I''m grateful to hear you don't hate me, and I do sense a willingness to communicate within you.
But you also have been a bit unnecessarily rough in times past. Not today, but I don’t have to look back far to see you accusing me of making me the subject, just like Tom just now did.
I’m glad you’re not doing it now and thank you.
***
I want to get back to the law of believing.
How do YOU feel about me using the law of gravity in an extended analogy to draw together many recent posts here?
*******
P.S. – I did post and run. It’s the nature of the game. Especially when nature calls.
Some of that “reminding” is inaccurate, like guilt-by-association.
Hopefully, if I sharpen my communication skills, I’ll only remind you of the good times.
But I’ve have been long aware of my scape-goat status. People who can’t lash out at vpw or lcm or some other leader can find me a convenient alternate audience for their lashings.
I’m still grateful I can intersperse their attacks with my message. I can always edit them out before the book version is published.
***
But let's get off the subject of me and back to the law of believing.
Has anyone tried to search this website for all the occurrences of this law under discussion? I may want to search my own posts over the last three years and do the subject up like I did the 22 "thus saith" statements. We've certainly discussed it many tens of times.
But I must not distract myself from the law of gravity analogy I’m cooking up. That has to come first, and THEN we can search GreaseSpot for past discussions. Anyone here know how well the search engines on this new software work? I’ve not had much good luck with them yet.
All I can say is you would make an interesting dinner guest. B)
But as you know, it's not polite discuss religion and politics when one is a guest. Southern rule. Somebody might pull a gun, and then we'd all be sorry for not behaving as we should.
One of my greatest WOW adventures was as a dinner guest at the house of the elders of a local church.
It went very well, and you just reminded me of it.
The next day they got wind of our affiliaton with TWI and they turned off immediately.
But it was a good free dinner and good conversation.
The True Word fits in well with any aspect of life, but we got sidetracked and distracted and hoodwinked away from that good stuff. I'm happy to say I attend a twig where it lives and I love it when it lives here too.
You do seem to make yourself the subject just like Tom has pointed out, Mike.
If you want to talk about believing or any other subject I'm up for it. But not a bunch of posts from other threads. Here and Now what to say from the heart which is where believing is rooted.
Or any other subject. And if they tend to make you the subject then I will be the subject also.
You wrote: "You do seem to make yourself the subject just like Tom has pointed out, Mike. __ If you want to talk about believing or any other subject I'm up for it. But not a bunch of posts from other threads. Here and Now what to say from the heart which is where believing is rooted. __ Or any other subject. And if they tend to make you the subject then I will be the subject also."
It seems to me that when some people here get uncomfortable with the material I post, but they have no cogent argument to counter my posts, then they attack me with anything they can get their hands on. The “it’s about Mike” charge is one of the most commonly used of these desperation measures.
How many other posters are monitored for supposedly strutting their self here? No one.
I do intend to respond to earlier posts on this thread, and since it’s raining now, today may be the day to do it.
CM, you too clean windows for living, don’t you? I forget.
It seems to me that when some people here get uncomfortable with the material I post, but they have no cogent argument to counter my posts, then they attack me with anything they can get their hands on. The “it’s about Mike” charge is one of the most commonly used of these desperation measures.
i'm not uncomfortable with it at all-bring it on
your 22 "thus saith"
is thus saith Victor Paul Wierwielle-so what
he is a man and not God
and when "it's about Mike" i'll be willing to talk about Mike and Myself
i am not desparate for to or in anything
and i got plenty of cogent replies
cogent \KOH-juhnt\, adjective:
Having the power to compel conviction; appealing to the mind or to reason; convincing
How many other posters are monitored for supposedly strutting their self here?
all of them by some
CM, you too clean windows for living, don’t you? I forget.
that's got nothing to do with anything here
if you are intertested in the spiritual let's get it on
I certainly don't hate you.. never have.. in fact I find you kind of amusing... arrogant and pompous... but amusing...
And I would never want to limit your ability to post here, it would deprive me and many others of one of our avenues of entertainment... I didn't mean to come across that way... but just because I 'threaten' to post the Mike Synopsis doesn't mean I'm trying to chase you away... and I apologize to you and any other posters if it came across that way...
It just means that sometimes I feel like you're in need of 'reining in' and I throw out that I'm going quote some of your posts because I know exactly how you'll respond... and then you do... it's like you're so fearful that by my posting your exact words people might discover something... I just do it as a service to your readers (but mostly for my own entertainment)... I'm sorry folks, it's a guilty pleasure of mine...
