Larry N Moore

. . . . want to discuss religious beliefs? I can understand why you may want to talk about your non-belief but on specific doctrinal issues -- such as whether there were two or four others crucified with Christ or whether Peter denied him three or six times -- what is your interest in such matters?

Abi's post (immediately following yours) touches upon my reason for asking. I would imagine, like myself and others, you have discovered on many occasions that what you believed turned out to be false. Did it really change much in the way you lived your life? Probably not. Ya know. I don't think I'll ever understand why every doctrinal/theological discussion found on GS always seems to be about what TWI taught. It doesn't matter what they taught -- what matters is what people believe is true. If I believed the Bible says there was six denials I don't have to reference what TWI says in order to discuss it. Another "Let's bash TWI!" feeding frenzy bores me. Somehow I thought the topic was about the accuracy of the Word as it relates to three or six denials. Do carry on and pardon my intrusion.

Not at all. To your own self be true. I think if anything religious people should grow a thicker skin. They can always revert to the theological stance where Jesus stated they would be persecuted and just accept it. ;) Sure. If you're interested I could steer you towards some fine atheists who know how to say it better. Nothing wrong with passion. I wish I had some of it myself. :) Make sure you check out the links given on the page. :)

Well, I suppose if that's what you believe -- that's what you believe. Would it matter if what you believe wasn't true?

Well, at least you recognize some of your comments were inflammatory. I don't see any reason why you should recant having said them, especially if you're just being honest with yourself and those who question you. Nor do I see where Out There should have deleted the contents of his posts. Both are just opinions. Stimulating conversation is always welcomed -- at least for me. That's probably why I've spent most of my time on atheist's boards. Not that you can't get them on theist's boards but my experience on them has usually been that theists will try to get atheists banned when they don't know how to counter their arguments. Now you make sure you study that manual I gave you real hard. ;)

Did you get your manual in the mail yet? Make sure you study it diligently (to be approved before your fellow atheists). :) I'm just curious Seth. Why did you feel compelled to announce your "coming out of the closet" on GS? Were you looking for support or an argument or both?

Your response continues to remind me of someone else. It's exactly how that person was known to answer a question. Enjoy!

Jean, oftentimes when I'm at work (I work from 4 to midnight) and taking a break I'll come here to just read through some of the responses and consider them. Something you said in your last post just stuck in my mind. For years I have pretty much thought along this line. What difference does any of it really make? I had come to the conclusion long ago, that (for me) it makes no difference at all. And even if it were to make a difference to someone else, then God will have to open the eyes of their understanding through someone besides myself. I'm retired.

Maybe it was your sense of humor. Oh well. Btw -- What do you think of the selection of emotes available here? Perhaps you can bring a few of your own selection on board if you like. It might be worth grabbing a few of them.

I would prefer that you break it down for me. My "blinders" may still be on. :) I respect that Abi. I speculate quite a bit myself. My views have "evolved" quite a bit since I left TWI. In fact I could easily say I learned more since my departure.

I certainly hope that no one has made the mistaken notion that I believe atheists or agnostics are immoral because they happen to be atheists and/or agnostics. That notion is down-right silly. Gandi, made one of the most profoundest statements I've ever heard: "I might be persuaded to become a Christian if it wasn't for the way Christians behave."

Well, Abi, if Christ has ascended into heaven unless he's capable of being in two places at the same time I'd say he would have to return to earth. If, as you say, it's about a personal appearance to individuals then I know of very few that have made that claim. And therefore they are unable to purify themselves even as he is pure. But you know what -- Some have claimed to have seen Elvis flipping hamburgers somewhere. ;)

If someone doesn't say it's wrong what would prevent me from murdering you? I don't think you'll like that very much, would ya?

Since I believe (have faith) that he will return before the great tribulation this question has no relevance for me. However, perhaps someone else that believes we (Christians) will still be here at the time of the tribulation might have their faith suffer. I guess we'll just have to wait and see -- assuming the great tribulation happens anytime soon. I'm 52 yrs old and not getting younger.

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.." Seems pretty self-explanatory to me. Context.

Run that by me again. How are the two translations saying two different things? Breaking it down: Everyone who has what? This expectation. What expectation? The return of the Christ. Everyone who has what? This expectation in Him. His promise to return. As a result of this expectation or this expectation in him everyone purifies themselves even as he is pure.

Dmiller you've touched on the point that I was making. This is a moral issue. The key here is: He was CONVINCED by others. They were able to chip away at his moral integrity by rationalizing that people are going to drink anyways. Does that mean because people are going to drink anyways that I (personally) should contribute to their drinking? Let me use another example. Let's say a televangelist is making money by willfully preaching something he believes is false. Does it matter that people are going to believe false doctrine anyways. Why shouldn't the televangelist make a buck off of the fact that if it's not him teaching the false doctrine someone else will? And if you, as a the station owner knows that what the televangelist is preaching is false doctrine should you ignore it because if you don't provide him with an outlet someone else will? No, I don't know that and neither do you. But what the hey. If you think there's nothing immoral about doing it -- go for it. I simply disagree.

Hmm . . . Welcome to GS. Have we met somewhere else? I've read your posts in the political forum and your style has a familiar ring to them.

Well, when you post on a public discussion board what you're going to do you make it anyone's business. That's why it's called a discussion board. I really don't care what she does, especially when what she does is not in my power to influence.

Dooj, this thread is about saugage and gravey. I want my biscuits, damn it! ;)

Good for you. You could always donate the proceeds to a worthy charity. <snip> That's never been in question. Will you give them a refund if they ask? Actually, I think it could be said that he plagiarized that saying as well. But I wouldn't want to encourage anyone. ;) Sounds like a mission.

No, John, we can't assume that. I could assume that the current leaders think you're not worth the effort but, lacking evidence it would be nothing more than assumption.

Oh heck. I like just about any song they wrote. Imo they were musical geniuses.

Paw, that won't be necessary. Are you coming to breakfast in the morning? I hear someone is going to be cooking up a good batch of biscuits covered in the best gravy in the U.S. of A. Yummy!