Larry N Moore

Nothing...It will just make for a very short thread.

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

there are folks who have spent decades applying the "Law of Believing" and are being used as an example of healing, when they are obviously still sick. "The Law of Believing" simply separates a person's mind from reality. They believe they are healed, when they are obviously not.

edited for grammer

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?

I originally posted this in doctrinal but maybe it fits here better.

Personal anecdotes only, please.

Doctrinal debates about this topic can be addressed in the Doctrinal forum.

There is already a current thread for that purpose.

:) 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?

Gosh, thanks. But I fear if we continue in this trend we'll have to change the title of the thread to What do Larry and T-Bone Know? <_<

And the problem with that is what? :)

What a bunch of BS coming from someone who lacks basic comprehension of a poster saying “I’ll get back to that later.” ….And spare me the pseudo-intellectual reason “for discussion’s sake” when you exhibit the patience of a five year old and the attitude of a bar room brawler.

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

Can you illustrate how the "law of believing" was a causative factor?

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?

No, its just people's lives being engulfed in a fruitless endeavor to be healed.

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

Yeah – what Another Spot said - I feel the same way about your posts, WordWolf. Your posts never go unnoticed by me. I’m still mulling over the stuff you posted near the start of the thread…And I agree with your take on a certain poster setting up traps. It hits me as a tactic to belittle folks and control the thread – seems to be happening a lot around here lately.

For those lacking reading comprehension let me repeat what I ACTUALLY said:

Now what else am I suppose to think but that perhaps you know the implication of my syllogism and to answer it would trap you in a theology that makes you uncomfortable.

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.

You're not Jesus.

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.

Actually,

I've posted some things, and others have posted some things.

In some things, we've agreed, and in some we have not.

We call that "discussion."

Personally, I'd prefer more posting at the moment from the others, but I am responding

to what they posted, and they are responding to my posts.

We STILL call that "discussion."

If my posts-which ARE including the verses- are too long for your taste, sorry, you won't

find my posts to your taste. They ARE perfectly serviceable posts, and OTHERS are gaining benefits

from them. My posts ARE appreciated by others, and if you really cared about the topic, you

might receive benefits from them, especially since I answered a number of your questions.

As for you,

you've been a veritable one-note orchestra for several pages.

If that's not "soap-boxing", then nothing is.

If you don't understand that, then YOU'LL get nowhere in this discussion.

You'll waste the time of the posters, and gain little or nothing from what IS posted.

Actually, once or twice is "reminding."

The systematic reposting of the same thing over and over with no other posting is "spamming."

I had responded to you and said I WILL get back to you eventually, and you insisted on

repeating the question ad nauseum. That's not "reminding".

I've given this some thought, and I've made the following conclusion.

I actually was done with page 3, didn't see anything I needed to respond to on page 4,

and was thus next to approach page 5, and your original question.

So, I was GOING to address it DIRECTLY. (I've addressed its subject already, but not

phrased as a direct answer to you.)

However, I've considered, and I find the continual hectoring to be discouraged.

If I respond to what's acknowledged to be only there to be a TRAP, I don't give benefit to

the other posters. I MIGHT be able to teach you something.

However, at this point, I'd be rewarding you for poor manners, and I see no benefit for anyone

to do that. So, I will not be addressing your question after all.

That's a specific change of mind as the direct result of the poor manners you've evidenced the

past few pages. (In other words, if you had not been so persistent in rudeness, I WOULD have

addressed it, and have reconsidered DIRECTLY because you did so.)

I can't control your posts, neither of content, intent or style. I don't, however, have to ENCOURAGE

your posts or anyone elses, especially when I see poor behaviour. I don't wish to encourage it,

and you can't FORCE me to post to your satisfaction either.

I asked you nicely to exercise common courtesy. You refused.

You DEMANDED-repeatedly- I answer your question. I am NOW refusing.

You are free to throw a tantrum over it all you want. It's NOT going to benefit the other posters,

however, and they'll hardly welcome it.

If you want to make a SPECIFIC on Moses and the overseers, feel free.