I do not personally attack you (as you have me (and many other posters on this board) back when I used to attempt to have serious/legitimate discussions with you)... I merely point out things and remind you of things that you've said in the past (like the 'Mike Synopsis')...
Why do you think that me posting the very things you've stated on these boards is 'attacking'? I don't mean it to be an attack... I just read all of things you say and comment on them once in a while... just like everybody else here...
You have your strong viewpoint, and that's fine... I have mine too
It’s an attack in the sense that the essence of your “reining in” is on my person and not on the material being currently discussed.
Your very selection of quotes from me, minus the context in which they originally appeared, testifies to your shying away of substantive discussion. Your selection of quotes is designed to distract rather than counter directly. Your selection demonstrates a lack of willingness on you part to really take part in a current discussion, because you resort to sensational quotes from a non-current discussion.
There were reasons why I originally said the few quirky things you have latched onto. There have been times here where I have deliberately thrown out a bone of a quirky comment as a magnet to those posters who are prone to use the tactics you use when you paste your thought lacking “Mike Synopsis.”
Sometimes these magnets have been not of the quirky variety but of the personal. For example, I might mention that I clean windows, and then sit back and watch who will resort to “reining me in” by insulting my career choice as a menial labor dead end, so “therefore” my choice of PFAL must be equally unwise.
When one of my magnets identifies a poster as lacking deep thought on the topic at hand, then I know I can relatively ignore that poster and concentrate on real communications with some others.
If I feared my own quotes then why would I continue posting my message in your face defying your challenges to “rein” me in with another paste-up job? When you resort to that tactic I write you off and so do the serious readers I am communicating with. With every paste-up you write yourself off as a serious player in this process with which we are engaged. There are some very deep things that get dealt with here, and if you really want to participate you’ll have to resist the lazy urge to paste.
I look forward to the day when I have the time to reconstruct the contexts in which my quirky remarks fit, and explain them. Until then they serve as moronic argument magnets and time savers for me. I have a huge agenda to attend to, and I place the items I regard as much more important at the top of the list.
See Mike... there you go... you are ever so predictable... but I will respond to a couple of things you said...
Sometimes these magnets have been not of the quirky variety but of the personal. For example, I might mention that I clean windows, and then sit back and watch who will resort to “reining me in” by insulting my career choice as a menial labor dead end, so “therefore” my choice of PFAL must be equally unwise.
Honestly Mike, I've never heard that from anyone here...
I look forward to the day when I have the time to reconstruct the contexts in which my quirky remarks fit, and explain them. Until then they serve as moronic argument magnets and time savers for me. I have a huge agenda to attend to, and I place the items I regard as much more important at the top of the list.
Mike, the quotes I present are good 'stand alone' quotes and their context doesn't change them... if you'd like to dismiss them as 'quirky' that's fine, doesn't bother me a bit... I and the other readers of these forums know that you presented them (at the time) in all earnestness just as you are now...
Thanks again for responding as you always do, in a condescending albeit much nicer manner... oh... and let's not forget name calling...
You're so predictable Mike, that's the only name I'll put on you... I won't stoop to your level... I've made no secret of the fact that from the beginning I just like "messing with you" because you're so fun to mess with... enjoy life bud... it's too short not to...
Well, Tom, I must admit that YOU are not so predictable. I didn't think we would get nearly this far in discussion.
***
The example I gave of window cleaning derision took place a bout three years ago, so maybe that's why you don't remember it. It was quickly squashed by a few posters who either were window cleaners themselves or who cited examples of genuine successes in that field.
There were other personal moron-magnets I threw out that were not squashed, but I'm not going to mention them now.
I have occasionally admitted to this tactic of mine all along over these years, yet it still works. I’ve also (only just recently) admitted that those posters who “mess” with me give me much more impetus than they could ever guess. Any adrenalin they raise in me is easily channeled by me into more focused concentration on my message and faster typing. I learned this in PFAL, where Dr talks about the stones in the brook that make it sing, and also by self direction resulting in converting a kick in the foot into a boost ahead.
That I can be open about these two strategies and still be able to implement them testifies to the extreme lack of reading comprehension and depth these most severe critics of mine suffer from.
***
But AGAIN the focus here is me and I want to return it to the law of believing. I may just turn off my browser and start writing to the past posts I find more interesting than these now.
Below are a string of posts earlier in this thread, slightly edited and abridged, to show a common string of similar ideas hidden with differing terminology.
I see a pattern here. The bold fonted portions indicate the presence of ELEMENTS, either alone or in sets. The law of believing is, most properly expressed, would be the set of ALL elements that go into the makeup of this law.
