Larry N Moore

I believe ya. I'm not meaning to be hard on you and I don't mean to be offensive when I say -- you seem to be a bit naive about atheists -- what they think -- how they live their lives. Don't settle for the "boxed" version of atheism/atheists. Get to really know them. Accept them as they are, not as you would wish them to be.

Well, may I suggest you visit this board. It might broaden your perspective. Granted, you might find some "knock down, drag out brawls" even there but, I've seen worse at some Christian boards.

But I don't see how you would know that seeing as how you previously stated: Yeah I dont know many athiests. Perhaps you need to get out a bit more. It's a mistake (imo) to try to "box" an atheist into a neat, tidy little box of your own design until you actually spend some time with more than just a few. The Internet offers you that opportunity. Use it and learn.

I have a brother who is an alcoholic/drug addict. I've let him know that he's always welcomed at my home but his alcohol/drugs are not. It's very difficult (sometimes) to enjoy his company but, seeing as how he's choosing a life that might end it at anytime -- I don't want the last thing I remember (or him remembering) being -- he's not welcomed into my home and heart. I think you're making some wise decisions. You're not the one with the problem. From what you share it seems to me some of your family has problems. But -- bottom line your immediate family ALWAYS comes first.

Look, sky, your question is unanswerable. An atheist has a non-belief in the existence of God. Before they could address your question they would have to concede that God exists. Now you could ask a theist the same question and receive some interesting answers. For instance: A need for what? Salvation -- absolutely! To live a moral life? -- Absolutely not. I think you should spend some time on some atheist's boards. Listen to them and try to understand them. You might find you'll learn more about them and yourself then you might think possible.

Yummy! I didn't know you could barbecue biscuits. :) Thanks Ex10!

I'm sorry, dooj. I guess I just didn't understand the point you were making. Thank you! It's always a pleasure to have a part of my day spent "talking" with you.

I'm not sure you can stop from being hurt again. All you can do is determine how you're going to respond to it. Hmm . . . in your case I think if your "life is sucked out of (you)" then it's probably best that you do avoid them. You have a daughter to protect -- that will/should always be your first concern. If there's no other way to protect your daughter then how you've chosen to do so -- well -- that makes you a good parent. Don't feel guilty about that. Be proud. Do you have a plan on how to explain this to your daughter (if you haven't already)?

Fair enuf. I can live with that. Dooj, I was joking. Thanks, but I had my limit for the day. :)

Gosh darn it dooj! You must be one of those who believe -- the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. ;) Some people have a "need" to be accepted. That's what I mean by "popularity contest". You (not you personally) can accept me or reject me as I am. I'm not going to change who I am just to make you feel comfortable. I realized (from the start) that this topic was started out of frustration. It was obvious. Sometimes there's a time to keep still when someone speaks out of frustration -- sometimes it's time to address it. I think if everyone just agreed with Tonto (was it Tonto -- I forget) then perhaps she would feel anytime she feels the slightest bit frustrated -- then go ahead and "slam" whoever she's feeling frustrated with. Now maybe she'll give a little more time to consider how that might come off before she hits that "Add" topic button. It's all good! Peace!

A few years ago, my daughter (out of anger) had both myself and wife arrested on a charge of domestic violence. In this state, at least, the police have to arrest you whenever such a charge is made. So both myself and my wife were taken to jail (on a Friday evening) and were told if we couldn't post bond by 11:00 PM we would have to spend the weekend in jail. We managed to post bail. I can't imagine having to spend the weekend there. Anyways, when we got home and had a family "meeting" (minus my older daughter) the consensus of my family was to disown my older daughter -- their sibling. I got angry with them. Despite what she had done she was still my daughter and their sister. If they couldn't find it in their hearts to forgive her and welcome her back when she came to her senses -- fine -- but as long as I'm still the head of this household and she wants to come back I would welcome her with an open heart and open arms. She's back. I suppose everyone has to deal with things differently. I just happen to approach such things with the attitude of love. What does love tell me to do? Anyways, just thought I'd share that. Take it or leave it. :)

