Larry N Moore

ROTFLMAO!!!! Can't argue with you on that one. ;)

Fair enuf but, how do you account for all those people who have been healed? I'm just curious Bolshevik -- Do you believe in the existence of God?

:) Well, good luck with this one. Since I've already responded to your request after noting it the first time and you deciding to repeat it (I wonder if that fits WW's definition of spamming ;)) I'll pass here. I'm just curious though. Why don't you think this topic wouldn't be more appropo in the Doctrinal forum?

And the problem with that is what? :)

:) As insults go, that wasn't all that shabby. Don't hold back. Let it all hang out baby!!!

Well, let's be clear here. I really don't care what you call it. But if it's necessary for you to believe God can heal you before you get healed what would you call it? In any case, instead of an example of healing I think I'll give you an example of a miracle instead. I was riding my motorcycle home from work one evening when it began to downpour. There was two considerations that went through my mind. 1. I didn't want to get wet and 2. I knew the danger of riding on a slick road. So in my mind (with the "law" of believing) I claimed that it would stop raining. It didn't. But what did happen was it didn't rain on me and the road where my tires made contact was dry. (I've often wondered if someone, somewhere else was praying for it to rain and therefore that was the way God met my particular need). Now call it "law of believing" or whatever but one thing I know is I don't think it would have occurred if I didn't know it was available and how to receive it.

Waysider how many examples of times I've been healed do you require?

I don't understand what you mean. Can you elaborate on this?

For those lacking reading comprehension let me repeat what I ACTUALLY said: I didn't say I was setting a trap. What I said was -- What am I suppose to think (when he refuses to address my syllogism) but that he thinks it's a trap. If you can't see the difference then so be it. Eventually WW will have to address the post if he is in fact doing what he says he's doing -- responding to the posts in order. Personally I would prefer that he holds off responding to my earlier posts and address the one I asked him to but, I can see he's not going to do that. A discussion occurs when one person says something and another responds to it and then that person responds to that response and so forth. But at any time during a discussion it's NOT inappropriate for someone to say: Hey! Can you hold that thought and tell me what you think of this? That's how discussion go sometimes. And you know what -- he's told me so himself on a couple of occasions.

True, but if he speaks the words that Jesus said then it's Jesus that is doing the judging. Did Jesus refer to it as "the law of believing"? NO! But he did say it was a requirement. If believing is a requirement then I don't see how that's any different that saying it's a law. It's just semantics.

piffle! Look WW, I asked you politely: "If it's all the same to you . . . ." to address my latest post. You breezed right on by it and offered an excuse for why you didn't. Then you later said you had answered it and after that stated when you have time you might answer it and so on and so on and so. All of which was a discussion -- not a discussion on the subject per se but, nonetheless a discussion. So don't give me this line about you wanting to address the posts in order -- that's not true. Now I could take the time to dissect your post here and point out in detail what I think but that would be wasting my time and it most likely would be followed by another post from you not addressing the topic. And we could continue this game of tit-for-tat indefinitely (until one of us gets tired of it). Why don't you just address my syllogism and I promise you I'll only make one post in response to it and then you can continue on your merry way?

:) I've been trying to figure out how to make a link to a specific post. In the upper hand corner of each post is a number. The number is a link but instead of taking you to that specific post it takes you to the thread (or page) instead. On other boards that is not the case. If you can figure that one out I'll pat you on the back.

Well, waysider, I'm not a believer in a literal "Hell". But like you, I haven't studied the subject for awhile. I'll take a quick peek (in a bit) and see if I can find a reference. Matthew 5:22-23. That's one. :) Matthew 23:33 That's two. Revelations 20:13 That's three.

I suppose you could put it that way but, in doing so won't you have to ignore certain verses in the Bible -- like -- Matthew 9:29 Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you.? I mean if their "faith" had nothing to do with getting healed then why did Jesus make that statement?

If oldies is stating the Bible accurately I don't see how that makes him condemning anyone. The Bible says certain people will go to "Hell". If oldies cites what the reasons are determining who those people are how is that him personally condemning anyone? He's just stating what the Bible says and judges.

If you can't understand the difference between a discussion and someone getting up on a "soap-box" giving a sermon then we'll get nowhere. But since you'll fixated on going through the posts in order and replying to them (which doesn't allow much discussion) then I figure you'll eventually have to get to my posted syllogism. I'm just reminding you of them. Oh and btw -- Are you familiar with the time when Moses appointed overseers for the children of Israel? You should check it out and then re-read one of your latest posts. You might discover how your reasoning is faulty. Let's see. At this rate we should expect a discussion (or sermon) on my latest question by next month.

Premise 1: It takes God's power to regenerate a person's heart to come to Him. True or false? Premise 2: If you have come to God it is because God has regenerated your heart. True or false? Premise 3: If you have not come to God it is because God has not regenerated your heart. True or false? Conclusion: Therefore it is God who determines who comes to Him and who doesn't. Does the conclusion follow from the premises?

Premise 1: It takes God's power to regenerate a person's heart to come to Him. True or false? Premise 2: If you have come to God it is because God has regenerated your heart. True or false? Premise 3: If you have not come to God it is because God has not regenerated your heart. True or false? Conclusion: Therefore it is God who determines who comes to Him and who doesn't. Does the conclusion follow from the premises?

Occam's Razor - the principle that entities should not be multiplied needlessly; the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred.

Premise 1: It takes God's power to regenerate a person's heart to come to Him. True or false? Premise 2: If you have come to God it is because God has regenerated your heart. True or false? Premise 3: If you have not come to God it is because God has not regenerated your heart. True or false? Conclusion: Therefore it is God who determines who comes to Him and who doesn't. Does the conclusion follow from the premises?

Dear Rainbow, I think that's the point I was trying to make. I don't really think Jesus cares about whether we get the date of his birth correct. We've often heard others say: "It's the thought that counts." I'm quite confident that Jesus looks at it the same way. Oh, I don't know. Sharing isn't all that hard. Sharing with a humble heart is a bit more difficult for some. You wouldn't be among them though. Thank you my dear. You're a sparkling example of what it means to love people unconditionally.

Mr. Squirrel! I've missed ya.

Happy Birthday Jesus! P.S. If I got it wrong -- sorry. Just ask Doojable how easily I can get someone's birthday wrong. (Just don't ask her about biscuits and gravy -- they're already spoken for).

:) You should have been around when my brothers and I were talking things out. I sure do love those two!

You're right and your points are good. And if I appeared to be making a "blanket" statement I stand corrected.