When a set of elements is deficient for a particular situation, it doesn’t mean the law failed, it means that THAT SET of elements composing that formulation of the law was deficient.
It will take time to find ALL the scattered elements of this law that are in written PFAL. When we have the whole set then we have all we need to deal with live and live a life that is truly more than abundant.
Here is that string of posts:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Raf Feb 22 2006, 11:38 AM Post #392
Confession of belief yields receipt of confession, right? Yeah, right. Not true. I believed I would get passed over for a promotion. I confessed that belief to others. I got the promotion. Either VPW was wrong, or I got someone else's job!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Mike Feb 22 2006, 11:51 AM Post #393
Raf, Think of the principles such as believing and confession as stated in the KJV, just to get away from PFAL for a second. I don’t think God put in the Bible principles like believing and confession so we can look back on incidents in our lives and make judgment calls. I don’t even think we CAN look back like that accurately. Those principles are for application. There are many factors to consider in the law of believing as stated in PFAL, and if we go by the simple abbreviated forms then sure we’ll see contradictions. Confession is more than making the sounds come out. It’s a heart thing.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Raf Feb 22 2006, 12:50 PM Post #394
Mike, In my heart, I knew I would not get the job. The principles laid out in the Bible are wonderful. Turning them into a "law" was error. I confessed with my mouth what I believed in my heart, and it did not come to pass. Instead of trying to figure out where the (nonexistent) law of believing failed (which it did), I'm busy praising and thanking God.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Mike Feb 22 2006, 01:08 PM Post #395
Raf, We're back to that word "law" again. If we look at that word in a human legal sense or in a Mosaic Law sense, then I'd agree that error is right around the corner. If we look at it like a scientific law or pattern, then it fits. There are many factors involved in "operating" such a pattern or law, but only a few that are within or grasp of fine tuning. I think the word "law" works well if you keep these things in mind.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Mike Feb 22 2006, 06:27 PM Post #405
Law of Gravity (simple form) : things fall. Contradiction: airplanes can resist falling. Law of Gravity (better form) : things experience a downward force, which may be counteracted by an upward force. Contradiction: in outer space things don’t experience a downward force. Law of Gravity (better still) : Things experience a force toward the center of the earth that fades fast with distance from the earth. hen complications into the picture, simple forms of a law must be reformulated. The simple forms are good for learning, though, and they work pretty well for many cases. The more complicated the situation, the more precise form of the law must be utilized. Oakspear is right, a law (when most precisely described) is unchanging with time, or independant of time. Another aspect of a law is that it is independent of the people involved; it works the same for all. Another aspect is that it’s independent of space; it works the same everywhere.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
markomalley Feb 22 2006, 06:53 PM Post #406
Mike, omething I posted a while back on another thread: QUOTE(markomalley @ Feb 6 2006, 11:18 PM)
Traditional Gravity Model: F1,2=G(m1m2)/r21,2 Where: G=6.6742±0.001×10-11 Nm2kg-2 m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects in kilograms r21,2 is the square of the distance between the two objects in meters2 and F1,2 is the attractive force between the two objects in Newtons. So what? (and yes, I realize that Newtonian gravity has been superceded by Unified Field Theory, but it's a lot easier to explain)This theory requires a bunch of values (the mass of the objects; the distance between the center of the objects) in order to determine the value of the force (gravity). And keep in mind that the constant "G" was not defined for 130 years after Newton published his work! You can't prove gravity without the two objects. You sure can't come up with the value of "G" without some precision measurement of the relationship between the two objects. There is an interesting analogy there if you care to examine it. Gravity is a force. If there is an opposing force that is greater than the force of gravity, something moves away from the heavier object. If there is an opposing force that is...
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
CM Feb 22 2006, 08:13 PM Post #407
i can fold a piece of paper a certain way and it will defy gravity when my force is behind it. apparently my force and air is greater then gravity. what would be greater then believing? a force that supersedes it something so powerful that it could not be denyed the old doctrine of you can't go farther then your believing limits man to man and his thoughts...
