Larry N Moore

Larry, I explained myself clearly enough. I cannot prevent you getting your panties in a twist over what you would like to think that I am saying.

Just get over it :)

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? :)

No personal attack, but a questioning of the validity of doctrines presented by a man who was of the flesh.

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?

Gosh, so many ways to take this... my comments in bold...

<snip>

just my opinion

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

<snip>

I do not disagree with you when you say that we should acknowledge where we learned or received our "enlightnement". But let's look at that verse in its context...

2 Timothy 3:10-17

10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,

11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.

12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Notice that Paul was a full example of the gospel of Christ. He did not just speak it or expound it he lived it. He states that those that "live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution". He knows this because he lived godly. His life was a living example of the gospel of Christ that he knew. (Certainly not a perfect example, but a good one)

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".

I think that this is an important distinction. Anyone can quote scripture and call their interpretation of that scripture the truth. But it takes a real Christian to walk a life that is godly IN Christ Jesus. And this person...I would acknowledge because their walk would have "assured" to me that the gospel of Christ really works and is alive and real.

You don`t ...big deal so we disagree.

Exactly! So I don't think we need to resort to personal attacks and questioning another about whether they are a "true" Christian.

I have to disagree Larry, 'only part' of us?, I don't believe that, because we shall be changed.

Dieing and Death are changes as well as being destroyed, something else will take it's place.

All lives are eternal, it's the way we were designed.

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.

That is your opinion, and your privilege to hold Larry. However, the way that you see fit to treat people here does not inspire me with confidence in your pov as a christian or a brother...shrug

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.

Larry, I don`t think that many people were really enlightened in twi....I think that we believed the hype....shrug

That would be your opinion, of course. Mine is different and is based on the conversations I've had with uncountable people.

I think that we witnessed because we were told that was what God required in order to grow spiritually.

I (and I believe many others did) witnessed to others because we loved God and His word and wanted to share it with others.

Enlightenment came after leaving twi pure and simple.

Knowledge was aquired, sure...but it didn`t mean a thing as far as enlightenment, that came after escaping the bondage of twi.

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?"

<snip> Larry: Let's not do the "What I learned in PFAL" thing again....Ok? Please?

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?

Hebrews 6:4-6 NIV

4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, 6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

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?

I kind of agree... and "them" hanging on is standing in the way...

or it may be that God doesn't really like the fact that folks just seem to be erecting the same old kool-aid stand...

and that they're just moving it to a different street...

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.

I'd have to agree with you there... except I'd put it at 100%...

Well, I can never claim absolute certainty. John may surprise even me.

All of those "leaders" who took the vows to live by that creed would rather take their chances on the whole thing going away quietly or letting folks come to whatever conclusion they wish than EVER come forth publicly (here or their own website)... because at least that way they have some chance of holding onto whatever shred of a 'ministry' they still have... they KNOW that if they ever had to "face the music" that it would all come tumbling down...

What they fail to realize is that it already has... it just lasts a little longer this way.

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.

Eagle's double CD, Long Road Out Of Eden It's about twelve dollars at Walmart. I know, I know. It's Walmart. But it's a great CD set.

Favorite songs on there: Do Something, and also Too Busy Being Fabulous. The title track is an amazing protest song. I speak as someone in the heart of Petroleum Club Country. I have students who have been the soldier trying to make it to dawn. You'll understand when you hear the song.

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.

I guess they didn't feel ready yet... maybe they will...

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>

a lot of folks who have a vested interest are waiting for replies from these CES leaders.

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.

Let's see --- Hmmmm. I took Paw's advice, and did a search.

JAL was last here, on March 16, 2005.

Jeff was last here on January 19, 2007.

Is it possible they don't know about this thread!!??? :o :o :o

:P

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.

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Seems that the eternal things are now.

And can look at these things.

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 have permission to share this much....

JAL got an e-mail from a Blessed Believer asking him the same questions DWBH has posted here. This person also included a link to this thread and some quotes from one or more of the posts.

There was a little bit of correspondence and somehow JAL got the person's name incorrect and, in the process of attempting to intimidate this Blessed Believer into silence, JAL revealed quite a bit of very private, personal information that he really shouldn't have. The recipient of this information from JAL is attempting to locate the people mentioned JAL's e-mail to let them know how their confidence has been compromised.

It appears to me that JAL has absolutely no intention of living up to nor following the code of ethics and accountability posted on his websites.

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.

<snip>

why would you say it was cultish ?

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.

<snip>

IT WAS YOU JEFF AND JOHN, WHO INVOLVED THE ENTIRE GREASESPOT CAFE COMMUNITY IN YOUR "ISSUE". <snip>

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.

"Ad hominem circumstantial involves pointing out that someone is in circumstances such that he is disposed to take a particular position. Essentially, ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a person. The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).

On the other hand, where the person taking a position seeks to convince us by a claim of authority, or personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero."

(this in-depth research was culled from - I believe - the same source as Mr. Moore used, Wikipedia)

When simply giving one's opinion, I think that showing the bias of the source of that opinion is fair game, sorry...

You are wrong on both accounts.

Seems to me that having enough non-profit dollars to purchase a multi-million dollar compound means someone has been made merchandise of..... seems to be Janice's goal, too, especially since she's got pleas for donations or purchases of her book on every page of her website, yet no teachings or other information.

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.

There's plenty in the Bible that warns of people like this for those who want to see it.

Oh, I imagine there's plenty in the Bible that warns of people just like yourself as well. I know -- I've seen it.

Yes it is and yes I am. The true title is, "The Holy, The Common and The Despised."

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

Mssr. Moore,

Please point out to the less astute of us just where it is that anyone (other than possibly Ms. Meyers) has been attacked (oh, and please keep up the self-righteous tone as much as possible, it's so appealing).

I see where someone's obvious bias has been pointed out, nothing more...

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

Those readers who are NOT so religiously inclined might want to show Greek2me

just exactly where Jesus Christ is involved in the cartoon of post #86,

since he is so obviously missing it.

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 finally "got it" and that bothered me for a while.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the quote from page 2:

Our goal in Witnessing and Undershepherding II Tim. 2:2

The basic reason we witness is to help people into the classes on Power for Abundant Living and help them walk on it.

Now here is II Tim. 2:1& 2

Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

I am curious to know how that could possible be translated:

Go forth and sell classes.

Indoctrinate the students into our cult dogma.

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?