Larry N Moore

He took me to task for being rather obtuse myself, and he happened to be right.

I'm always right! Of course there was that one time when I thought I was wrong -- but I was wrong about that -- I was right then also. ;)

The guy who authored Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon, caused people to worship other gods and sacrifice their living babies to these false gods. People who want to continue to read and learn from these texts are stupid?

Oh let's not stop there Oldies. Many people think it's stupid to believe in a God who on many occasions commanded Israel to commit genocide. Who required (allegedly)a man to sacrifice his own son to prove a point. Or made a deal with the Devil just to prove how faithful a man (Job) was. "Yeah Satan -- go ahead and kill Job's children. Go ahead and take away from him all that I've blessed him with. I'll prove to you that even then the dude will love me." Some people think it's worse than being stupid to believe in such a God -- it's immoral. So they say.

<snip>

My. You have some real issues. I don't expect you to believe me. That's not a requirement when one decides to participate in the Doctrinal forum. Obviously you have a very difficult time having someone disagree with your idea of what God is and what He's capable of doing. If I'm not mistaken -- isn't that part of what you people complain about -- the TWI mindset -- not being able to think for yourself but rather being required to think just like me me me.

And now you want to insult Dan. Shame on you.

1Sam 15:11: I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not carried out My commands.

Well, if God knew that Saul was going to "turned back from following Me" why would He make him king? And why have regret for doing so when He knew beforehand what Saul was going to do? Doesn't make sense to me -- but that's just me.

Yup!

Initially I didn't. (But) --I think I mighta-kinda-mentioned in a previous post,

that it was a welcome thing when I received it!!

Actually dmiller what you said was:

Gladly received at the time and put it in a picture frame (under glass).

Obviously at the time you received it you didn't think it was to be used as toilet paper. It was a memento. A memento such as this is something you normally wish to display. "gladly" receiving it only describes an attitude. I can gladly receive toilet paper but if I don't know what to do with it after I got I'll still have a lot of shlt covering my anus.

Your reply is revealing also. ;)

:) Now that might be interesting to know "How so?"

Hey there Larry, thanks for answering. :)

I'll answer the question first.

I still have that little strip of film. It's in a picture frame (under glass) along with two pieces of dove down (from one of the doves that docvic released), that ending up landing on his shoulder back at at AC 79, along with an unused ticket for TAKIT when they played in Minneapolis on Friday March 27, 1979.

<snip>

Well, there you have it. Contrary to what you previously stated . . . .

"B.) Didn't know what to do with it after I got it;"

. . . . apparently you did know what to do with it.

Thanks for your reply. :)

<snip>

I left HDQ and my husband. They were both sick, twisted, sad, dark souls. He and TWI told all kinds of lies about me when I left.

After I left HDQ I also got in trouble when I took 3 couples to see CM at Emporia. <snip>

I'm a little confused. After all that happened to you and your attitude towards leadership why on earth would you want to take someone to see CM at Emporia?

OK, we are indeed posting at the same time. Just read your reply, and thank you. I was beginning to lose faith in you! Give you up as "not ready" or something!

On the positive side, then. You feel that Jesus taught that believing was a "law"? That is, like the law of gravity. Was Jesus teaching his disciples "keys to the more abundant life" that he came to give?

Dan, it might be a case that Oldies just had other things to do but I checked to see if he responded to this post and I don't see where he had. Now, I may be wrong but -- If you were to speak to me in such a condescending tone I wouldn't respond to you either. What do I mean by condescending?

I was beginning to lose faith in you! Give you up as "not ready" or something!

What is Oldies to you -- a project?

Yeah, ok Larry, whatever.

You worship a small god with limitations.

Good for you.

My theological position on the nature/attributes of God in no way diminishes His greatness. Nor does your theological position increase it. God is not great because of what we think He should be able to do or should know but rather, He's great because of what He has done and knows.