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Raf Feb 23 2006, 05:42 AM Post #408
The problem is, the more you try to re-describe the law of believing, the farther you get from Wierwille's definition. Wierwille's "law of believing" isn't oversimplified. It's flat out wrong, doesn't exist. I've come to the belief that what Wierwille describes is more of an aphorism or proverb than a law. The difference is with aphorisms, when it works, it works, and when it doesn't, it doesn't mean the laws of the universe have been violated. "Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it." This is not a "law." It often works exactly as presented. It often does not work. People are people. Believing equals receiving. Confession of belief yields receipt of confession. As you believe, you receive. These are good sayings. But they do not express a law.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
What The Hey Feb 23 2006, 01:30 PM Post #409
There is nothing wrong with VPW's definition regarding the law of believing. However there is much more to seriously consider than simply applying a single step formula of: "confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession" in regards to the practical application of this law. For example, Jesus commended the centurion in Matthew 8 for having "great faith" while on the other hand he rebuked others for having "little faith". It would appear then the answer to the practical application of the law of believing would lie in asking the question: What is it that separates someone from having "great faith" and someone from having "little faith"? When searching the scriptures on this topic, one finds there is much more to one having "great faith" than simply applying some "confession-of-belief" type formula. The more does not negate nor does it "re-describe" the law of believing however. A positive confession is certainly needed in the practical application to operate the law of believing, but then, that is not all that is needed. The main reason Jesus commended the centurion is...
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Raf Feb 23 2006, 01:42 PM Post #410
He says there's nothing wrong with the definition, then goes on to describe why it is inadequate. Point is, it's not a law. Simplicity is a beautiful thing. Haste makes waste. Often true. Not always. Not a law, but worth remembering. Same goes for VPW's aphorisms on believing. Often true. Not always. Not a law, but worth remembering.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Oakspear Feb 23 2006, 05:53 PM Post #413
If Wierwille's teachings were approached in this manner, I'd have less of a problem. Aside from Mike's claim of godbreathedness, Wierwille's "laws" were viewed as unassailable. For my money, "Believing = Receiving" is a good thing to consider, like "Look Before You Leap" and other aphorisms, but not something that will affect every aspect of my life.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
What The Hey Feb 24 2006, 10:03 AM Post #422
I can't imagine you understand salvation then any better than the law of believing since salvation is totally based on the simple aphorism: "confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession". (Romans 10:9,10) Likewise "senses-faith" individuals also tend to believe their salvation is something that is often true, but not always, not necessarily a law. The mistake you (and others) apparently are making is in thinking these so-called "aphorisms" are an end in themselves. 'Confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession' is merely a means to an end, it's not an end in itself. But this is were believing always starts, with a confession. It doesn't have to be a verbal confession (remember back in PFAL - VPW said when it came to confessing Romans 10:9,10 one didn't have to say it out loud) but one must always make the confession. This is the reason why believing is a law and it is always true.
We can start collecting elements right now, by picking them off the post string above. Later we can comb written PFAL for more elements, and collect a more complete set of them.
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 centurian’s.
***
Can anyone see any more elements of the “Law of Believing” scattered through that string of posts?
Now remember, each of these elements, as listed above, are pretty abbreviated forms corresponding to several paragraphs, pages, or even chapters as presented in written PFAL.
For each element above we need to find all it’s PFAL page references. In the process of doing that many more elements will be discovered, and their respective contexts too can be saved, along with their abbreviated slogan forms.
I suggest we do this: collect more elements of this law along with their page references and context.
I do this at home with a number of subjects I study within PFAL. My 22 “thus saith” statements are an example of this.
What I’m saying is that we all need to beef up our understanding of what is in written PFAL. We can collect a list of element abbreviations like the above list. Then in another place we can have the expanded full version of each element, containing page references, context passages, and possibly our own explanatory notes. This will help us master the mix of all the elements of the law of believing, and thus get a MUCH better handle on that law than our present partial collections of elements.
The reason we often mistakenly think the law of believing is failing us in a particular situation is because we fail to fully implement all the needed elements FOR THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION.
Either we don't know all of the needed elements, or we don't know how much of each to apply. Mastery of this skill of mixing the right ratios for each job demands a fluid working knowledge of all the elements.
***
I can think of one more element not yet on the above list.
It’s a element everyone has heard, and just the other day I saw a great presentation of it in written PFAL. I wrote down the page reference, but can anyone remember from their previous study of PFAL what is this very often repeated element to the law of believing in Dr’s teachings?
When I say it you’ll all remember it and many will kick themselves for not remembering it.
So how long should I wait to see if anyone has the answer?
Doojable, you said you studied PFAL extensively, can you name the missing element?
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
Mike
Ex10,
Thank you for noticing the TWI-like attitude in Tom's continual distraction of the discussion's issues and making the subject me.
I try my best to point to a message and not to myself.
There is a lot of hate out there that wants to silence me. It's an amazint thing that this hate comes from grads.
