Larry N Moore

Well Abi, I understand your point. But I think the teaching wasn't that if we couldn't understand what they were saying it must be in our own inability to understand but rather if we couldn't understand what the Bible was saying the error might be in our understanding. That's why it was important to study the Word and make it our "own". Not that we were suppose to study the TWI material and make it our own. What I saw with many people is they studied the latter more than the former to master TWI material rather than mastering the Word itself. I suppose that's why I was considered such a rebel on so many occasions. :)

Is there no time in eternity? What is eternity other than an expression of unlimited time -- without beginning and without end. Naturally, we weren't there when everything started but won't we be around throughout a time without end? Using your example: I've been around for 52 yrs. One of my children have only been around for 30 of those years. So my child's time is the smaller circle within my larger circle. That doesn't mean I don't occupy his time only that he hasn't occupied my circle of time.

Thanks for the suggestion another spot.

Aw shucks sky -- it's just family sorting out things. We'll get through it and I imagine if WW and I had an opportunity to meet face to face over a beer (or whatever his favorite beverage is) we'd have a great time. :)

I can appreciate honesty. I can't say someone is honestly accurate in their reflections on what occurred in the past. The memory isn't always a reliable thing, especially when hurtful events occur. In any case -- I think anyone who was more interested in what the Word had to say instead of what VP or LCM or whoever said "This is what the Word says" would have been able to see that many things they were saying were not accurate. So many people became spell-bound by leaders that they just couldn't see the trees through the forest. I remember a time when I was driving with another believer to HQ (for Sunday night service) --- I asked him to go with me because I had sensed he was a bit nervous being with me. So during that long ride the conversation got around to why he was nervous around me. He essentially told me -- "Larry I know you're very knowledgeable about the Word and I'm afraid that I might say something wrong." I answered him: "If you're going to be impressed with me for anything, don't be impressed with me 'cause of the knowledge of the Word I have but rather be impressed with how much of the Word I apply. Knowledge puffs up but love edifies. Have I not been loving towards you?" He answered: "Very much so."

Well, that's where you and I differ. You're working from hindsight and I was working from foresight. I mentioned to quite a few (select) people back in my days that the ministry will fall. I saw the "handwriting on the wall." Some/many just couldn't see it. In fact I remember having one particular discussion with a leader about LCM and what I was seeing and her response to me was: "Larry, why can't I see what you see?" My answer was: "I don't know. Perhaps you're not ready to see it."

Hmm . . . I'm confused. In one quote you stated you "answered it as I understood it" while in the other you stated "but if I do". So tell me. How can you say you answered it and then say "if I do" answer it?

I must have missed that in the sea of words. :) The problem I have with this is the fact the Bible itself uses "THEREFORE" statements. So the trouble with that statement is -- it ignores those "THEREFORE" statements.

How is it you have enuf time to respond with this tit-for-tat but not enuf time to actually address my syllogism?

I agree with you. Not that that matters but, I thought I'd let you know. P.S. I think I might have mentioned (in a previous thread) earlier in my foray on GS that I held the pov that LCM was the wrong choice to take over as President of TWI. His arrogance was obvious to me even back then and what's the Word say about "pride goeth before a fall and a haughty spirit before destruction" or something like that?

:)

Well, I understand how you (not you personally) have come to the conclusion that PFAL doctrine is full of (if not entirely) errors. I don't have any beef with that. But you see, I think that when you (not you personally) attack others for believing a doctrine which is erroneous -- How is that any different than how you thought and acted when you were a member of TWI? As it's already been pointed out -- When you (not you personally) call people twit-heads and other such endearing terms -- why can't you see how people are just reacting to stimuli? I'm not saying it's right but -- that's some of what I see happening. No, I saw such attitudes in TWI and I suppose that's what surprises me when I see the comments made by some longstanding members here -- they really haven't left behind the mindset of some/many of those involved with TWI. It's still alive and thriving here at GS. That's just how I see it. I'm sure you see it differently.

WW I may have been born at night but, it wasn't last night. Your subtlety may fool others but your veiled insults directed towards me have not gone unnoticed. I made a post. You followed it by responding to a post I made days ago. I stated -- If it's all the same to you I prefer you address my last post. You followed that with another post ignoring my request and when I pointed that out you gave some excuse and said you would answer it when you had more time to consider it. Instead you continued to ignore it. 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'll remind you again -- you told me before that I don't have a right to expect people to stay on topic. You did so in a very condescending fashion. Now you're trying to imply that I'm not meeting your standard of discourse and attempting to bully me into complying with YOUR standard.

Translation: I can't answer your syllogism, so I'll bury it with a bunch of words. I'm cool with that.

:) And take you where? I don't think any of the "newbies" I've seen seem to have that agenda. It is, afterall, a discussion board and perhaps there's nothing more to their participation here than wanting to discuss the issues. Otoh - I may be mistaken but it seems to me the whole point of GS is to "rescue" either current members or former members of TWI from the error that was taught in TWI. So run that by me again: Who has the attitude of others needing to be rescued and I'm here for you?

Ahh yes! Commitment!!!! Full speed ahead and all that. You've got me thinking -- Do I love God because His power or knowledge is greater than mine or simply because His love gives me an example I can try to emulate? I don't recall being asked to emulate God with regards to His power or knowledge but, isn't there something about imitating Him with regards to love? So I guess the answer to my question is -- I love him because He loves unconditionally and without respect to persons. Something I can aim to do.

Good for you. I suppose that means that you could love Him even if that means that He might have predetermined that all of your children even before they were born would be damned to Hell. He just decided not to share that knowledge with you. No fair. I asked you a question earlier that has yet to be answered.

I understand Dan. Let me see if I can crack that particular nut a bit for you. Please try to listen with your heart instead of your head. In my opening post (and subsequent posts) I've spoke of only two theological attributes of God -- Omniscience and Omnipotence. There is a third -- Omnibenevolence. Now I can love a God that isn't Omniscient. I can even love a God that isn't Omnipotent but, I can't love a God that is not Omnibenevolent. In my mind the first two (as is commonly understood) negates the latter. So in order for me to believe in and to love God I have to, in all good conscience, jettison the first two. You see my friend -- If you need to believe in a God that's Omnipotent and Omniscient in order to love Him, I'm fine with that. The bottom line is we both want to love God. Whatever gets you to the place where your love of God is deepen -- I'm all for it. I can't imagine when we both meet God face to face that He'll look over at me and say: "Why didn't you believe that?" or look over at you and say: "Why did you believe that?" I think He'll look at us both and say: "You loved me well and that pleases me greatly."

Well, I certainly hope that doesn't mean you're going to slobber all over me if I rustle up some sources. I only take a shower on Saturday nights. :)

How I see you really doesn't matter. It's how you see yourself that matters. So, nevermind.

You left out ". . . with great eagerness." ;)

With all due respect Garth -- perhaps that's just because you need to get out a bit more. ;) I'll see if I can rustle up some scientists who subscribe to the ID pov who don't subscribe to the God pov. I'm sure I must have something in my files written about them. It might be a little difficult to locate them among the hundreds that I have on the subject.

Oh and btw WW -- in case anyone has any problem with my syllogism allow me to clarify it. 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?

That's always a possibility. As for myself I usually will see if there's any response to my last post before posting another one. But that's just me. At your leisure. I'm not going anywhere for at least awhile.

Actually Garth, I think you have that incorrect. The "scientists" that I'm aware of, are trying to "prove" intelligent design. Yes, they are (for the most part) religious but they don't necessarily point to God (as the Bible depicts Him) as being the Intelligent Designer. It very well good be "aliens" from another Universe.