Larry N Moore

Here http://www.truthablaze.com/conflict.html is one explanation. Take it for what it's worth. It sounds reasonable to me.

I accept your apology Shifra even though I'm tempted to educate you on how being called an Eeyore is not a reference to being "grumpy." But how can I possibly do that when you imply you love me just the same? :) Enuf said on this one.

Abi, it's possible that that was directed towards me. I suppose my last sentence (to which this response was in close proximity to) might have come across as a little bit lofty. I can see it being taken that way and perhaps WW was just trying to tell me I need to come off my "high-horse." Perhaps I was a little tacky in saying that.

Yes, there are always exception to the rule. God's grace didn't suddenly appear through Christianity. The history of the Jewish nation, as a whole, doesn't paint a pretty picture in relationship to other "Nations." That is a perception change I acquired from having these sort of discussions with people who don't believe in God at all. The "argument of evil" doesn't exactly depict God as a benevolent God even towards His chosen people. Yet, I still try to hang onto my perception that God is Just.

Thanks Abi. I'll give it some thought since I'm at a loss on how that would give rise to the Christian doctrine. Especially since the Jews don't believe that *the man called Jesus* was the Messiah. *Edited from originally saying "Christ."

Other than what it says in Genesis 3:15 I'm not aware of any promise given by God to redeem the "world." Here's part of my problem. There are many references (one could find) where Israel is specifically told to have no contact with the Gentiles. In fact many references can be cited where God tells the Israelites to . . . how to put this . . . commit genocide when it comes to the Gentiles. That doesn't exactly tell me that God had a very good opinion of them, much less promised to redeem them.

Abi, no one is disputing whether God created both the Jews and Gentiles. But was the promise of the Messiah given to the Gentiles, or only to Israelites? I'm a bit rusty on my OT. Can you tell me where in the OT it says anything about the Gentiles being "joint-heirs" (on equal status of the Jews) of God's promise to the Jews?

That's an excellent question Deciderator (and welcome to GS). One can say that Christian doctrine could arise from simply the Gospels. Even though the Gospels were written (according to some scholars) after Paul's Epistles. But the question is -- What is the Christian doctrine? Is it that Christ arose from the dead? The Gospels record that event. Is it that we have salvation through his resurrection? If the Gospels record that it's a bit vague and they don't exactly speak much of what that salvation entails. Nor does it specifically address the Gentiles equation. If Acts is to be believed -- in that it wasn't until about 10 years after the day of Pentecost before any of the Apostles even considered reaching out to the Gentiles -- then that in itself should inform someone that the concept of the Gentiles having equal access to the salvation obtained through Jesus wasn't known until it was revealed to Peter until much later. Well, hopefully (despite the fact that there are many other points to consider) this will be enuf to put on your plate for consideration.

Translation: I think you're right but, I'll NEVER publicly admit it.

Give it some thought. And while you're thinking of that re-read the thread from the beginning (in particular when I entered the foray) and considered who threw the first salvo (of insults) in my direction. Although I'm sure Shira wasn't being maliciously insulting when she referred to me as Eeeyore, nevertheless such an insult wasn't warranted when all I was doing was taking her up on her invitation to "Or argue with me, if you'd like." In my response you'll find NO insults hurled at her -- unless you consider my use of the word bizarre as insulting. Futhermore, I've seen and discussed (elsewhere) this exact same topic. It most certainly isn't anything "new." Maybe it is to her but, I'm quite certain she's been influenced by the writings of others on this subject. If she simply wants a pulpit to present her "theory" -- fine. But then she shouldn't have extended an invitation to "argue" with her. It's too late in the game to complain about those who accepted HER invitation and call them hateful for doing so.

*SIGH* How is it you can't see that you're doing what you're accusing others of doing?

BOO! ;)

Well, if you would have waited a bit I'm sure some fine soul would have done a MapQuest request and posted the direction for us. Of course we might be thought of as being too stupid to follow simple directions as well. ;)

:) Ain't it funny how we both discerned his insincere apology. We're just too stupid, I guess, to have known he was just poking fun at himself. It just "went over [our] head."

Well, at least the man didn't die like Ananias and Sapphira. Oops! I forgot -- Acts is supposed to be thrown out too because Luke testified that Paul was a man of God. My bad.

You'll find that one in the book of 1 Walmart. Can't remember which chapter and verse but maybe Sam can tell us (via a seance).

For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? I've seen so many people who have had their heads filled with the knowledge from such sources that they've only ended up losing their personal relationship with God. The goal of gaining knowledge is a fine one but, I would prefer to be ignorant if in gaining knowledge I lost my love for God and His son Jesus Christ and if through knowledge I eventually lost any enthusiasm for sharing that love with those who need it then God let me remain ignorant.

Methinks WW's use of the term rhetoric was probably applied with one of it's lesser known definitions -- insincere or grandiloquent language To say someone is being grandiloquence is not exactly paying the speaker or writer a compliment. Yet, I can see how someone (who has a lofty opinion of him/herself) would prefer the more complimentary definition. ;)

I find it a bit ironic that you can't see that you're doing exactly what you're accusing others of doing. Can't say I'm sorry for "raining on your parade." Next time think about bringing an umbrella. Good grief!

I'm aware of the point that you were making but, (from first hand experience) I know that accusing someone of a crime is not the same as evidence that they actually committed the crime. You prefaced your scenario with an IF. I would agree that IF they did what you accused them of you would have a point. But an IF doesn't amount to much. Documentation is more persuasive.

That's a big IF. I have a hard time giving much weight to IF's. Now IF you have proof that they knew the breaks were in need of being replaced and IF you have documentation that such a scenario (that you described) actually happened -- then I would say you have a point.

I understand that doojable. I once considered going into the Corp. In fact many expected me to back in the early seventies. I made the decision NOT to because I knew I could never do some of the things that would be expected of me. Some people thought I was making a mistake because they believed God was "calling" me to the Corp. I remember telling them that I just couldn't do it and if that bothered them then they would have to learn how to deal with it.

Actually we can evaluate what occurs when someone practices something whether it's something we should likewise do. Like I said -- I personally think people who climb mountains or do sky-diving or race nutty. I think it's too risky and wouldn't do it. People who climb mountains should know that some people who climb mountains have died doing so. Knowing that -- it's your choice and no one else's. If that means you won't get the "prize" then your ego might be bruised but, your life will be intact.

Then that would be equally stupid of you.

I appreciate that. Before you can blame anyone else you would have to know if anyone else asked or demanded that he do the evaluation WHILE driving the vehicle. If he was expected to do the evaluation by a certain time then itwas poor planning of HIS time. I remember when I went out WOW that I was told that I had to carry auto insurance or I would not be allowed to go. If I recall they (TWI) had it set up with a local insurance agent to process coverage needed. Now I had a choice to make -- Do I forget about going WOW or bite the bullet and pay for the insurance that they required before being permitted? I chose the latter. I never needed to make a claim but, as someone else pointed out -- shlt happens. It's easier to blame someone else for your own stupidity. No, I don't see why some of you insist that twi was responsible for what you choose to do. Fear of repercussions is no excuse for doing something which you believe is unsafe. I personally think anyone who puts their life and limb in jeopardy by climbing a mountain a bit nuts. But then, maybe if I climbed one I might have a different opinion. Sure it has substance. I can see that. But even a shorter post can have substance. I personally prefer using less words and hopefully can make a point that others can have no difficulty in seeing. They can always ask me to clarify something if they don't.