*******
CM,
I'd appreciate it if you too would leave off the personal attacks and get to the issues. You too do accuse me of making the issue me.
You DO seem to have a better ability to ALSO discuss things, and I am thankful for that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
what personal attack?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
----
added after he disappeared again-
o well - post and run Mike
but maybe you'll see that i'm not attacking you
nor is there any hatred from me to you
g'nite - talk soon i hope
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
I''m grateful to hear you don't hate me, and I do sense a willingness to communicate within you.
But you also have been a bit unnecessarily rough in times past. Not today, but I don’t have to look back far to see you accusing me of making me the subject, just like Tom just now did.
I’m glad you’re not doing it now and thank you.
***
I want to get back to the law of believing.
How do YOU feel about me using the law of gravity in an extended analogy to draw together many recent posts here?
*******
P.S. – I did post and run. It’s the nature of the game. Especially when nature calls.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
cm
Maybe that's why Mike is so important here. He reminds us of who we were and where we've been.
Ya know?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ex10,
Some of that “reminding” is inaccurate, like guilt-by-association.
Hopefully, if I sharpen my communication skills, I’ll only remind you of the good times.
But I’ve have been long aware of my scape-goat status. People who can’t lash out at vpw or lcm or some other leader can find me a convenient alternate audience for their lashings.
I’m still grateful I can intersperse their attacks with my message. I can always edit them out before the book version is published.
***
But let's get off the subject of me and back to the law of believing.
Has anyone tried to search this website for all the occurrences of this law under discussion? I may want to search my own posts over the last three years and do the subject up like I did the 22 "thus saith" statements. We've certainly discussed it many tens of times.
But I must not distract myself from the law of gravity analogy I’m cooking up. That has to come first, and THEN we can search GreaseSpot for past discussions. Anyone here know how well the search engines on this new software work? I’ve not had much good luck with them yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Mike,
All I can say is you would make an interesting dinner guest. B)
But as you know, it's not polite discuss religion and politics when one is a guest. Southern rule. Somebody might pull a gun, and then we'd all be sorry for not behaving as we should.
Edited by ex10Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
One of my greatest WOW adventures was as a dinner guest at the house of the elders of a local church.
It went very well, and you just reminded me of it.
The next day they got wind of our affiliaton with TWI and they turned off immediately.
But it was a good free dinner and good conversation.
The True Word fits in well with any aspect of life, but we got sidetracked and distracted and hoodwinked away from that good stuff. I'm happy to say I attend a twig where it lives and I love it when it lives here too.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
You do seem to make yourself the subject just like Tom has pointed out, Mike.
If you want to talk about believing or any other subject I'm up for it. But not a bunch of posts from other threads. Here and Now what to say from the heart which is where believing is rooted.
Or any other subject. And if they tend to make you the subject then I will be the subject also.
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
CM,
You wrote: "You do seem to make yourself the subject just like Tom has pointed out, Mike. __ If you want to talk about believing or any other subject I'm up for it. But not a bunch of posts from other threads. Here and Now what to say from the heart which is where believing is rooted. __ Or any other subject. And if they tend to make you the subject then I will be the subject also."
It seems to me that when some people here get uncomfortable with the material I post, but they have no cogent argument to counter my posts, then they attack me with anything they can get their hands on. The “it’s about Mike” charge is one of the most commonly used of these desperation measures.
How many other posters are monitored for supposedly strutting their self here? No one.
I do intend to respond to earlier posts on this thread, and since it’s raining now, today may be the day to do it.
CM, you too clean windows for living, don’t you? I forget.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
your 22 "thus saith"
is thus saith Victor Paul Wierwielle-so what
he is a man and not God
and when "it's about Mike" i'll be willing to talk about Mike and Myself
i am not desparate for to or in anything
and i got plenty of cogent replies
cogent \KOH-juhnt\, adjective:
Having the power to compel conviction; appealing to the mind or to reason; convincing
all of them by some
that's got nothing to do with anything here
if you are intertested in the spiritual let's get it on
and not waste time with things that sidetrack
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Did you notice anything slightly odd about the string of posts that followed Mark and my bringing up the law of gravity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
no
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
like what
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Mikey, Mikey, Mikey...
I certainly don't hate you.. never have.. in fact I find you kind of amusing... arrogant and pompous... but amusing...
And I would never want to limit your ability to post here, it would deprive me and many others of one of our avenues of entertainment... I didn't mean to come across that way... but just because I 'threaten' to post the Mike Synopsis doesn't mean I'm trying to chase you away... and I apologize to you and any other posters if it came across that way...