If you're going to play coy, then feel free as well.

I'd address a SPECIFIC, but not grammar-school games.

(You are free to throw a tantrum over THAT as well.)

Actually, we WERE going to see a post on it (one post is not a discussion, posts from several people are a discussion)

on it within the last 24 hours. Now we won't be seeing one.

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?

(Hey I finally figured out how to make a link to another topic! (pats self on back))

:) 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.

Actually, Larry, I'm not so sure The Bible says "people" will go to hell.

It does talk about a special place being reserved for certain spirits, but not people.

I could be wrong.

I haven't looked at that matter for quite some time.

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.

Are those the only options?

Do you think it is possible to say, -----------

" I did not receive, (not because God and His Word are a lie or because of my unbelief or the unbelief of others), but, rather, because the so called "Law" of believing is unfounded and has no merit as an absolute law."?

You see, that way you are not blaming God or his Word or yourself or those whose "unbelief" foiled your results, you are putting the blame where it belongs.

You are putting it on the reality that this so-called "law" is a sham.

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?

Or you're condeming the sick for being sick and the dead for dying.

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.

Honestly, I'm currently under the impression that your SOLE REASON for participating

in what's OTHERWISE a nice discussion about God's Knowledge is to lay traps and see who

you can have fall in them.

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.

Your post "quoting" mine had nothing to do with my post.

I'm still proceeding forwards in the thread.

I've completed my review of page 3.

I don't address page 5 while addressing page 3.

I also am not eager to address anything someone intentionally introduced-

by their own admission-

specifically TO TRAP ME.

If you want me to address this question, you might try "patience" and "waiting until I get there."

It works GREAT for everyone else.

I even addressed one of your EARLIER questions just now.

If you asked because you CARED ABOUT THE ANSWER,

you might appreciate it.

If, however, you asked it only to "score points", then you might NOT appreciate it.

And you did it again.

Honestly, I'm currently under the impression that your SOLE REASON for participating

in what's OTHERWISE a nice discussion about God's Knowledge is to lay traps and see who

you can have fall in them.

Since your posts have COMPLETELY FIXATED on one ADMITTED trap for the past FEW PAGES

and tantrums that no one's fallen into it, I don't see any other LOGICAL conclusion.

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?

Continuing in I Samuel...

I Samuel 8:22.

"22The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to their voice and appoint them a king." So Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Go every man to his city."

I Samuel 9:15-17

15Now a day before Saul's coming, the LORD had revealed this to Samuel saying,

16"About this time tomorrow I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him to be prince over My people Israel; and he will deliver My people from the hand of the Philistines For I have regarded My people, because their cry has come to Me."

17When Samuel saw Saul, the LORD said to him, "Behold, the man of whom I spoke to you! This one shall rule over My people."

God has Samuel anoint Saul as king, then has the nation assemble for the announcement.

I Samuel 10:17-27

17Thereafter Samuel called the people together to the LORD at Mizpah;

18and he said to the sons of Israel, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'I brought Israel up from Egypt, and I delivered you from the hand of the Egyptians and from the power of all the kingdoms that were oppressing you.'

19"But you have today rejected your God, who delivers you from all your calamities and your distresses; yet you have said, 'No, but set a king over us!' Now therefore, present yourselves before the LORD by your tribes and by your clans."

20Thus Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel near, and the tribe of Benjamin was taken by lot.

21Then he brought the tribe of Benjamin near by its families, and the Matrite family was taken. And Saul the son of Kish was taken; but when they looked for him, he could not be found.

22Therefore they inquired further of the LORD, "Has the man come here yet?" So the LORD said, "Behold, he is hiding himself by the baggage."

23So they ran and took him from there, and when he stood among the people, he was taller than any of the people from his shoulders upward.

24Samuel said to all the people, "Do you see him whom the LORD has chosen? Surely there is no one like him among all the people " So all the people shouted and said, "Long live the king!"

25Then Samuel told the people the ordinances of the kingdom, and wrote them in the book and placed it before the LORD. And Samuel sent all the people away, each one to his house.

