Larry N Moore

I'm quite certain I'll "get over it" (like to keep my comments on topic) but, you clearly called John a liar. If you get your "panties in a twist" whenever you perceive someone is calling you a liar then as far as I'm concerned you should know how that feels and should (as a Christian) refrain from stooping down to their level. And when you don't and call into question someone being a "true" Christian because you think they are lying then it's reasonable to question your being a Christian when you accuse someone of lying when you can't prove they are. Shall be both "get over" this? Should we? :)

Rascal, you may not see it as such but, whenever someone questions whether I'm a "true" Christian I consider that a personal attack. Questioning doctrines is fair game -- but questioning whether someone is a Christian or calling them a liar is not. I'm quite certain you don't appreciate it when someone calls you a liar so, why should you be given a pass when you call someone else one?

Well, I appreciate you taking the time to share it with me.

Well, I suppose a case can be made that VP must have lived a godly life since so many people want to persecute him. I'm thinking of a verse where Paul (speaking to the Corinthians) says something about "leading about a sister". If I recall it had something to do with them suggesting that he might be doing something inappropriate with the "sisters". Here is where I might disagree with you. As far as I'm concerned the only qualification one needs to be considered a "Real Christian" is to believe God raised Jesus from the dead and confess that Jesus is Lord of life (eternal life -- for through him is the door to that life). Nevertheless, I agree that a Christian should walk the talk, but I don't hold it against him/her if they don't. I'll leave it up to God to sort out the chaff from the wheat. I'm not qualified. Exactly! So I don't think we need to resort to personal attacks and questioning another about whether they are a "true" Christian.

I can agree that we all change -- I think the Bible says something about returning to dust. So that's a change. I can't agree that dust is eternal, otherwise it would never change from one thing to another. And I can't say that no matter what form it's in that it will always exist. I don't have that kind of knowledge.

Well, rascal, if it was just my opinion alone I would say you have a point. Did I mention that my opinion is based on the conversations I've had with uncountable people who hold the same opinion? Rascal, I'm not trying to instill confidence you, nor do I care about your pov concerning my status of a Christian. I could easily say your behavior here doesn't speak highly of or demonstrate that you are a Christian but, that would be silly of me. Being a Christain, imo, isn't a matter of what you do -- it's a matter of what you believe. If it was the former, I dare say that many of us could not claim to be a Christian and Ghandi's remark that if it wasn't for the behavior of Christians, Christianity would be a marvelous religion would have a lot of truth in it.

That would be your opinion, of course. Mine is different and is based on the conversations I've had with uncountable people. I (and I believe many others did) witnessed to others because we loved God and His word and wanted to share it with others.

Well, you may be an exception to the rule. But for myself and many others I imagine the opposite is true. Why else would so many have spent so much of their time witnessing to others if they didn't feel that they were enlightened and "tasted the good word of God?"

I don't see why my point is one that someone should take offense to. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; As I understand the above verse we are not only to continue in the things we have learned but, to remember where we learned them from. If you've been enlightened and tasted the "good word of God" then what's so hard about acknowledging and giving credit to the source of your enlightenment? Does the above verse come from PFAL or does it come from the Bible?

Of course I've heard different interpretations of this section but, I wonder -- For the vast majority of members of GS (maybe yourself included) if the place of having been "enlightened" and "tasted the goodness of the word of God" happened to have been at the dinner table of TWI. If not --- then where did these things take place?

Oh, I don't know – I kinda like Paul's perspective on it when he said: And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. Maybe he had Jesus' words in mind when he was inspired to write that: I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. I personally, often think of what Gamaliel said: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. I wouldn't want to be standing before the throne of God having to explain to Him why I fought against His work. Would you? There was a time (I must confess) when I bought into the notion that God was working exclusively through TWI. I've come to realize that God is not bound by our silly notions.

Well, I can never claim absolute certainty. John may surprise even me. Then I suppose God will have to raise up others to spread the Gospel. He's done it in the past, so it's not exactly as if He doesn't have the experience or know-how to do so.

I recently purchased the same CD. Always been a fan of the Eagles and both of those songs happen to be my favorite as well. I remember a time when Joe Walsh was in the Jame's Gang band. I saw them play in Akron and have liked him every since then. Right now I'm listening to Dan Fogelberg -- Run for the Roses -- never did understand the point of that song but always liked how it sounded.

That's always a possibility. Ready enuf to have someone share tidbits from a private correspondence but not ready enuf to do so themselves. Who was it that said: "You have nothing to fear but fear itself"?<snip> John has informed those people what they can do. If they're really that interested, why waste time waiting for John to respond here? Even to an uninterested party it's obvious that there's a 99% chance that John will not respond to this thread.

I followed Paw's advice also and you're correct -- JAL last visit was in 2005. His first was in 2004 for a total of two visits. I'm still digesting BOTH of those posts and will comment on them at a later time but, my initial impression thus far is -- John will never respond to this thread.

I'm not sure I understand your question but, if you're trying to say that we are eternal I would have to say the only part of us that fits that criteria is the spirit from God planted in us -- which we can't see. Our physical bodies are obviously not eternal. Yet, I don't think even spirit is necessarily eternal without God energizing it. The angels are said to be spirit and those that have fallen are slated for destruction. How can something which is eternal be destroyed?

I always find it odd that some anonymous person gives someone else permission to "share" what (even a bit) was said in a private correspondence. It seems this anonymous person could just as easily post this info themselves. Second-hand info isn't admissible in a court of law -- I don't see why it should be admissible in the court of public opinion either. But I suppose that's why mags like the National Enquirer sell so well.

My recollection (remember it's been about twenty years) is that it seemed to be a form of brainwashing. I also remember my friend speaking of how they "broke" him down in the seminar he sat through.

I'm still waiting (patiently) for you or someone to post a link to where John (or Jeff) participated on Greasespot and involved the whole community in their issue. Posting a letter written by John does not constitute personal participation. If I'm not mistaken someone else posted that letter that was written to members of CES.

You are wrong on both accounts.

In comparison to Eagle's book $8.00 is rather cheap. Somebody should warn others of people like him, right? Or you can check out Billy Graham's books here or here or here. Oh, I imagine there's plenty in the Bible that warns of people just like yourself as well. I know -- I've seen it.

Kinda makes you wonder how a person can get anything else accurate when they can't even get the title of a book correct.

I already did point out. The fact that you can't see it is not my problem.

If I were to make a guess at it I would say it has something to do with the Bible taking the place of the absent Christ. Seeing as how Christ is the subject of the Bible I think one who follows what it says are in a sense following Christ. I'd have to look at the scriptures you mentioned to see if you're referring to something else.

I looked up the phrase (highlighted in red and couldn't find it in my syllabus. I think I took the class in 1973 or 74. Are you referring to a later edition?