It just means that sometimes I feel like you're in need of 'reining in' and I throw out that I'm going quote some of your posts because I know exactly how you'll respond... and then you do... it's like you're so fearful that by my posting your exact words people might discover something... I just do it as a service to your readers (but mostly for my own entertainment)... I'm sorry folks, it's a guilty pleasure of mine...
I do not personally attack you (as you have me (and many other posters on this board) back when I used to attempt to have serious/legitimate discussions with you)... I merely point out things and remind you of things that you've said in the past (like the 'Mike Synopsis')...
Why do you think that me posting the very things you've stated on these boards is 'attacking'? I don't mean it to be an attack... I just read all of things you say and comment on them once in a while... just like everybody else here...
You have your strong viewpoint, and that's fine... I have mine too
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Tom,
It’s an attack in the sense that the essence of your “reining in” is on my person and not on the material being currently discussed.
Your very selection of quotes from me, minus the context in which they originally appeared, testifies to your shying away of substantive discussion. Your selection of quotes is designed to distract rather than counter directly. Your selection demonstrates a lack of willingness on you part to really take part in a current discussion, because you resort to sensational quotes from a non-current discussion.
There were reasons why I originally said the few quirky things you have latched onto. There have been times here where I have deliberately thrown out a bone of a quirky comment as a magnet to those posters who are prone to use the tactics you use when you paste your thought lacking “Mike Synopsis.”
Sometimes these magnets have been not of the quirky variety but of the personal. For example, I might mention that I clean windows, and then sit back and watch who will resort to “reining me in” by insulting my career choice as a menial labor dead end, so “therefore” my choice of PFAL must be equally unwise.
When one of my magnets identifies a poster as lacking deep thought on the topic at hand, then I know I can relatively ignore that poster and concentrate on real communications with some others.
If I feared my own quotes then why would I continue posting my message in your face defying your challenges to “rein” me in with another paste-up job? When you resort to that tactic I write you off and so do the serious readers I am communicating with. With every paste-up you write yourself off as a serious player in this process with which we are engaged. There are some very deep things that get dealt with here, and if you really want to participate you’ll have to resist the lazy urge to paste.
I look forward to the day when I have the time to reconstruct the contexts in which my quirky remarks fit, and explain them. Until then they serve as moronic argument magnets and time savers for me. I have a huge agenda to attend to, and I place the items I regard as much more important at the top of the list.
...such as the law of believing...
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
See Mike... there you go... you are ever so predictable... but I will respond to a couple of things you said...
Honestly Mike, I've never heard that from anyone here...Mike, the quotes I present are good 'stand alone' quotes and their context doesn't change them... if you'd like to dismiss them as 'quirky' that's fine, doesn't bother me a bit... I and the other readers of these forums know that you presented them (at the time) in all earnestness just as you are now...
Thanks again for responding as you always do, in a condescending albeit much nicer manner... oh... and let's not forget name calling...
You're so predictable Mike, that's the only name I'll put on you... I won't stoop to your level... I've made no secret of the fact that from the beginning I just like "messing with you" because you're so fun to mess with... enjoy life bud... it's too short not to...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, Tom, I must admit that YOU are not so predictable. I didn't think we would get nearly this far in discussion.
***
The example I gave of window cleaning derision took place a bout three years ago, so maybe that's why you don't remember it. It was quickly squashed by a few posters who either were window cleaners themselves or who cited examples of genuine successes in that field.
There were other personal moron-magnets I threw out that were not squashed, but I'm not going to mention them now.
I have occasionally admitted to this tactic of mine all along over these years, yet it still works. I’ve also (only just recently) admitted that those posters who “mess” with me give me much more impetus than they could ever guess. Any adrenalin they raise in me is easily channeled by me into more focused concentration on my message and faster typing. I learned this in PFAL, where Dr talks about the stones in the brook that make it sing, and also by self direction resulting in converting a kick in the foot into a boost ahead.
That I can be open about these two strategies and still be able to implement them testifies to the extreme lack of reading comprehension and depth these most severe critics of mine suffer from.
***
But AGAIN the focus here is me and I want to return it to the law of believing. I may just turn off my browser and start writing to the past posts I find more interesting than these now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
...and so it goes... always taking shots... yep... predictable...
Carry on with the plan of the day Mike...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Below are a string of posts earlier in this thread, slightly edited and abridged, to show a common string of similar ideas hidden with differing terminology.
I see a pattern here. The bold fonted portions indicate the presence of ELEMENTS, either alone or in sets. The law of believing is, most properly expressed, would be the set of ALL elements that go into the makeup of this law.
