: "Whosoever therefore shall confess [homologeo] me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." Salvation therefore does not just mean one must confess Jesus as our lord, but it also entails Jesus Christ's confession of us before the Father. Has Jesus Christ confessed you before the Father? I think that's a very good question to ask.
v.33 goes on: "But whosoever shall deny me before men (it does not say before God) him (that person) will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." The question therefore becomes, what did Jesus Christ confess before men? Did he go about confessing there is no God, that God does not heal, that praying is physchologically good only for the one who is praying - etc, etc, etc? If that is your confession, then exactly how does your confession line up (say the same thing) Jesus Christ's confession does?
Many people today confuse the "law-of-believing" as being synonomous with some non-existant "law-of-material-prosperity" they think Jesus Christ was talking about and proclaiming. Because of this they erroneously conclude there is no law of believing. Was it not Christ who said, "The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest? Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and tomorrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?" (Luke 12:23-28)
I don't find that Jesus Christ was necessarily talking about having material wealth and physical abundance in those verses, yet he was accurate in defining exactly what "little faith" was - one having total confidence in the senses, confidence in some "law of material prosperity". Such confidence only leads one into bondage, not freedom. Did you know some of the richest people in the world today are also people who have some of the greatest fears? Their greatest fear being they may end up losing all their wealth! Of course they got a plan to prevent it from happening. They may not admit it to you or even want to admit it to themselves, but that is their greatest fear. It's one of the many reasons they're on the boob-tube selling you their "secrets-of-the-rich-and-famous" plan for only $9.95. They're even afraid people can't afford more than $10 or want to risk more than that to to purchase their lousy "get-rich-quick" scheme!
Scripture has something to say about being rich in this world but not being "rich toward God." There is a law of believing, however I just do not find it to be synonomous with this "law of material prosperity" so many people have misnomered as "the law of believing". Too many people unfortunately, both inside and outside TWI have put and placed all their confidence and "faith" in it instead. (It's getting too late to post more - just something to think more about later on. )
I remember Dr (on a tape) bemoaning the misunderstanding some grads had that the abundant life meant “carloads of money.” It meant 9 manifestations mostly, and physical needs met afterwards, food/clothing/shelter/health.
Yes, several of the quotes I’ve repeated here are from the Power of Attorney chapter.
Yes, the Synchronized Confession chapter is some of Element #2’s expansion text.
Here's the complete list with a little color highlighting:
1) Believing equals receiving.
2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession.
3) Turning our believing toward the promises of God, limiting ourselves to the “Available List.”
4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s.
5) Believing equals action
Now, how about that 6th Element to the law of believing?
That’s a tougher one, and one I think Dr only expanded upon in the Advanced Class.
Maybe there’s more in the books I’m presently unaware of.
Here’s the text with the 6th Element tucked away inside:
GMWD p. 18, 19
Verse 3 of Psalms 103 very plainly says, “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all [without exception] thy diseases.” Does God forgive your sins? Well then, does God heal you? He must or He is a liar; but God is no liar. People may then question, “Well, why doesn’t God heal everybody?” Healing for all is God’s will. But when we fail to rise up to our rightful and legal privileges, due to a variety of causes—the greatest cause being a negative society where people talk about, expect, and cope with negative things—we fail to be healed. To claim and manifest God’s healing we must believe on the positives of His Word, not the negatives of the world.
v.33 goes on: "But whosoever shall deny me before men (it does not say before God) him (that person) will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." The question therefore becomes, what did Jesus Christ confess before men? Did he go about confessing there is no God, that God does not heal, that praying is physchologically good only for the one who is praying - etc, etc, etc? If that is your confession, then exactly how does your confession line up (say the same thing) Jesus Christ's confession does?
Many people today confuse the "law-of-believing" as being synonomous with some non-existant "law-of-material-prosperity" they think Jesus Christ was talking about and proclaiming. Because of this they erroneously conclude there is no law of believing.
STRAWMAN ALERT
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth
Yes, laying out a law and it's Elements is steps, it's the first steps, the necessary first steps.
First step is we need to get a 5-senses understanding of the whole deal. This first step comes from physically reading the flesh realm materials that are the class texts.
THEN the next step is gaining the spiritual understanding after we’ve deeply familiarized (heart) ourselves with that 5-senses level. You correctly yearn for this spiritual heart level of understanding, but you can’t skip the necessary 5-senses level beginning step.