Dan, you make some good points. No doubt. I didn't mean to make a blanket statement that everyone who is a member of GS falls within one set. Like in any community there are subsets. Certainly there are some who, even though they have an aversion towards TWI, are able to accept those who don't. It's not that difficult to discern which subset (some members) of the set (total membership) are which. The only thing I might disagree with you about is: "I think you'd have to agree that there are some wonderful folks around here." I think they're all wonderful people. Just because I don't agree with their point of view doesn't make them bad people or (unwonderful -- not sure that's a word). So, I suppose, if it makes some people uncomfortable to be referred to as being part of a clique -- then I'll refrain from using the term again. It's okay with me if some want to label me as being part of the clique of "newbies". :)

That's a good question. I'm not sure I can give an equally good answer but, I would start with this passage from 1 Timothy 2, verse four. Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. This in itself should cause one pause when considering the Calvinist's doctrine. How can it be said that God's will is for all men to be saved and then possibly reconcile this verse with those which Calvinists believes supports the theology that God has selected/elected certain people to be saved and certain other people to damnation? Well, I believe the only way to reconcile it is by thinking of pre-ordination/predestination in terms of God's will. In other words -- salvation is available to all men because God pre-ordained it long before man ever makes the choice to align him/herself with God's will. In other words -- If it wasn't God's WILL for people to be saved no one could be saved. Let me put my thinking in terms of a simple analogy. Long, long ago God decided to throw a dinner party. That was His will. Having made that decision a party of just one isn't much of a party. So He sent out invitations to everyone in the world. Some responded to the invitation and others chose not to. So the party takes place. The only reason why the "guests" are there is because God preordained/predestinated that they should be. He sent them an invitation. No one was preordained/predestinated to go to "hell". That was their choice when they chose not to accept the dinner invitation. According to the doctrine I cited -- it implies that God sent invitations only to a select few. If that is true then the saying in John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. is not true. I think it's really more a case that those, who put forth such doctrine, must reconcile those difficult verses with the simple ones. I don't see where they have. Do you?

Don't worry about it sky. I'm sure God is capable of not letting it bother Him. After all -- God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son that whosoever . . . . I don't think He had Christians in mind when it's stated that He loves the world. :)

Well, good golly - it wouldn't be the first time. But you're certainly not helping me change my opinion any. :)

I don't WANT you to be anything. Just being yourself is fine by me. :)

Cman, people get so offended anytime someone happens to refer to a group of people as a clique. It's really not a negative connotation. Look at the definition I cited. Does it say anything about it being wrong. No. We all (well most of us are) members of one clique or another. I'm sure you all have various interests, views and purposes but here at GS you have one common bond -- a deep aversion towards TWI and that is your primary focus. Anyone who doesn't share that aversion is an outsider. Unfortunately, some people would like nothing better than to see us go away. At least that's the sense I get when I see topics such as this started. And it really is difficult to stay when you feel you're not really welcomed. I personally, never was much for popularity contests. If you like me fine. If you don't -- well I won't lose any sleep over it.

Yep. Sounds like a clique to me. :) Clique a narrow exclusive circle or group of persons; especially : one held together by common interests, views, or purposes.

I don't really think so Evan. Of course I may have been relying on questionable sources for acquiring knowledge on what the Calvinist doctrine happens to be.

:) Actually, I get your meaning quite well. I'm not sure someone else will though. ;)

:) Where some people see my sense of humor others see it as being "caustic". I suppose, even though I didn't say so, from my response to her you might have gathered what she actually was saying to me when I made my request. I figured if reminding her of what the scriptures said didn't change her mind nothing else would have. Oh well. Such is life.

Ya know -- I sure do wish I had a copy of Mrs. Wierwille's book. I remember writing to . . . can't remember what her name was . . . asking if I could purchase it. She wrote back to me saying essentially -- We don't sell such books to former members of TWI. I wrote back to her saying -- Yeah, but even the dogs eat the crumbs from the Master's table.

Oh and btw Dan -- even "your" God has limitations. That is, of course, if the concept of free-will is true. I suppose it just depends on whose theology you happen to agree with. Some Christians (I believe it's Calvinists) take free-will out of the equation. Think about it -- If God has predetermined that you will believe and others will not then there is no such thing as free-will. P.S. To add to the above -- If free-will does not exist then you can't judge someone who chooses not to believe in God. Such a person had no choice because God had preordained that such a man would not believe.

:) So, Mr. Squirrel, are you saying he actually at one time had more than one leadership qualification but sin led him to lose them? Which one qualification did he manage to maintain?