When a set of elements is deficient for a particular situation, it doesn’t mean the law failed, it means that THAT SET of elements composing that formulation of the law was deficient.
It will take time to find ALL the scattered elements of this law that are in written PFAL. When we have the whole set then we have all we need to deal with live and live a life that is truly more than abundant.
Here is that string of posts:
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Raf Feb 22 2006, 11:38 AM Post #392
Confession of belief yields receipt of confession, right? Yeah, right. Not true. I believed I would get passed over for a promotion. I confessed that belief to others. I got the promotion. Either VPW was wrong, or I got someone else's job!
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Mike Feb 22 2006, 11:51 AM Post #393
Raf, Think of the principles such as believing and confession as stated in the KJV, just to get away from PFAL for a second. I don’t think God put in the Bible principles like believing and confession so we can look back on incidents in our lives and make judgment calls. I don’t even think we CAN look back like that accurately. Those principles are for application. There are many factors to consider in the law of believing as stated in PFAL, and if we go by the simple abbreviated forms then sure we’ll see contradictions. Confession is more than making the sounds come out. It’s a heart thing.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Raf Feb 22 2006, 12:50 PM Post #394
Mike, In my heart, I knew I would not get the job. The principles laid out in the Bible are wonderful. Turning them into a "law" was error. I confessed with my mouth what I believed in my heart, and it did not come to pass. Instead of trying to figure out where the (nonexistent) law of believing failed (which it did), I'm busy praising and thanking God.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Mike Feb 22 2006, 01:08 PM Post #395
Raf, We're back to that word "law" again. If we look at that word in a human legal sense or in a Mosaic Law sense, then I'd agree that error is right around the corner. If we look at it like a scientific law or pattern, then it fits. There are many factors involved in "operating" such a pattern or law, but only a few that are within or grasp of fine tuning. I think the word "law" works well if you keep these things in mind.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Mike Feb 22 2006, 06:27 PM Post #405
Law of Gravity (simple form) : things fall. Contradiction: airplanes can resist falling. Law of Gravity (better form) : things experience a downward force, which may be counteracted by an upward force. Contradiction: in outer space things don’t experience a downward force. Law of Gravity (better still) : Things experience a force toward the center of the earth that fades fast with distance from the earth. hen complications into the picture, simple forms of a law must be reformulated. The simple forms are good for learning, though, and they work pretty well for many cases. The more complicated the situation, the more precise form of the law must be utilized. Oakspear is right, a law (when most precisely described) is unchanging with time, or independant of time. Another aspect of a law is that it is independent of the people involved; it works the same for all. Another aspect is that it’s independent of space; it works the same everywhere.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
markomalley Feb 22 2006, 06:53 PM Post #406
Mike, omething I posted a while back on another thread: QUOTE(markomalley @ Feb 6 2006, 11:18 PM)
Traditional Gravity Model: F1,2=G(m1m2)/r21,2 Where: G=6.6742±0.001×10-11 Nm2kg-2 m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects in kilograms r21,2 is the square of the distance between the two objects in meters2 and F1,2 is the attractive force between the two objects in Newtons. So what? (and yes, I realize that Newtonian gravity has been superceded by Unified Field Theory, but it's a lot easier to explain)This theory requires a bunch of values (the mass of the objects; the distance between the center of the objects) in order to determine the value of the force (gravity). And keep in mind that the constant "G" was not defined for 130 years after Newton published his work! You can't prove gravity without the two objects. You sure can't come up with the value of "G" without some precision measurement of the relationship between the two objects. There is an interesting analogy there if you care to examine it. Gravity is a force. If there is an opposing force that is greater than the force of gravity, something moves away from the heavier object. If there is an opposing force that is...
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
CM Feb 22 2006, 08:13 PM Post #407
i can fold a piece of paper a certain way and it will defy gravity when my force is behind it. apparently my force and air is greater then gravity. what would be greater then believing? a force that supersedes it something so powerful that it could not be denyed the old doctrine of you can't go farther then your believing limits man to man and his thoughts...