When I consider the nature of God's knowledge I think of it in terms of our own, only magnified a trillion squared. I believe it's that great knowledge which makes it possible to predict future events with possibly 99.999999999 % accuracy. Think of in terms of meteorologists -- the technology and knowledge (at their disposal) has increased to such a degree that their weather predictions are far more accurate than it was decades or centuries ago. God's knowledge of the conditions favorable to a thunderstorm are so astronomical that when He forecasts what the weather will be like years in advance there is very, very, very, very little chance that He would be wrong. And another thing I consider is -- Scientists are working on ways to control the weather -- one such experiment is making rain -- I believe that's already been accomplished in a laboratory. Now since God knows everything about weather conditions -- what causes it to rain; what causes tornadoes etc., etc., etc. I don't see why -- like a master scientist -- He would not be able to control weather which to our eyes and understanding would be defined as a miracle. Think about the nature of the human body to heal itself. God knows everything there is to know about how that's accomplished. Think of a simple cut. What is the body doing when the flesh is slashed? Special cells go into action with the goal of healing that part of your body. With that knowledge I don't see why He can't manipulate the process at -- say the speed of light and to our eyes and understanding we would consider it a miracle.

I don't think our knowledge will ever come close to the knowledge God has and that's only part of what makes Him God. Perhaps when we can speak into being a Universe and make a human being we might think of ourselves as godlike but even then only our God made it possible -- because He created us -- we didn't create Him.

speaking of the Book of Job...

some scholars say that the "happy ending" of the Book of Job was an add-on...

and that Job simply died after "realizing the nature of God" and such

just sayin

And some scholars believe Job never existed. Just sayin. :)

The greatest fear of any parent is that something horrible will happen to their children. It is NOT something that causes these things to happen.

That's true. Every parent at one time or another entertains thoughts about something bad happening to their children. But not every parent is obsessed with such thoughts. I suppose it might have been coincidental that the woman mentioned in PFAL just so happened to have a fear that her son would get run over by a car and lo and behold that's what happened. I suppose if the child had died another way VP would have had to find another example to make his point. Afterall -- it wouldn't have fit in very well if the child died in some other fashion.

Fair enough, Larry, and thanks, I think! But I think you just did.

:P

No, Dan -- I only responded to your admonition for me to skip your post. I kept my mouth shut on what followed after that admonition. :)

Maybe we should make it easy, if God doesn't have foreknowledge, if he's not omnipotent, omniscient, let's just say the obvious,

there is no God.

Well, that's a conclusion that doesn't follow from the premises. The logical conclusion one should draw from the premises is -- God isn't necessarily what people tell us He is or what we think He is. And just because God has limitations doesn't make Him less of a God worthy of worship and praise.

Larry, skip over this post!

:) I wouldn't think of doing such a thing. I just won't respond to it.

Well, it IS rather humorous that you can't keep your word.

I am laughing my arse off over here. You're just mad that WordWolf called you on it and continuing to make it even more hilarious the more you continue.

That's nice. I've always felt that if you can't educate someone you might as well entertain them. Obviously you fall into the second group.

Are you a student of WordWolf? You have my sympathy.

:eusa_clap:

:jump:

Oh, but I see now why you might find it difficult to admit your mistake. It would disappoint your cheering section in the pews. ;)

If you want.

So far, we're at 1 promise not to respond if we post about Juedes,

and 2 posts responding to not responding if we post about Juedes.

Sheesh! And you have the audacity to call your self WordWolf! One thing is certain -- you have the ability to obscure what someone actually says with your wordiness.

Dude -- a simple acknowledgment that you did indeed mis-read what I said would suffice. I know it might be difficult to admit but trust me on this -- you'll get over it. :)

Subtle? Perhaps but, let's see how well you can spot the contradiction in his post. Shall I give you a clue? I think not.

I'm all ears. Enlighten me --- please! ;)

(P.S. -- post if you wish, or not as you wish.)

I won't be back here until (perhaps) 8 PM tomorrow evening.

A small thing called my *Day job*. ;)

Oh for you dmiller I'll give you a clue. What did you DO with the film strip after you received it?

Although your analogy wasn't all that bad you left out one important ingredient. The five keys taught in PFAL didn't pertain to receiving just anything -- it specifically addressed what we needed to know in order to receive anything FROM God. In other words -- it pertains to what's available FROM God -- not man or an organization.

Btw -- I have one of those "Afternoon" jobs. So I won't be here a 8 PM tomorrow evening. ;)

I read you fine.

You said if anyone besides Juedes responded, there's little point because you won't read it.