26Saul also went to his house at Gibeah; and the valiant men whose hearts God had touched went with him.

27But certain worthless men said, "How can this one deliver us?" And they despised him and did not bring him any present. But he kept silent.

God made it clear this was the best of the options they had chosen to limit themselves to.

And Saul was really tall, and looked like a king. Probably looked vigorous, a fighter-type.

We do know later they said he slew "thousands" and this went over, so I think he DID look the

fighting type.

Was Saul always giving WISE decisions? Well....

I Samuel 14:24-30

24Now the men of Israel were hard-pressed on that day, for Saul had put the people under oath, saying, "Cursed be the man who eats food before evening, and until I have avenged myself on my enemies." So none of the people tasted food.

25All the people of the land entered the forest, and there was honey on the ground.

26When the people entered the forest, behold, there was a flow of honey; but no man put his hand to his mouth, for the people feared the oath.

27But Jonathan had not heard when his father put the people under oath; therefore, he put out the end of the staff that was in his hand and dipped it in the honeycomb, and put his hand to his mouth, and his eyes brightened.

28Then one of the people said, "Your father strictly put the people under oath, saying, 'Cursed be the man who eats food today.'" And the people were weary.

29Then Jonathan said, "My father has troubled the land. See now, how my eyes have brightened because I tasted a little of this honey.

30"How much more, if only the people had eaten freely today of the spoil of their enemies which they found! For now the slaughter among the Philistines has not been great."

His own son knew that it was dramatic, but stupid, and hampered the people.

Fighting means you need food and sleep. Depriving soldiers of either is to hobble them in combat.

Let's skip over the incident with Amalek and Saul's disobedience in that one, and God selecting David as Saul's replacement.

I Samuel 17:1-

1Now the Philistines gathered their armies for battle; and they were gathered at Socoh which belongs to Judah, and they camped between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephes-dammim.

2Saul and the men of Israel were gathered and camped in the valley of Elah, and drew up in battle array to encounter the Philistines.

3The Philistines stood on the mountain on one side while Israel stood on the mountain on the other side, with the valley between them.

4Then a champion came out from the armies of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

5He had a bronze helmet on his head, and he was clothed with scale-armor which weighed five thousand shekels of bronze.

6He also had bronze greaves on his legs and a bronze javelin slung between his shoulders.

7The shaft of his spear was like a weaver's beam, and the head of his spear weighed six hundred shekels of iron; his shield-carrier also walked before him.

8He stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel and said to them, "Why do you come out to draw up in battle array? Am I not the Philistine and you servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves and let him come down to me.

9"If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will become your servants; but if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall become our servants and serve us."

10Again the Philistine said, "I defy the ranks of Israel this day; give me a man that we may fight together."

11When Saul and all Israel heard these words of the Philistine, they were dismayed and greatly afraid.

Now, Israel really needs a CHAMPION.

They need a really BIG guy, one who can GO FIGHT THEIR BATTLES.

Do they have such a guy? *coughSaulcough*

Well, Saul-who the people wanted SPECIFICALLY for this, was busy being afraid.

That's how David ended up getting tapped for the job.

I'll skip the details, you all know where to find them.

=========

Hm.

I skipped the verse where the original question was raised.

I Samuel 15:10-11

"10Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying,

11"I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands " And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all night."

Looks like we have to look over the Amalek incident after all.

I Samuel 15:1-11

1Then Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the LORD.

2"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.

3'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

4Then Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Telaim, 200,000 foot soldiers and 10,000 men of Judah.

5Saul came to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the valley.

6Saul said to the Kenites, "Go, depart, go down from among the Amalekites, so that I do not destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the sons of Israel when they came up from Egypt." So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.

7So Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as you go to Shur, which is east of Egypt.

8He captured Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

9But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed.

10Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying,

11"I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands " And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all night.

Saul made the deliberate decision to disobey God as soon as he found it convenient.

Then God said he regretted making Saul the king.

Did God know Saul would do this before making Saul king?

Yes- God even warned the people this would happen.

Did God regret making Saul king anyway?

Yes-He JUST said so right here.

Does this pose a problem? Not to God, nor to Scripture. Thus, if there IS a problem, it's in our UNDERSTANDING,

and we need to adjust our understanding to match Scripture.

God knew long before that this was coming, and He didn't like it.

He elected to allow the people their choice, stupid though it was, warned them-and they disregarded that,

and minimized the damage-by giving them the least-disastrous choice of king.

(ANY choice was bad, God found the least-bad.)

God STILL didn't have to LIKE any of that. Since He allowed people the chance to make their freewill decisions,

He put up with it ANYWAY.

Let's also not ignore the context....

I Samuel 15:10-12.

10Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel, saying,

11"I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me and has not carried out My commands " And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all night.

12Samuel rose early in the morning to meet Saul; and it was told Samuel, saying, "Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself, then turned and proceeded on down to Gilgal."

God, at the time, was telling Samuel that Samuel needed to confront Saul over his transgressions.

He began by telling Samuel that He regretted making Saul king.

(Didn't say He didn't see it coming- He just said He regretted it.)

God COULD have told Samuel, specifically, that this would be the incident that Samuel would need to deal with eventually-

if He wanted to show off. Instead, He lets Samuel (and Saul and the nation) to interact in a linear fashion like

everyone else. In doing so, He allowed them to interact and exercise their free will entirely.

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?

So what's *your* answer George? You believe the bible is hogwash, while at the same time offer no answers except the bible is hogwash.

What other alternative is there?

Consider these verses:

Now as a biblical student who believes the bible, I am confronted with these verses and believe them and communicate with folks that it is God's will they are healed, ... that Jesus made it available through his works and sacrifice.

It was even available before his sacrifice:

But the person, for whatever reason, after hearing the Word, is still sick.

That'd mean either the person is not believing or I am not believing or, God and his Word is a lie, no?

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

One question on the table then becomes,

"The Bible claims God has an infinite understanding and knows all things. (Omniscience.)

God has been said to regret decisions.

How can God regret a decision if He knew the result before making the decision?"

At this moment, we'll look at one such decision and examine the process.

I Samuel 8:1-9 (NASB except where noted otherwise)

1And it came about when Samuel was old that he appointed his sons judges over Israel.

2Now the name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judging in Beersheba.

3His sons, however, did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after dishonest gain and took bribes and perverted justice.

4Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah;

5and they said to him, "Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations."

6But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us " And Samuel prayed to the LORD.

7The LORD said to Samuel, "Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.

8"Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day--in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods--so they are doing to you also.

9"Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them."

Here's the setup.

God had set up the Judges (as seen in "the Book of Judges" and explained in the opening chapters) to lead the people and God would

be with the judge. When the people would forsake God, they would get themselves in trouble. Eventually, they would turn back to

God and ask for help. God helped by raising up a Judge, to lead them and stand for God to the people, delivering them.

As long as the Judge lived, he (or she) stood for God, and led the people, and things were fine.

After the Judge died, the people would forsake God, getting themselves in trouble....

This was a repeating pattern across the entire book.

In this cast was Samuel, a Judge appointed by God.

Two problems developed in this situation.

1) Samuel appointed judges on his own. I suppose he thought this made sense- after all, he raised them, and (presumably)

taught them about God, and justice, and they saw him make godly decisions for the good of the people.

Plus, they were his sons, and he'd want them to have good jobs.

Those are not bad reasons, in and of themselves.

However, for the position of Judge, God Almighty reserved EXCLUSIVE right to choose them.

They had a great deal of responsibility, and could make mistakes or grow corrupt, thus, God-who sees the hearts-

is the only proper selector.

That was the first problem.

2) The people were idiots.

The system had worked fine until the current guys. Instead of saying "the current officeholders suck- ask God for a REAL Judge

that won't suck", they said "We want to keep up with the Joneses. All the other countries have kings-

we want a king."

Samuel, naturally, saw this as big trouble, and went to God.

God reminded them that the people had rejected GOD as supreme ruler, and it wasn't really about Samuel.

After hundreds of years of God pulling them out of messes, they wanted this. (Idiots.)

HOWEVER, God was going to let them have what they wanted- a King in place of God Almighty-

so long as he was VERY CLEAR what the consequences were. The people were being TRENDY and had NO IDEA

what kind of messes they were going to get into.

So, God warned them FIRST.

10So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king.

11He said, "This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.

12"He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.

13"He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.

14"He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.

15"He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.

16"He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.

17"He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.

18"Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day."

19Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, "No, but there shall be a king over us,

20that we also may be like all the nations, that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles."

21Now after Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the LORD'S hearing.

--------------

God had Samuel let everybody know the CONSEQUENCES of having a king.

Unlike the current system, they'd end up WORKING FOR HIM, not him WORKING FOR THEM, which is what they wanted.

He'll take some of their property, and their people, and possessions.

And they'll realize too late that it was a stupid idea in the first place.

Which will be too late to fix anything.

The people blew all that off, and said "We want a king to rule us AND FIGHT OUR BATTLES."

So, Samuel tells God what they said. Of course, God knew all that, but Samuel had to report in anyway,

and find out what God said. God COULD have saved some time when Samuel walked in and said

"I know what they said-I'm God, remember? This is what you do..."

But He did not. Why? For Samuel's sake. I expect Samuel needed to get some of it out of his system.

Makes a lot more sense than God not knowing what the people said...

Was it God's Will that the people have a king?

No, God warned them WHY it was a Stupid Idea. However, they insisted.

God, at this point, can do several things.

He was going to honour His covenant, and not just abandon them, so that's off the table.

He COULD have overridden their decision, and selected a Judge, and announced

"Here's your Judge. Accept Him or I will smack you up and down the valley."

He COULD have reached out and overridden their free will, and MADE them accept another Judge.

He COULD have let them do their own election and pick whoever they wanted.

He COULD give them a king- the best of all the bad choices.

He chose to do the last of those options. It had the virtue of affording them less harm than the option

before it, and the other choices were unacceptable to Him.

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 (((((((((((((Larry N Moore)))))))))))))))))))),

Being totally precise in everything is not always as much of an issue as understanding it's actual significance. Some things are only partially known to mankind.

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.

Learning to share is hard hey?

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.

I Love You Larry N Moore, RainbowsGirl

Thank you my dear. You're a sparkling example of what it means to love people unconditionally.

I dunno.. with all the talk about babies, bathwater..

maybe some have let unqualified individuals define exactly what is the baby..

if it's brown and tubular in shape, whether it floats or not, it's not very likely to be a baby..

I don't think the "bathwater" is exactly bathwater, either..

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).

Thanks, Larry. You're a good guy. Sometime we just have to talk things out to clarify what is being said so that we aren't misunderstanding each other. :)

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

Well that might be what they were saying during your tenure with TWI. It may even be what VPW taught in PFAL (its been too long for me to really remember) but it was not what was taught or practiced during my time with TWI. We were taught obey, obey, obey your leadership!!! We were told the MOG certainly had a better understanding of "The Word" than any of us twiggies could ever possibly have - that he had forgotten more than we ever learned, etc. etc.

I did my time as a rebel in that regard too, for a time. Though I rebelled more in terms of what I saw as "practical error" than doctrinal error. As the kids came and the pressures increased within myself, my home, my fellowship, and TWI as a whole, I eventually stopped rebelling, stopped speaking up. I became desperate to keep my family intact and to protect my children, it all became very crazy, again, in my own mind, in my home, my fellowship, and TWI as a whole.

I say these things because I think it is very important to remember, as we interact here, that we all spent different time periods within TWI. That our experiences may be vastly different. I guess I think it is an inaccurate "blanket statement" to assume or infer that many of us were simply "spell-bound" by leadership. For many of us it was much more complicated than that.

There were issues regarding obeying spouses and how that was to be properly applied (which was about as clear as mud in TWI). There were issues regarding obeying leadership (which became so twisted and off the word!!!). There was fear of being marked and avoided and having your family ripped apart. Etc., etc.

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