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Raf Feb 23 2006, 05:42 AM Post #408
The problem is, the more you try to re-describe the law of believing, the farther you get from Wierwille's definition. Wierwille's "law of believing" isn't oversimplified. It's flat out wrong, doesn't exist. I've come to the belief that what Wierwille describes is more of an aphorism or proverb than a law. The difference is with aphorisms, when it works, it works, and when it doesn't, it doesn't mean the laws of the universe have been violated. "Train up a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it." This is not a "law." It often works exactly as presented. It often does not work. People are people. Believing equals receiving. Confession of belief yields receipt of confession. As you believe, you receive. These are good sayings. But they do not express a law.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
What The Hey Feb 23 2006, 01:30 PM Post #409
There is nothing wrong with VPW's definition regarding the law of believing. However there is much more to seriously consider than simply applying a single step formula of: "confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession" in regards to the practical application of this law. For example, Jesus commended the centurion in Matthew 8 for having "great faith" while on the other hand he rebuked others for having "little faith". It would appear then the answer to the practical application of the law of believing would lie in asking the question: What is it that separates someone from having "great faith" and someone from having "little faith"? When searching the scriptures on this topic, one finds there is much more to one having "great faith" than simply applying some "confession-of-belief" type formula. The more does not negate nor does it "re-describe" the law of believing however. A positive confession is certainly needed in the practical application to operate the law of believing, but then, that is not all that is needed. The main reason Jesus commended the centurion is...
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Raf Feb 23 2006, 01:42 PM Post #410
He says there's nothing wrong with the definition, then goes on to describe why it is inadequate. Point is, it's not a law. Simplicity is a beautiful thing. Haste makes waste. Often true. Not always. Not a law, but worth remembering. Same goes for VPW's aphorisms on believing. Often true. Not always. Not a law, but worth remembering.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Oakspear Feb 23 2006, 05:53 PM Post #413
If Wierwille's teachings were approached in this manner, I'd have less of a problem. Aside from Mike's claim of godbreathedness, Wierwille's "laws" were viewed as unassailable. For my money, "Believing = Receiving" is a good thing to consider, like "Look Before You Leap" and other aphorisms, but not something that will affect every aspect of my life.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
What The Hey Feb 24 2006, 10:03 AM Post #422
I can't imagine you understand salvation then any better than the law of believing since salvation is totally based on the simple aphorism: "confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession". (Romans 10:9,10) Likewise "senses-faith" individuals also tend to believe their salvation is something that is often true, but not always, not necessarily a law. The mistake you (and others) apparently are making is in thinking these so-called "aphorisms" are an end in themselves. 'Confession-of-belief-equals-receipt-of-confession' is merely a means to an end, it's not an end in itself. But this is were believing always starts, with a confession. It doesn't have to be a verbal confession (remember back in PFAL - VPW said when it came to confessing Romans 10:9,10 one didn't have to say it out loud) but one must always make the confession. This is the reason why believing is a law and it is always true.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Let the word twisting begin!
How far we have moved from the simplicity that is in Christ.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I agree that we are far from that simplicity.
Error is complicated.
When we DO get back to the truth it will be simple.
Right now I'm UNTWISTING to allow the complications to fall to the ground.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
We can start collecting elements right now, by picking them off the post string above. Later we can comb written PFAL for more elements, and collect a more complete set of them.
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 centurian’s.
***
Can anyone see any more elements of the “Law of Believing” scattered through that string of posts?
Now remember, each of these elements, as listed above, are pretty abbreviated forms corresponding to several paragraphs, pages, or even chapters as presented in written PFAL.
For each element above we need to find all it’s PFAL page references. In the process of doing that many more elements will be discovered, and their respective contexts too can be saved, along with their abbreviated slogan forms.
I suggest we do this: collect more elements of this law along with their page references and context.
I do this at home with a number of subjects I study within PFAL. My 22 “thus saith” statements are an example of this.
What I’m saying is that we all need to beef up our understanding of what is in written PFAL. We can collect a list of element abbreviations like the above list. Then in another place we can have the expanded full version of each element, containing page references, context passages, and possibly our own explanatory notes. This will help us master the mix of all the elements of the law of believing, and thus get a MUCH better handle on that law than our present partial collections of elements.
The reason we often mistakenly think the law of believing is failing us in a particular situation is because we fail to fully implement all the needed elements FOR THAT PARTICULAR SITUATION.
Either we don't know all of the needed elements, or we don't know how much of each to apply. Mastery of this skill of mixing the right ratios for each job demands a fluid working knowledge of all the elements.
***
I can think of one more element not yet on the above list.
It’s a element everyone has heard, and just the other day I saw a great presentation of it in written PFAL. I wrote down the page reference, but can anyone remember from their previous study of PFAL what is this very often repeated element to the law of believing in Dr’s teachings?
When I say it you’ll all remember it and many will kick themselves for not remembering it.
So how long should I wait to see if anyone has the answer?
Doojable, you said you studied PFAL extensively, can you name the missing element?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites