Larry N Moore

. . . the moderators of Greasespot?

I will explain my reason for asking when this topic makes it on the board (and if there is a response from someone).

You all know what the real ironic thing about Johnj's posts about atheism is? It's that it winds up being no more than the standard orthodox information, a 'template' as it were, that he learned from his church, his denomination.

He doesn't even take the time to talk to atheists themselves, get to know them or why they aren't of a religious mindset, or why they left the church/religion, why they think the way they do about religion, and what they actually go through in real life because of their opinions and lack of belief once people find out about their atheism. No, just stick to the same old tired canards and straw man arguments about atheism. ... Talk about not thinking for yourself as distinct from a 'cultic' group mindset!

He further argues "One of these topics has been alluded to a few times-- the idea that we all have the freedom to pick and choose our values, what we want to beleive and do, etc. I like freedom, too. It's better than oppression. But the problem is that this idea (ie., freedom) ends up in anarchy." (Emphasis mine)

This is another big clue as to what is wrong with what he's posting here. Notice how this freedom (supposedly) leads to anarchy, ... and yet he 'likes freedom too'. Kinda contradictory, isn't it? You like some of that which leads to a result you don't like?? I laughed out loud when I read that one.

Yet Another Clue: "... or with society making up the standards (ask Jews in Nazi Germany if they like that idea)..." Here's a way of rephrasing that idea that still flows with your 'logic' that you haven't thought of, John. "... or with society making up the standards (ask unbelievers in orthodox Christianity in America run by the Religious Riech if they like that idea, including the same Jewish people, as well as unitarians, and other 'heretics')...". ... Oopsie!

If this is an example of Juedes' skill as how much better a researcher he is compared with Wierwille, ..... well, I've seen Wierwille do better. <_< (Oh, and in case he wants to respond with how much I'm some sort of Wierwille apologist I supposedly am, I too have b**chslapped Wierwille's reputation and image at least as hard as most other people here.)

P.S., I noticed that you left out footnotes. ;)

:) Sometimes, Garth, I have to look myself in the mirror and ask myself: Am I actually nodding my head in agreement to what Garth just said? And the evidence that I see indicates that I am. Either that or I have some sort of malady that makes my head nod up and down and I'm just mistaken. ;)

Dude about right now I Would start getting a lot of fear in my life.

Someone is sex crimes in NYC will read this and guess what you

will be on there list.

Dude you might want to start deleting a lot of stuff

and get rid of your pc at your house.

If you need bail money good luck.

Don't forget to call a good Dr. claim you was involed in

a cult and brain washed.

And a very good lawyer.

Very good Lawyer.

I doubt twi will be kicking in any money good luck.

Some one you age might have a heart attack over this u might want to call EMS

also.

Dude u need some help I will pray for u.

You might want to get a leave from you job for a few weeks maybe the dust will go by.

You will not hear a knock on the door they usually just bust it down.

maybe a big couch in front of it will help.

Don't you know this will go straight to them.

SEX CRIMES will be the unit to come visit if u did something

or not.

You're a sick, sick man Danny. I'm absolutely flabbergasted at the accusations and innuendo that some of you are making about Oldies character. To even hint at him being a sexual pervert/pedophile not only crosses the line but is indicative of an unsound mind. IMO those doing this should join me in the land of pre-screening of posts. That Paw would allow this sort of crap to continue is pathetically bias.

Good Lord! I pray you don't live near a school.

As personal attacks goes, dooj, this one not only crosses the line but does so by a mile. Shame on you!

Btw Dooj -- I took the liberty of reporting your post to Pawtucket. Perhaps allowing this post to be permitted for public consumption is his way of responding to that report. Fair enuf.

I believe you OWE Oldies an apology. Can you manage one? I have my doubts.

Hi socks,

Long time no talk. It’s good to see you here.

Funny you should bring this up. So far, I’ve not seen an opening for this approach in a long time, plus I feel less competent to present this aspect of what I am studying. But since you brought it up, here goes.

I think there is much more contained in your jest than you know.

Remember how Jesus often tried to talk spiritually with his apostles, but they were not spiritual enough to get it? One example was when they were hungry and thought Jesus wanted food with equal passion. He had to remind them that his meat was to do the will of the Father.

Then a little later, with the woman by the well, he starts talking about water using the accepted Oriental custom for approaching women in public. But then he switches to spiritual water.

Still another example is where Jesus said Lazarus was sleeping, until the apostles just COULDN’T get it and he had to translate that he was REALLY talking about the sleep of death.

Have you ever toyed SERIOUSLY with the idea that Dr was talking about the WORDS that do eat like a cancer having a life of their own and of devil spirit origins?

Page 14 of GMWD directs us to think of the possibility that beneath the sense knowledge message could be a hidden truth, a spiritual message. This came out in 1977 in book form. In Dr’s previous teachings he had warned against hidden meanings, but then it changed later on.

I know few people have spent much time thinking on this tack, so I think it deserves some time before it’s rejected outright. I wonder how much time it will take for some posters to reject it? I’m going on ten years now of looking into this tack.

I was first alerted to this approach when someone here showed me a surprising way of looking at Romans 1 where it’s not homosexual actions that is being condemned, but something much worse. I’m convinced this is what Dr was pointing at, while we missed it only receiving the sense knowledge understanding.

There was a lot of talk in the TVTs about spiritual adultery that I never got to understand or fully examine, never seeing it in print, and rarely ever (IF ever) hearing it from Dr on tape.

What might we learn if the verbal teachings of Dr on cancer and devils was aimed at spiritual cancer, like the one talked out in our KJV?

Who will be first to reject this?

Who thinks there’s more to discuss?

Good point Mike. It reminds of what 2 Timothy 2:17 says.

:) Paw, will my editing privileges be taken away next?

P.S. Test.

Larry...It's called common courtesy that they respond.

I see no reason why John should respond (curteously or otherwise) to the crap I see posted here. You'll have to come up with a better reason than that. DWBH's posts are so obviously insincere you could cut through the bullcrap with a butter knife.

P.S. As an afterthought -- Groucho, if you're right then PAW is being rude by not responding to me. :)

Many CES followers check this regularly for updates and won't associate with them until they come clean

And you know this HOW? Have they been in touch with you? And just HOW MANY are many?

To get the answer to who or what Solomon's wives were one would have to be shown from within one's self by the Lords. I can not answer who or what Solomon's wives were. I would not be believed.

But I will state that they were not people-women. In my understanding of course.

I can not dictate anything to any body.

You could play with this for a while though-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon

Well, THAT certainly clarified what he meant. NOT!

Hypocrisy: An expectation (considered reasonable) to hold others accountable for their behavior but criticizing others (like TWI and CES) to be unreasonable to hold their members accountable for their behavior.

I agree Larry, that as a non-member, I have no stake in CES or it's affairs. "I" do nothing with them, get nothing.

For my limited interest I'd be happy to know that CES members were aware of what's going on and aware that these events are playing out. Why? Well, number one, they could pray for the situation and be available to help if needed. It's not a minor difference and it would be next to impossible for it to not effect other areas of the church. Churches aren't businesses first and foremost, they're communities of Christian people, each with responsibilities and needs. There's purpose behind the group. It isn't just publishing or operations. So if that's happened and some sort of plan is in place that would be good and right IMO.

If not they're not functioning at a very effective level cutting out the majority of their membership. Doing so doesn't strike the personal communication that's gone on, and the information that's been dispersed here. It just leaves everything open to speculation, misinformation and manipulation by everyone involved.

Other than that, the use of GS can be viewed as an entirely different audience for the most part. All of the non-CES posters here may not need to know on a daily basis what's going on in the hearts and minds of the principals or the affairs of CES. But GS should be communicated with on the level it was started. If it was used as a method to distribute information an expectation is in place about that information. What happened? What's the outcome? etc.

Not doing that is odd, to say the least. On the face it implies manipulation of information. Someone determined to get the info out when it suited them and their purposes, but not now.

It doesn't really matter if the status of the lawsuit prevents open discussion of the issues legally or as a concern to produce a reasonable outcome for the people involved. What's at issue in my mind is common sense and courtesy. This forum was left *snap* like that, with nary a "here's what's happening and I/we/they feel it's best to not post anymore information here in light of where it's gone. Here's what happend....( ) Thank you for your prayers, concern and interest. At some point in the future I/we/they will likely have more to say and when I/we/they do we'll keep you posted. Thanks again".

Nada, zip. O-nay on the Ost-pay. Dried up. Quiet. Silence. Gone. "Thanks it was nice I had a good time this summer but my girl's back from vacation now".

Thanks socks for your response. Due to the fact that my posts are being pre-screened I'm hesitant to put much effort in a full response. I posted something which I feel is relevant to the discussion but I'm waiting for it to be posted. By the time you read this I might have been.

I suppose it's alright for DWBH to badger John for a response but, it's not alright for me to badger you.

Btw Paw -- How do you define hypocrisy?

What's wrong Paw? Don't like it when someone badgers you for responses? :)

John L, Jeff B and others in leadership at CES chose GS to air all of this and I agreed. Many CES followers check this regularly for updates and won't associate with them until they come clean

What about this Paw?

"As to what is flying around cyberspace about me and my personal life, my email is jalces@aol.com and my home phone is 317-849-5707. If you know me and care about me, I’ll be glad to communicate with you. I will not, however, dialogue with anonymous people who lack the love and courage to identify themselves in interacting with me."