If you approached me with a little respect I could return the favor. You don't though. From the start you come on to me every time with a razzing belittling attitude. I can match you in that, and I do a pretty good job. Take off your boxing gloves and I'll take off mine.
In reading more of your post above I see you wrote:
“It's kind of hard to COMPREHEND when the only answer we get back is ‘you don't understand because you haven't mastered the material like I have.’”
No! I’d re-word it thusly:
You don't understand because you aren’t NOW LOOKING AT the same material like I am.
My proof of this is your refusal to play that idiotic Game Show.
The posts show that you steadfastly refused to even look.
You want to understand only certain things, regarding your pet quirky quotes. I say to you TOUGH BEANS BUDDY! If you want to talk to me about it you must be polite enough to let me take the lead in the discussion.
I lay this stuff out in the sequence I CHOOSE and NOT YOU!
If you want me to someday explain to you quotes of your choosing, then you’re going to have to SOMETIMES be patient while I lay out the foundation for my answer. You’re going to have to pay attention to my foundation, and if I think you aren’t paying attention, I’ll just wait until I GET your attention before I move on from the foundational to the quote you have in mind.
This is not a press conference where you pepper me with the questions that you and your editor want for your news article. This is a SEQUENCE of small foundational messages that add up to a larger message. I’m not going to stop that sequence when it’s rolling on crucial ground just to satisfy your urge to pick at minutia to be used later in open and obvious smear campaigns.
Often I do, though, stop the sequence and answer a question, especially if the poster is civil and polite. You are not, sir.
Since you insist on playing the role of an impatient, imnpolite reporter at a news conference, basically trying to bust me with questions, I’ll play that game and call security, the Rhetorical Guard at my disposal, and dispose of you they will do.
On the planet I live on, people engage in conversation to better understand each other.
On the planet you live on, people better accept what you say as the final word on the subject and if they don't, they get berated and belittled.
All I've ever done is ask you to explain your statements of "truth".
That's all and nothing more.
All you've ever done is belittle and berate me for asking... as if I should just accept them all because you said so.
If you were really interested in "teaching" us something, you'd "teach" us about these things.
Are you afraid that if people read these "truths" you've presented in the past that they won't take you seriously? If so... why?
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
If they're your beliefs then stand by them, don't be ashamed of them.
If you're not ashamed of them then why (just the latest example) did it take you so long, a few pages ago, just to admit that "yes, you still believe those statements to be true"?
Why couldn't you have just said "yes" in answer to the question?
It's not me that has boxing gloves on...
If you are truly interested in "teaching" us, in expanding our comprehension and knowledge concerning your message... then why not explain how you came to these conclusions?
Don't just dismiss us by saying that we can't know these things because we have not mastered PFAL like you have.
Show us how so that we might learn. You see, it's hard to take you seriously on any of your discussions concerning PFAL when you present ideas such as these as TRUTH:
"PFAL is 'God's Word reissued'."
This means "we don't need any versions of the Bible anymore, only PFAL."
"PFAL is the Word of God, that the Holy Spirit has provided us with His Word in written form in PFAL, and it (PFAL) carries all the authority of God Almighty."
"Christ is currently learning from PFAL and will be teaching from PFAL materials when he returns."
"Betraying Dr's revelations is betraying God."
"You just need to feed that Christ inside with the pure Word of PFAL."
"Studying PFAL will defeat death."
You cannot present these as God's TRUTH and expect us to buy into it without explaining.
You wrote: “You cannot present these as God's TRUTH and expect us to buy into it without explaining.”
You’re right there.
The quotes you have (with bias) latched onto are not God’s truth.
God’s truth is presented to us grads in the written forms of PFAL.
There’s another quote you can use.
What I present here is MY message.
It’s what I see, to the best of my ability, we missed in PFAL.
What you have latched onto are often mere rhetorical peaks in huge tracts of texts in almost 5000 posts.
What I say here are the facts, the 5-senses facts, as I see them.
What is written in PFAL are the truths.
I frequently have dealt with the quotes you throw at me. You simply failed to see them and save them in your “Bust Mike” file. You failed to save the contexts from which those pet quotes came from, indicating to me that you are a sloppy reporter, and not worth my time. I’ve given you enough time. I will now turn my attention to other reporters here.
I see now that you actually ALSO came up with #7 Element, “need not greed” abbreviating the way you put it.
We can add that to the list.
***
So, did anyone remember “community believing” from the AC or elsewhere. That’s a bit of a complicated one. That can be bothersome, because truth is supposed to be simple. I hate to see complications arise where I don’t know how to get a handle on something.
It’s pretty hard to do anything about community believing if it’s negative.
I remember Jesus had a hard time with the community believing of his home town. And also, I think in Acts there was a place where community believing was high, and lots of miracles took place. In one place Jesus put unbelievers out of the room to get some work done.
Community believing needs to be taken into consideration, but how do you measure it? This is a tuffy.
***
So, the law of believing Element list now reads :
1) Believing equals receiving.
2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession.
3) Limiting our believing to the promises of God
4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s.
If I were to paste in here 3 past posts where I explained "PFAL is God's Word reissued" would you shut up and either follow along the sequence a little or leave?
Oh, yeah, BTW, it's also the case that some (I hope many!) of the facts I present in my message mesh nicely with Truths of God.
I do my best, and that's all we can do.
Instead of MY text being the topic of conversation, I want the PFAL text to be the topic.
If I were to paste in here 3 past posts where I explained "PFAL is God's Word reissued" would you shut up and either follow along the sequence a little or leave?
That would be a good start, then we could go on to the others.
1) what if I still don't understand? am I not allowed to ask questions?
2) I don't believe that it is within the board rules to tell someone to "shut up", at the very least it's not polite
3) Telling me to leave because I don't post the way "you want me to"? Mike, I think you're on thin ice here.
Oh, yeah, BTW, it's also the case that some (I hope many!) of the facts I present in my message mesh nicely with Truths of God.
I do my best, and that's all we can do.
Instead of MY text being the topic of conversation, I want the PFAL text to be the topic.
See the difference?
My text.
PFAL text.
Two very different entities.
Got it?
In addition to my comments above Mike, I'd point out that you don't have the right or authority to speak to me or any other poster that way. I've never tried to limit your ability to post or be here.
You really don't own this space or this board... you only occupy it now and then... same as me and the others.
If you want a place where you can exclude me or anyone else that may have questions about your "theology" then perhaps you should look elsewhere... that's just not how it works here.
Does anyone know of any more Elements to add to the list.
I'm almost sad to say that I do have another.
Sad in that this list of Elements to the law of believing is getting longer, AND some of it's entries are getting more complicated. This is a rather tall order to master, this law of believing. I'm feeling a little overwhelmed. Just a little, mind you. I mean, when I add this Eight Element it might jog other people’s memory of other Elements, and this list could get out of hand!
Maybe I shouldn’t ask for more suggestions to the list after all.
I have fond STILL ANOTHER Element to complicate this messy law of believing situation.
Oddly I found it in doojable’s post of a long past thread-page, many, many posts ago where she posted this:
doobjable Post #429 Feb 25, 2006
“My main objection to the "law of believing" way of thinking was that people began to think that God was just some puppet on a string that they could manipulate by getting needs and wants parallel and invoking the name of Jesus Christ. __ As I recall, TWI absolutely hated the phrase, ‘God is in Control.’”
I had promised to respond to this old post of doojables (and Ex10’s too) and that’s when I discovered this new element.
Yes, I remember abuses of the law of believing like that one you mention, dooj.
They certainly didn’t line up with the teaching we often heard of “giving God the glory.”
In fact, they were the opposite of it.
You recall a TVT accurately, where “TWI hated the phrase, ‘God is in Control.’”
That TVT is a distortion of the good doctrine taught in PFAL that when it comes to the manifestations, like SIT, we must not wait for God to move our lips, our throats, our tongues. We had our part and god had His part in the SIT matter. Other matters that ratio may vary, either way. But the TVTs got a hold of that good PFAL doctrine that there are some aspects in life where we must act, and other aspects where we should just allow God to act.
***
But I digress. I started out saying there is a new Element in here. Here it is: #9 Give God the glory.
I didn’t even mention Number 8, did I ?
Maybe it’s because I dread the added complication it brings.
Oh well, here goes: #8 The manifestation of faith/believing.
I don’t know much about the manifestation faith or if it’s called the manifestation of believing.
I need to read up on what PFAL has there.
I also need to look up where “giving God glory” comes up.
This is getting to be quite a job!
The list is easy, corralling all the text blocks that back up each Element in the list is a lot of work.
This could take weeks!
Anyway, here’s the list so far:
The Elements of the law of believing
1) Believing equals receiving.
2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession.
3) Limiting our believing to the promises of God
4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
89
149
306
85
Popular Days
Feb 10
62
Feb 20
61
Feb 11
46
Mar 2
45
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 89 posts
CM 149 posts
Mike 306 posts
Tom Strange 85 posts
Popular Days
Feb 10 2006
62 posts
Feb 20 2006
61 posts
Feb 11 2006
46 posts
Mar 2 2006
45 posts
Posted Images
dmiller
1) Believing equals receiving.
2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession.
3) Turning our believing toward the promises of God, limiting ourselves to the “Available List.”
4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s.
(blinded by the *light*)
Edited by dmillerLink to comment
Share on other sites
topoftheworld
Good one, D!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
So, topoftheworld
What did you think of the TVT idea?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Perhaps you are refering to these elements: "the believers power of attorney" and "the syncronized confession"? Of course, I could possibly be wrong about those being the particular elements in regard to the law of believing that you were refering to.
A while back I made the comment (post# 442 when I was talking about salvation) confession did not have to be a verbal confession, that it does not necessarily mean something that one needs to say out loud. Then from TNDC p.54 Mike posted: ... Just to say the name of Jesus Christ is not all that is necessary ...
Just to say the name of Jesus Christ as it is written in Romans 10:9,10 does not produce: "confession unto salvation" for anyone. Obviously there is more involved in "confession unto salvation" than merely someone saying the name of Jesus Christ. The word for "confess" in Romans 10:9 is the word: homologeo. This word does not necessarily have anything to do with someone "speaking." It simply means to speak the same thing, which does not mean or imply one should "speak out" (exomologeo) the same thing.
To understand more of what this confession entails, one must take a look at Matthew 10. Specifically look at v.32 - It says: "Whosoever therefore shall confess [homologeo] me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven." Salvation therefore does not just mean one must confess Jesus as our lord, but it also entails Jesus Christ's confession of us before the Father. Has Jesus Christ confessed you before the Father? I think that's a very good question to ask.
v.33 goes on: "But whosoever shall deny me before men (it does not say before God) him (that person) will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." The question therefore becomes, what did Jesus Christ confess before men? Did he go about confessing there is no God, that God does not heal, that praying is physchologically good only for the one who is praying - etc, etc, etc? If that is your confession, then exactly how does your confession line up (say the same thing) Jesus Christ's confession does?
Many people today confuse the "law-of-believing" as being synonomous with some non-existant "law-of-material-prosperity" they think Jesus Christ was talking about and proclaiming. Because of this they erroneously conclude there is no law of believing. Was it not Christ who said, "The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest? Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and tomorrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith?" (Luke 12:23-28)
I don't find that Jesus Christ was necessarily talking about having material wealth and physical abundance in those verses, yet he was accurate in defining exactly what "little faith" was - one having total confidence in the senses, confidence in some "law of material prosperity". Such confidence only leads one into bondage, not freedom. Did you know some of the richest people in the world today are also people who have some of the greatest fears? Their greatest fear being they may end up losing all their wealth! Of course they got a plan to prevent it from happening. They may not admit it to you or even want to admit it to themselves, but that is their greatest fear. It's one of the many reasons they're on the boob-tube selling you their "secrets-of-the-rich-and-famous" plan for only $9.95. They're even afraid people can't afford more than $10 or want to risk more than that to to purchase their lousy "get-rich-quick" scheme!
Scripture has something to say about being rich in this world but not being "rich toward God." There is a law of believing, however I just do not find it to be synonomous with this "law of material prosperity" so many people have misnomered as "the law of believing". Too many people unfortunately, both inside and outside TWI have put and placed all their confidence and "faith" in it instead. (It's getting too late to post more - just something to think more about later on. )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
What the Hey,
Yes!!!
I remember Dr (on a tape) bemoaning the misunderstanding some grads had that the abundant life meant “carloads of money.” It meant 9 manifestations mostly, and physical needs met afterwards, food/clothing/shelter/health.
Yes, several of the quotes I’ve repeated here are from the Power of Attorney chapter.
Yes, the Synchronized Confession chapter is some of Element #2’s expansion text.
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
******************************************************
dmiller,
You forgot to include doojable's 5th Element!
Here's the complete list with a little color highlighting:
1) Believing equals receiving.
2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession.
3) Turning our believing toward the promises of God, limiting ourselves to the “Available List.”
4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s.
5) Believing equals action
Now, how about that 6th Element to the law of believing?
That’s a tougher one, and one I think Dr only expanded upon in the Advanced Class.
Maybe there’s more in the books I’m presently unaware of.
Here’s the text with the 6th Element tucked away inside:
GMWD p. 18, 19
Verse 3 of Psalms 103 very plainly says, “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all [without exception] thy diseases.” Does God forgive your sins? Well then, does God heal you? He must or He is a liar; but God is no liar. People may then question, “Well, why doesn’t God heal everybody?” Healing for all is God’s will. But when we fail to rise up to our rightful and legal privileges, due to a variety of causes—the greatest cause being a negative society where people talk about, expect, and cope with negative things—we fail to be healed. To claim and manifest God’s healing we must believe on the positives of His Word, not the negatives of the world.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
In the Avanced Class this was called "Community Believing."
How many people remember the phrase "Community Believing?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
v.33 goes on: "But whosoever shall deny me before men (it does not say before God) him (that person) will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." The question therefore becomes, what did Jesus Christ confess before men? Did he go about confessing there is no God, that God does not heal, that praying is physchologically good only for the one who is praying - etc, etc, etc? If that is your confession, then exactly how does your confession line up (say the same thing) Jesus Christ's confession does?
STRAWMAN ALERT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharon
WordWolf it's obvious that you simply aren't believing enough,
get your needs and wants parallel, and then maybe Mike will get the
knowledge of most 8th graders.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Many people today confuse the "law-of-believing" as being synonomous with some non-existant "law-of-material-prosperity" they think Jesus Christ was talking about and proclaiming. Because of this they erroneously conclude there is no law of believing.
STRAWMAN ALERT
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I still think that this is all a misnomer. "law of believing" is an attempt to put into steps something that is a heart thing.
Some "left-brainer" tried to do a "right-brain" thing. wrong tool for the job.
More about this after the weekend.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
doojable,
It's even deeper than heart, it's spiritual.
Yes, laying out a law and it's Elements is steps, it's the first steps, the necessary first steps.
First step is we need to get a 5-senses understanding of the whole deal. This first step comes from physically reading the flesh realm materials that are the class texts.
THEN the next step is gaining the spiritual understanding after we’ve deeply familiarized (heart) ourselves with that 5-senses level. You correctly yearn for this spiritual heart level of understanding, but you can’t skip the necessary 5-senses level beginning step.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike,
The way you always attack, belittle and berate whenever one of your ideas is questioned...
The way you dodge, distract and avoid whenever one of your ideas is questioned...
Really makes me think that sometimes you're ashamed of your convictions...
If that's not the case then why don't you just answer the simple questions?
If that's not the case then why don't you help us out by showing us how you arrived there?
They're your Tenets and Truths, how can they ever become ours without understanding?
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
lol...he don't know what he believes i think
a sea of speculation
an ocean of doubt
lol...lol...lol....
he probably can't see what he's doing
he needs to seek professional help
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
If you approached me with a little respect I could return the favor. You don't though. From the start you come on to me every time with a razzing belittling attitude. I can match you in that, and I do a pretty good job. Take off your boxing gloves and I'll take off mine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
In reading more of your post above I see you wrote:
“It's kind of hard to COMPREHEND when the only answer we get back is ‘you don't understand because you haven't mastered the material like I have.’”
No! I’d re-word it thusly:
You don't understand because you aren’t NOW LOOKING AT the same material like I am.
My proof of this is your refusal to play that idiotic Game Show.
The posts show that you steadfastly refused to even look.
You want to understand only certain things, regarding your pet quirky quotes. I say to you TOUGH BEANS BUDDY! If you want to talk to me about it you must be polite enough to let me take the lead in the discussion.
I lay this stuff out in the sequence I CHOOSE and NOT YOU!
If you want me to someday explain to you quotes of your choosing, then you’re going to have to SOMETIMES be patient while I lay out the foundation for my answer. You’re going to have to pay attention to my foundation, and if I think you aren’t paying attention, I’ll just wait until I GET your attention before I move on from the foundational to the quote you have in mind.
This is not a press conference where you pepper me with the questions that you and your editor want for your news article. This is a SEQUENCE of small foundational messages that add up to a larger message. I’m not going to stop that sequence when it’s rolling on crucial ground just to satisfy your urge to pick at minutia to be used later in open and obvious smear campaigns.
Often I do, though, stop the sequence and answer a question, especially if the poster is civil and polite. You are not, sir.
Since you insist on playing the role of an impatient, imnpolite reporter at a news conference, basically trying to bust me with questions, I’ll play that game and call security, the Rhetorical Guard at my disposal, and dispose of you they will do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mike,
I have no boxing gloves on.
We don't even live on the same planet.
On the planet I live on, people engage in conversation to better understand each other.
On the planet you live on, people better accept what you say as the final word on the subject and if they don't, they get berated and belittled.
All I've ever done is ask you to explain your statements of "truth".
That's all and nothing more.
All you've ever done is belittle and berate me for asking... as if I should just accept them all because you said so.
If you were really interested in "teaching" us something, you'd "teach" us about these things.
Are you afraid that if people read these "truths" you've presented in the past that they won't take you seriously? If so... why?
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
If they're your beliefs then stand by them, don't be ashamed of them.
If you're not ashamed of them then why (just the latest example) did it take you so long, a few pages ago, just to admit that "yes, you still believe those statements to be true"?
Why couldn't you have just said "yes" in answer to the question?
It's not me that has boxing gloves on...
If you are truly interested in "teaching" us, in expanding our comprehension and knowledge concerning your message... then why not explain how you came to these conclusions?
Don't just dismiss us by saying that we can't know these things because we have not mastered PFAL like you have.
Show us how so that we might learn. You see, it's hard to take you seriously on any of your discussions concerning PFAL when you present ideas such as these as TRUTH:
"PFAL is 'God's Word reissued'."
This means "we don't need any versions of the Bible anymore, only PFAL."
"PFAL is the Word of God, that the Holy Spirit has provided us with His Word in written form in PFAL, and it (PFAL) carries all the authority of God Almighty."
"Christ is currently learning from PFAL and will be teaching from PFAL materials when he returns."
"Betraying Dr's revelations is betraying God."
"You just need to feed that Christ inside with the pure Word of PFAL."
"Studying PFAL will defeat death."
You cannot present these as God's TRUTH and expect us to buy into it without explaining.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey... who has the boxing gloves on?
Be careful my friend... people will begin to not take your message seriously if you keep up this behavior...
C'mon... just pick ONE TOPIC of your "TRUTHS" and explain it for us... help us understand... we want to understand...
Edited by Tom StrangeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
You wrote: “You cannot present these as God's TRUTH and expect us to buy into it without explaining.”
You’re right there.
The quotes you have (with bias) latched onto are not God’s truth.
God’s truth is presented to us grads in the written forms of PFAL.
There’s another quote you can use.
What I present here is MY message.
It’s what I see, to the best of my ability, we missed in PFAL.
What you have latched onto are often mere rhetorical peaks in huge tracts of texts in almost 5000 posts.
What I say here are the facts, the 5-senses facts, as I see them.
What is written in PFAL are the truths.
I frequently have dealt with the quotes you throw at me. You simply failed to see them and save them in your “Bust Mike” file. You failed to save the contexts from which those pet quotes came from, indicating to me that you are a sloppy reporter, and not worth my time. I’ve given you enough time. I will now turn my attention to other reporters here.
***********************************************************
***********************************************************
***********************************************************
***********************************************************
Doojable,
I see now that you actually ALSO came up with #7 Element, “need not greed” abbreviating the way you put it.
We can add that to the list.
***
So, did anyone remember “community believing” from the AC or elsewhere. That’s a bit of a complicated one. That can be bothersome, because truth is supposed to be simple. I hate to see complications arise where I don’t know how to get a handle on something.
It’s pretty hard to do anything about community believing if it’s negative.
I remember Jesus had a hard time with the community believing of his home town. And also, I think in Acts there was a place where community believing was high, and lots of miracles took place. In one place Jesus put unbelievers out of the room to get some work done.
Community believing needs to be taken into consideration, but how do you measure it? This is a tuffy.
***
So, the law of believing Element list now reads :
1) Believing equals receiving.
2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession.
3) Limiting our believing to the promises of God
4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s.
5) Believing equals action.
6) Consider community believing.
7) Need not greed.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
If I were to paste in here 3 past posts where I explained "PFAL is God's Word reissued" would you shut up and either follow along the sequence a little or leave?
Oh, yeah, BTW, it's also the case that some (I hope many!) of the facts I present in my message mesh nicely with Truths of God.
I do my best, and that's all we can do.
Instead of MY text being the topic of conversation, I want the PFAL text to be the topic.