"let him speak for himself. Even though I know I can't stop you from doing so I'll tell you now -- it will be wasted on me 'cause I won't bother responding to it."

My response of

"If we let whether or not you're willing to listen limit our posting, it would get pretty quiet on threads you post on around here."

reflected an understanding of what you wrote,

thus, no re-reading is necessary.

Neither was rephrasing necessary, I understood you the first time.

I'm sure you think so but, obviously you couldn't have because you've changed what I actually said into what you THOUGHT I said.

Shall we continue this little game?

I've been told that this could, and I do mean Could be something that I might call a good time.

But, I have also been told that sharks don't care much about what they "Eat". And yet again...I have also been told that I'm a finicky little shark.

Hmmmmmm.....Make you wonder, don't it? :unsure:

Not really. ;)

Oh yeah, the devil is the author of death (no such Scripture).

Hebrews 2:14 I don't recall it being taught that the Devil was the "author" of death but I do remember the teaching that he had the "power" of death.

If we let whether or not you're willing to listen limit our posting, it would get pretty quiet on threads you post on around here.

And the problem with that is what? :)

WW -- re-read what I said. I specifically stated I couldn't stop you from defending John if that's what you want to do. But if you're going to respond to the questions I asked John don't expect me to address your response. My questions weren't directed towards you.

Well, John, here is where you've gotten it wrong. I accept your freedom to criticize VP's plagerism, etc., etc., etc. I don't "buy" it all. I do, however, think that you fail to give him any credit for anything and therefore can't help thinking that you're not entirely objective or honest. Just my opinion, mind you. I imagine you think VP was from the Devil... and therefore if he did anything worth praise, in a sense you might feel you're praising the Devil.

Paul gives qualifications for overseers/ deacons/ church leaders, and knows that many will not meet them and will not be fit to be church leaders. But he doesn't say that you must give credit to the ones who fail to meet the qualifications. It's real simple. If they don't qualify, don't credit them as being fit for leadership, and don't look up to them as leaders and teachers. I never said he was from the devil, but VPW certainly was unfit.

In the same way, Jesus (and several parts of the Bible) note that there are false prophets. Jesus says to them, "depart from me I never knew you." He doesn't say, "let me give credit to you for the good you've done." Men qualify to be looked up to and respected as overseers/ teachers/ prophets/ etc- or they don't. One or the other, ("pregnant or not"). It's plain VPW didn't qualify as early as 1957, and never did thereafter. Literally thousands of people would have avoided a great deal of emptional pain and spiritual trouble if they'd have recognized 50 years ago that he didn't/doesn't qualify and if they'd have looked to qualified teachers instead. He still doesn't qualify, and as a result, his books don't belong on the shelf.

Thanks, John, for your response. When I have more time to refresh my mind of what the scriptures say and of what you say on your website I'll get back to you. In the meanwhile could you address a few questions for me? You say on your website:

"I do believe God has given me a ministry to help people who have been harmed by TWI."

What scriptural support can you offer that suggests that God gives such a ministry to individuals? And how did God communicate to you that He was giving you such a ministry? And at what time did you believe you had such a ministry -- before or after you took the PFAL class?

* It would be nice if those of you who feel compelled to defend John to just this once -- let him speak for himself. Even though I know I can't stop you from doing so I'll tell you now -- it will be wasted on me 'cause I won't bother responding to it.

I never said they shouldn't count. Ever.

Well, for each "witness" you call forward I imagine I could find one from TWI that says otherwise. So where's that leave us? Stalemated.

This "prefer to call them unreliable and deceived" thing didn't come from my posts.

So, are you now stating that any current member of TWI might be a reliable source for truth? And are you now stating that any member or former member who rejects your claims isn't in a state of self-deception?

But, hey, if you're better able to handle reading my posts by changing their content, well, that's your business.

I can only work with the hand I'm dealt. Maybe you should consider giving up the job of dealing. Especially if you're going to deal from the bottom of the deck. :)

dmiller, I think the subtlety eludes most here.....

After reading Abi's post it's difficult to follow it up with this crap but what the heck. You re-opened the door.

Subtle? Perhaps but, let's see how well you can spot the contradiction in his post. Shall I give you a clue? I think not. :)