Seems to me if anyone wants to engage John on this matter he's opened the door to do so. Why is that not enuf?

:) Do you think I'm badgering you Paw? I suppose if you think I am I wouldn't blame you for not responding to me. But think about it -- Isn't whatshisname badgering John Lynn? Would you find it unreasonable for him not to respond but then reasonable for you not to?

Correction to my last point -- no question asked. But what you failed to do is answer the point I made. So let me put it in the form of a question.

What makes you think Lynn or anyone from CES OWES you a response on this thread (or any other thread on GS)?

John L, Jeff B and others in leadership at CES chose GS to air all of this and I agreed. Many CES followers check this regularly for updates and won't associate with them until they come clean

That doesn't answer my question.

I was chatting with one of the posters here on GS the other night about this and other threads where they are being held accountable. In MOST cases, posters are addressing the person and the position that they held. John L and Jeff B the individual believer aren't the issue here. The issue is John L and Jeff B (and others) the leaders at CES/STFI They are held to a higher standard, as they are leading other Christian brothers and sisters. And their leadership brought them to a very dangerous area -- the Occult.

They need to account for themselves. They haven't done that. John L sent a letter published here and NOT ONCE did he address the effect on the followers. He was busy talking about the other board members. That in and of itself speaks loudly. He is now on the road as spokesman for a group that is still broken as far as we know.

As Billy Joel sang, We didn't start the Fire.

Well, since you (and probably all other members here) aren't a member of CES I would say they owe you nothing. IOW -- they AREN'T accountable to any of you. Where you get the notion that they owe you an explanation from is pathetically unreasonable.

Oops! I'm challenging you -- will this post see the light of day? ;)

Socks, you'll have to wait for a full response to your post. Since my posts are being pre-screened I'm leery of taking too much time responding. But thanks. :)

Hopefully

this isn't completely off-topic:

Oh and btw dooj:

They came here and feigned wanting to "tell the truth" in a drive-by

posting - then LEFT! Hirelings!

Where are their posts?

As those that claimed

to be leaders of God's people they accepted the role of a shepherd.

True, dooj. But you're NOT one of their sheep. :)

:) Did you have a change of heart Paw? You're screening my posts before they're submitted -- so why are you deleting them afterwards?

My answer, of course, is:

Maybe it's we who are short-sighted.

Unfortunately, Dan, that sort of answer only feeds the atheist and/or agnostic more reasons NOT to believe. It may sound good (in a humility sense) but all you're really saying is: "I don't know but, I know I'm right and you're wrong."

The many wives of Solomon isn't about women in the flesh.

So, cman, what's it about then? Did he marry them all for their wit, charm, or intellect? If I'm not mistaken physical attraction (the flesh) is what draws men to seek out a mate. Do you have a source which says otherwise?

And all this, besides being inflammatory and useless,

is in the wrong thread.[/b]

True. And yet you posted it nonetheless. :)

All men are born with a sexual predatory nature. One of Dr. Wierwille's problems was that he allowed that nature to get the better of him at various times in his life.

They were excesses; but not quite as bad I think as Solomon's excesses who had 700-1000 wives.

Maybe Wierwille's problem was he was born in the wrong time period? Maybe if he had been around in Solomon's time, or other times when men had many many wives, he wouldn't have been hassled so much by some posters.

Oldie isn't really far off the mark according to some socialogists.

The Basic Sexual Nature of Man

I'm attacking your statements. I don't know you well enough to attack you personally.

The point remains that vp rape victims. He encouraged others.

Just because there (may have been )many women that wanted to have sex with him doesn't mean he had a good excuse to drop his pants. It certainly doesn't excuse him at all from drugging and raping any woman at any time.

NOW- if he had to drug ANY WOMAN - that would indicate that she wasn't a willing participant, wouldn't it?

I see your point dooj but, if a woman seduced VP to "drop his pants" doesn't that make her guilty of phycological rape? If VP was weak in that area wouldn't it be incumbered upon the woman not to take advantage of his weakness?

Larry, are you back?

You'll have to ask Paw. Apparently he won't allow any post I submit which even remotely questions his decision to preview any posts I submit. Nor will he allow any posts which question the validity of fellow members logic. Especially if it involves rascal's penchant for contradicting herself. :)

B.S......YOU only took a part of that sentence to make it say what you wanted it too...not honest at all oldies, please use my quote in it`s entirety

Four year commitment doest not equal a vow to God, (heres the part you conveniently left out) the breaking of which will bring possession and death.

How is it you conveniently forget that becoming a member of the Corp entailed taking a vow but, conveniently remember what would happen if you broke that vow?