See the difference?
My text.
PFAL text.
Two very different entities.
Got it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
In addition to my comments above Mike, I'd point out that you don't have the right or authority to speak to me or any other poster that way. I've never tried to limit your ability to post or be here.
You really don't own this space or this board... you only occupy it now and then... same as me and the others.
If you want a place where you can exclude me or anyone else that may have questions about your "theology" then perhaps you should look elsewhere... that's just not how it works here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom, you missed it here:
"2) I don't believe that it is within the board rules to tell someone to "shut up", at the very least it's not polite
3) Telling me to leave because I don't post the way "you want me to"? Mike, I think you're on thin ice here."
Sinced you're the thin ice judge, am I allowed to adjust my GreaseSpot settings to "Ignore" on your posts?
Would I be on thin ice if I put you on "Ignore" ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
*********************************************
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
Does anyone know of any more Elements to add to the list.
I'm almost sad to say that I do have another.
Sad in that this list of Elements to the law of believing is getting longer, AND some of it's entries are getting more complicated. This is a rather tall order to master, this law of believing. I'm feeling a little overwhelmed. Just a little, mind you. I mean, when I add this Eight Element it might jog other people’s memory of other Elements, and this list could get out of hand!
Maybe I shouldn’t ask for more suggestions to the list after all.
What do you think, Tom?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Sure.. you can do that... I just don't think you're allowed to "bully" people... (or try to)...
So when are you going to post the answer to why "PFAL is God's word reissued"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
I really think you started it long ago, when I first started posting.
In my opinion, YOU came on bullying me, so I returned the exercise, and it’s cycled for three years now.
You tell me you perceive me as combative against you.
Your perception is accurate.
I tell you that I perceive you as combative against me.
My perception is accurate.
***
Have you tried doing an advanced search on this board to answer your own question?
Try using the phrase “reissued” and maybe another spelling of it like “re-issued”
and then a change in tense with “reissue” and “re-issue” and tell me what you get.
You see, in those instances we have the context to tell us a lot.
I think I’ve discussed that one phrase family of “reissue” about a hundred times.
Why don’t we start there, in the record?
You do the search and come back with the results.
**************************************************************
**************************************************************
**************************************************************
**************************************************************
MEANWHILE,
I have disturbing news.
I have fond STILL ANOTHER Element to complicate this messy law of believing situation.
Oddly I found it in doojable’s post of a long past thread-page, many, many posts ago where she posted this:
doobjable Post #429 Feb 25, 2006
“My main objection to the "law of believing" way of thinking was that people began to think that God was just some puppet on a string that they could manipulate by getting needs and wants parallel and invoking the name of Jesus Christ. __ As I recall, TWI absolutely hated the phrase, ‘God is in Control.’”
I had promised to respond to this old post of doojables (and Ex10’s too) and that’s when I discovered this new element.
Yes, I remember abuses of the law of believing like that one you mention, dooj.
They certainly didn’t line up with the teaching we often heard of “giving God the glory.”
In fact, they were the opposite of it.
You recall a TVT accurately, where “TWI hated the phrase, ‘God is in Control.’”
That TVT is a distortion of the good doctrine taught in PFAL that when it comes to the manifestations, like SIT, we must not wait for God to move our lips, our throats, our tongues. We had our part and god had His part in the SIT matter. Other matters that ratio may vary, either way. But the TVTs got a hold of that good PFAL doctrine that there are some aspects in life where we must act, and other aspects where we should just allow God to act.
***
But I digress. I started out saying there is a new Element in here. Here it is: #9 Give God the glory.
I didn’t even mention Number 8, did I ?
Maybe it’s because I dread the added complication it brings.
Oh well, here goes: #8 The manifestation of faith/believing.
I don’t know much about the manifestation faith or if it’s called the manifestation of believing.
I need to read up on what PFAL has there.
I also need to look up where “giving God glory” comes up.
This is getting to be quite a job!
The list is easy, corralling all the text blocks that back up each Element in the list is a lot of work.
This could take weeks!
Anyway, here’s the list so far:
The Elements of the law of believing
1) Believing equals receiving.
2) Confession of belief yields receipt of confession.
3) Limiting our believing to the promises of God
4) Seeking to make our believing greater, like the centurion’s.
5) Believing equals action.
6) Consider community believing.
7) Need not greed.
8) Manifestation faith/believing.
9) Give God the glory.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites