Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 10/13/2004 10:31:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:35:26 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/13/2004 2:26:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John: So, eventually , on this earth, I Co 8:1-3 can be cut out of our Bibles. I'll sharpen my scissors. Most of us on TT have already excluded the passage anyway. John Judyt: What has this conversation got to do with eating meat bought in the marketplace that has first been sacrificed to idols or "things offered to idols?" John: You think the principle of knowledge verse love only applies when we are arguing about the eating of meats?? JD Judyt: I've never argued about "eating of meats" because so far as I know the meat I buy at the Commissary has not been sacrificed to idols; but we see that it is not good to be in ignorance regarding this because Jesus says so when He brings up the subject once more in Revelations 2:14,20. I believe that idolatry is always divisive and never ever leads to unity. When Jesus is the root in our heart we gladly put all of this away. Incidentally our daughter's pastor uses the "meat offered to idols" argument to justify things like celebrating Halloween. I fail to see the connection but they respect him and this is what he has taught them, so sadly our grandchildren are not being tutored in true spiritual discernment and walking in the fear of God. Our grandson along with all of his little Christian friends who attend the Christian school are heavily into Pokemon cards and this Yugi character which leads to a Japanese form of DD; if not stopped this will eventually lead to the same type of fantasy role playing games along with the same evil fruit in the lives of these boys.. Did I miss something? Nothing in the above paragraph has anything to do with my question about the principle of knowledge verses love. Oh, and one more thing. Pokeman will lead to nothing of the kind unless done to excess. We celebrate Christmas and entertain Halloween. Been doing it for 38 years with my kids and now the grand kids. All of them Christians. All of them in some capacity of Christian leadership. Everyone has their demons, I guess. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 02:13:12 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:35:26 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:In a message dated 10/13/2004 2:26:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:John: So, eventually , on this earth, I Co 8:1-3 can be cut out of our Bibles. I'll sharpen my scissors. Most of us on TT have already excluded the passage anyway. JohnJudyt:What has this conversation got to do with eating meat bought in the marketplace that has first been sacrificed to idols or"things offered to idols?" John: You think the principle of knowledge verse love only applies when we are arguing about the eating of meats?? JD Judyt:I've never argued about "eating of meats" because so far as I know the meat I buy at the Commissary has not been sacrificed to idols; but we see that it is not good to be in ignorance regarding this because Jesus says so when He brings up the subject once more in Revelations 2:14,20. I believe that idolatry is always divisive and never ever leads to unity. When Jesus is the root in our heart we gladly put all of this away. Incidentally our daughter's pastor uses the "meat offered to idols" argument to justify things like celebrating Halloween. I fail to see the connection but they respect him and this is what he has taught them, so sadly our grandchildren are not being tutored in true spiritual discernment and walking in the fear of God. Our grandson along with all of his little Christian friends who attend the Christian school are heavily into Pokemon cards and this Yugi character which leads to a Japanese form of DD; if not stopped this will eventually lead to the same type of fantasy role playing games along with the same evil fruit in the lives of these boys.. John: Did I miss something? Nothing in the above paragraph has anything to do with my question about the principle of knowledge verses love. Judyt: John, God is not against knowledge, that is the wisdom from above; who said to be wise as serpents but harmless as doves.Also there is no principle in all of the references about eating things strangled and meat offered to idols other than that 'if we love God we will not do it' John: Oh, and one more thing. Pokeman will lead to nothing of the kind unless done to excess. We celebrate Christmas and entertain Halloween. Been doing it for 38 years with my kids and now the grand kids. All of them Christians. All of them in some capacity of Christian leadership. Everyone has their demons, I guess. John Judyt: Well John, it's good if we are not condemned by the things we allow and what you, your kids, and grandkids have been doing for all these years is between you, them,and the Lord since He is the Judge. However, that does not alter the fact that Halloween is and has always been the devil's day. As for Pokemon. Look at the characters and what they represent. I guess it's like all sin, a little drink, a little cigarette, a little gambling, a little gossip, a little fornication, never hurt anyone - Right?
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Oh, and one more thing. Pokeman will lead to nothing of the kind unless done to excess. We celebrate Christmas and entertain Halloween. Been doing it for 38 years with my kids and now the grand kids. All of them Christians. All of them in some capacity of Christian leadership. Everyone has their demons, I guess. John What seems harmless to the worldly is seriously dangerous to the Believer. Halloween, for example, is simply a celebration of evil which originates in paganism. Perhaps this worldliness is why your conscience is seared regarding taking scripture as your primary (and only) truth? Have you ever sought God on this instead of just accepting the ways of the world without questioning it? Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:31:23 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John: Oh, and one more thing. Pokeman will lead to nothing of the kind unless done to excess. We celebrate Christmas and entertain Halloween. Been doing it for 38 years with my kids and now the grand kids. All of them Christians. All of them in some capacity of Christian leadership. Everyone has their demons, I guess. John Judyt: Well John, it's good if we are not condemned by the things we allow and what you, your kids, and grandkids have been doing for all these years is between you, them, and the Lord since He is the Judge. However, that does not alter the fact that Halloween is and has always been the devil's day. As for Pokemon. Look at the characters and what they represent. I guess it's like all sin, a little drink, a little cigarette, a little gambling, a little gossip, a little fornication, never hurt anyone - Right? John: Halloween, in our house hold, is just a fun evening for the kids. It is not a pagan holiday -- in our house. Neither is Christmas. What the pagan's did with their trees is not done in our house. I care little about the history of the event. Now, I hasten to add that I know nothing about Pokeman except that it has no power that is not given to it. In dealing with sin, we have God's instructions, Christ's continual forgiveness, the power found in the Spirit's alternatives, the victory that is found in resistance and the blessing of resiliency. Unfortunately, all this can be countered by our decision to practice sin, to give in to it, to wallow in its plasures. John Judyt: That's good John - I'd like to share a little of what I've been learning that has to do with the highlighted sentence above.. Fact is that sin has everything to do with why God's people (the Church) are not healed by the laying on of hands anymore (as per James 5) we don't do it because we don't see results and there is little faith out there. Our faith is in the Medical System and HMO's which manage our ailments for us. Where there is no discernment we are powerless in the face of an enemy who is wiser and stronger than we are. Our Medical System is better than nothing but if you could see our 4yr old grandaughter so weak and frail you would choose a more excellent way. At Pleasant Valley where they do get results and have testimony after testimony of healing and wholeness by the power of God they teach sanctification by way of the 8 R's which is just an easy way to remember and apply these principles to one's life daily. They are as follows: 1. Recognize 2. Take Responsibility 3. Repent 4. Renounce 5. Remove 6. Resist 7. Rejoice 8. Restore As you can see from the list above, without spiritual discernment it is impossible to get past first base or even get to first base. We must learn to recognize what is from God and what is from the enemy or we will go through life calling good evil and vice versa. Sounds more complicated than it is. Though weeping may endure for the night. Joy comes in the morning. Peace, Judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 10/14/2004 12:26:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/13/2004 11:14:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judyt: What is the reality John? I must be missing something. What is more sure than God's Word? The scriptures you cite here all have to do with eating blood, things strangled, and things sacrificed to idols. I'm aware of Paul's admonition in Romans having to do with abstaining from this out of love so as not to offend a weaker brother causing him to wound his conscience but I don't believe he is advocating making this a practice or dismissing it John: Of course he is talking about a "practice." Romans 14 is not about holy days and meats -- it is about getting along with the brothers in spite of diversity. Romans 14:4 is always true -- hence the "practice." Judyt: Why isn't it true then in 1 Cor 5; the same Paul writes there about groups of people that we shouldn't even eat with and they are all said to be brothers living in diversity also. Why doesn't Paul stick with his own "practice?" Brothers living in sin, Judy and you know this. Sometimes I wonder what you are actually trying to accomplish in these discussions. The brothers in I Co 5 are practicing sin, not the leadership of the Spirit. The person(s) in I Co 8 are are responding to the Spirit and their conscinece -- trying to do the right thing. The drunkare in I Co 5 is try to get drunk. Why do I have to explain this to you? In the book of Revelation Jesus equates these practices (meat sacrificed to idols, blood etc) with the false prophetess Jezelbel and the doctrine of Balaam which lead to a sure judgment as the reality. John: Depends upon whether you believe there are other gods or not. In Revelations, they did. In I Co 8, the subject of the discussion did. Paul did not . j Judyt: Of course Paul believed in the existence of the gods of the nations (Ps 96:5) who are idols or demons. He cast them out didn't he? Also isn't he the one who wrote in 1 Cor 2:8 "which none of the princes of this world knew, for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory?" Paul was a realist. Sometimes I think you are convinced that I am a false teacher, so you must oppose everything I say. There are no gods but one. There are rocks, trees, influences, but no real gods in the sense that God is god. Me and Paul agree on this one. I Co 8 -- that is the passage we are discussing -- verses 4-7 make it clear that there are no gods. Paul could eat a piece of meat offered to an idol because he knew that it was an offering to thin air -- to nothing.
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 10:58:56 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judyt:What is the reality John? I must be missing something. What is more sure than God's Word? The scriptures you cite here all have to do with eating blood, things strangled, and things sacrificed to idols. I'm aware of Paul's admonition in Romans having to do with abstaining from this out of love so as not to offend a weaker brother causing him to wound his conscience but I don't believe he is advocating making this a practice or dismissing it John: Of course he is talking about a "practice." Romans 14 is not about holy days and meats -- it is about getting along with the brothers in spite of diversity. Romans 14:4 is always true -- hence the "practice." Judyt:Why isn't it true then in 1 Cor 5; the same Paul writes there about groups of people that we shouldn't even eat with and they are all said to be brothers living in diversity also. Why doesn't Paul stick with his own "practice?"John: Brothers living in sin, Judy and you know this. Sometimes I wonder what you are actually trying to accomplish in these discussions. The brothers in I Co 5 are practicing sin, not the leadership of the Spirit. The person(s) in I Co 8 are are responding to the Spirit and their conscinece -- trying to do the right thing. The drunkare in I Co 5 is try to get drunk. Why do I have to explain this to you? judyt: Right I do know it but I am trying to make a point. In 1 Cor 8 Paul is not setting upa doctrine of "love vs knowledge" He is dealing with the very real problem of"baby believers" whomay still be in mental bondage to the practice of eating meat sacrificed to idolsseeing a mature believer doing this in the marketplace whichwould wound their weak conscience causing them to sin ie:"whatsoever is not of faith is sin" so Paul writes it is walking in love (after the Spirit) for the more mature believerto lead them by example in this. However, it is not written as a formula for "unity" becauseJust two chapters later In1 Cor 10:23-32 Paul writes in Vs.25 "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake"and "If an unbeliever asks you to a feast and you aredisposed to go, eat what is set before you asking no questions for conscience sake" .. So apparentlythe level of faith a person walks in is the point here. In the book of Revelation Jesus equates these practices (meat sacrificed to idols, blood etc) with the false prophetess Jezelbel and the doctrine of Balaam which if not repented of will lead tojudgment.John: Depends upon whether you believe there are other gods or not. In Revelations, they did. In I Co 8, the subject of the discussion did. Paul did not . jJudyt: Of course Paul believed in the existence of the gods of the nations (Ps 96:5) who are idols or demons. He cast them out didn't he? Also isn't he the one who wrote in 1 Cor 2:8 "which none of the princes of this world knew, for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory?" Paul was a realist. John: Sometimes I think you are convinced that I am a false teacher, so you must oppose everything I say. There are no gods but one. There are rocks, trees, influences, but no real gods in the sense that God is god.Me and Paul agree on this one. I Co 8 -- that is the passage we are discussing -- verses 4-7 make it clear that there are no gods. Paul could eat a piece of meat offered to an idol because he knew that it was an offering to thin air -- to nothing. judyt:It was an offering to demons John and they are not "nothing" especially in the lives of those who are deceived and oppressed by them. Neither are they "thin air" They certainly wreak a lot of havoc to be "thin air and nothing"
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 10/12/2004 10:56:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You were the one lamenting our lack of unity weren't you John? judyt uhhh, yes I was. J
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 10/12/2004 10:56:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You were the one lamenting our lack of unity weren't you John? judyt On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:08:44 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/11/2004 10:10:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judyt: Then our dilemma must be "Who has the correct God"? Your dilemma, not mine. John And -- unity that is of God is a heart thing, not a knowledge thing. J
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:50:44 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/12/2004 10:56:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You were the one lamenting our lack of unity weren't you John? judyt On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:08:44 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/11/2004 10:10:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judyt:Then our dilemma must be "Who has the correct God"? Your dilemma, not mine. John And -- unity that is of God is a heart thing, not a knowledge thing. J judyt: I know,and it eventually happensamong those who have a heart to receive and obey the truth.
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat In a message dated 10/12/2004 10:56:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You were the one lamenting our lack of unity weren't you John? judyt On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:08:44 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/11/2004 10:10:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judyt: Then our dilemma must be Who has the correct God? Your dilemma, not mine. John And -- unity that is of God is a heart thing, not a knowledge thing. J John, they are ultimately one and the same. If we really know Him (therefore receiving His Spirit) we will not misunderstand of His Word in any crucial manner. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 10/13/2004 6:19:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And -- unity that is of God is a heart thing, not a knowledge thing. J judyt: I know, and it eventually happens among those who have a heart to receive and obey the truth. So, eventually , on this earth, I Co 8:1-3 can be cut out of our Bibles. I'll sharpen my scissors. Most of us on TT have already excluded the passage anyway. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 10/13/2004 6:57:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, they are ultimately one and the same. If we really know Him (therefore receiving His Spirit) we will not misunderstand of His Word in any crucial manner. Izzy Nonsense. J
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
It's both(i.e.,"Let us REASON together..."). And -- unity that is of God is a heart thing, not a knowledge thing. J
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 14:07:33 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/13/2004 6:19:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And -- unity that is of God is a heart thing, not a knowledge thing. J judyt:I know, and it eventually happens among those who have a heart to receive and obey the truth. So, eventually , on this earth, I Co 8:1-3 can be cut out of our Bibles. I'll sharpen my scissors. Most of us on TT have already excluded the passage anyway. John Judyt: What has this conversation got to do with eating meat bought in the marketplace that has first been sacrificed to idols or "things offered to idols?"
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:35:26 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/13/2004 2:26:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:John: So, eventually , on this earth, I Co 8:1-3 can be cut out of our Bibles. I'll sharpen my scissors. Most of us on TT have already excluded the passage anyway. John Judyt:What has this conversation got to do with eating meat bought in the marketplace that has first been sacrificed to idols or"things offered to idols?"John: You think the principle of knowledge verse love only applies when we are arguing about the eating of meats?? JD Judyt: I've never argued about"eating of meats" because so far as I know the meat I buy at the Commissary has not been sacrificed to idols; but we see that it is not good to be in ignorance regarding thisbecause Jesus says so when He brings up the subjectonce more in Revelations 2:14,20. I believe that idolatry is always divisive and never ever leads to unity. When Jesus is the root in our heart we gladly put all of this away. Incidentally our daughter's pastor uses the "meat offered to idols" argument to justify things like celebrating Halloween. I fail to see the connection but they respect him and this is what he has taught them, sosadly our grandchildren are not being tutored in true spiritual discernment and walking in the fear of God. Our grandson along withall of his little Christian friends who attendthe Christian school are heavily into Pokemon cards and this Yugi character which leads toa Japanese form of DD;if not stopped this will eventually lead to the same type of fantasy role playing gamesalong with the same evilfruit in the lives of these boys..
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 10/11/2004 10:10:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judyt: Then our dilemma must be "Who has the correct God"? Your dilemma, not mine. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
You were the one lamenting our lack of unity weren't you John? judyt On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:08:44 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/11/2004 10:10:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judyt:Then our dilemma must be "Who has the correct God"? Your dilemma, not mine. John
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
No, I don't think so, Judy. All Izzy is stating is just PERHAPS Ezekiel 36.26-27 has "come true." I personally agree with her assessment. Otherwise Ezekiel is just blowing hot air up or skirts. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Monday, 11 October, 2004 02.29To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat I think that one thing being left out of the equation below is that since Messiah came we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which now makes it POSSIBLE for Believers to obey the Law, if they so choose. What do you think of that? Izzy Judyt: I'm wondering if we are headed back to "O' foolish Galatians who hath bewitched you" From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 3:55 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Paul says that if you break one segment of the law, you have broken all. Peter says no Jew has ever been able to keep the whole thing, The Bible makes it clear that the law cannot save us, only condemn us. Peter said no Jew was able to acquire his own salvation; you have misunderstood. Why would you say that it can only condemn us? Is that the only purpose you see in it? Funny. God said it was our righteousness! God said that when the other nations would see these commandments and be amazed and say "What a wise nation is this who has such wonderful commandmentsand their God dwells among them. It also tells us that the law was given specify to the Children of Israel, no one else. You are partially right. The commandments are ONLY for the children of God. To complete this idea, when someone comes to faith, are they grafted into Israel? The question then becomes, " Why should I try to keep a law that was not only not meant for me, but a law that even those that it was meant for could not keep." I would be doing something both unnecessary and impossible. This logic is circular and is far below you, Terry. Reread Luke 1:6 and Deuteronomy 30:11-14 again. Do you see how these two passages do not contradict each other yet they call you a liar?I can see why you, being Jewish, might try to keep some of the traditions in order to keep peace in the family, but to keep them because you feel that they are necessary for salvation makes no sense to me. I do not keep them in order to keep peace in the family. I do it out of love and respect for my God and Messiah who said, "If you love me keep my commandments." I am unable to separate the commandments like fishermen catch and release fish. If God the Father said something in the Older Testament Scriptures and Messiah said something in the Newer Testament, I believe they came out of the same mouth. Those laws were not there in the beginning, and they are not here now. What part of "perpetual commandment" and "commandment throughout your generations" do you not understand? Do you need me to list them for you or can I trust in the accuracy of your concordance? They were here for a time, to show you that you cannot possibly keep them and to show that without a Savior you are totally lost. I must insist that you stop contradicting Scripture. Please read Luke 1:6 and Deuteronomy 30:11-14 once again. However, I will agree with your last phrase ,"without a Savior you are totally lost." You cannot save yourself. That is what Jesus found so frustrating about most Pharisees. They were SELF righteous and needed no Savior. Save myself? You are comparing colors and tastes.Where do you get the idea the Pharisees were self righteous and needed no Messiah? They could do it by keeping the law. You don't seem to understand that in the Jewish mindset, one did not NEED to keep the Teachings of Moses as a substitution for a Savior. They are God's chosen People. WHY do they need to do anything when it's guaranteed anyway? If there is anything you understand from our dialogues, please know that it is impossible for the Chosen People to misinterpret Scripture to read that they MUST keep Torah as a substitute for a suffering Messiah. People who believed this did not just stumble into sin. Some of them wallowed in it, and got so far off course as to end up sacrificing their own children to idols. The law said "don't worship another god, and the law said don't murder, but people under the law did both on many occasions, so it is certainly no guarantee that living under a bunch of rules will do anything exce
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
ShieldsFamily wrote: Terry, I dont think sin is funny, ever. Sometimes I laugh at it too, but that is so wrong. More importantly, I dont think we should jokingly accuse people of sin wrongfully. If we are serious we should just confront them with it in seriousness. Im glad Jeff was not really accusing you, even jokingly, of something as egregious as anti-Semitism. I think it grieves the Holy Spirit when people wrongfully accuse others of sin, as the Lord is the God of the righteous and He loves them dearly. It is an affront to His holiness when the children He has made holy are subjected to the wiles of the Accuser. I am seeing that I am very sensitive about that issue, for some reasondont know why it bothers me so much. Izzy Morning Iz. I do not hate Jews or anyone else that I can think of. As a matter of fact, I have liked most everyone I ever met. Still, I am a realist, and if Jews or Chinamen or the whole world gets offended when I offer God's truth ( as best I can understand it), then that is the way it has to be. I want to get along with everyone, but not at the expense of changing one letter of God's word. I am sure everyone on the list can agree that it can be no other way. You kinda lost me on that part about the children He has made holy. Who are you speaking of? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
ShieldsFamily wrote: I think that one thing being left out of the equation below is that since Messiah came we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which now makes it POSSIBLE for Believers to obey the Law, if they so choose. What do you think of that? Izzy If you keep the two that Jesus gave believers, you will have kept them all, and then some. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 10/11/2004 5:33:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I want to get along with everyone, but not at the expense of changing one letter of God's word. I am sure everyone on the list can agree that it can be no other way. Aahh -- unity. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:28:25 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/11/2004 5:33:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I want to get along with everyone, but not at the expense of changing one letter of God's word. I am sure everyone on the list can agree that it can be no other way. John responds: Aahh -- unity. Judyt: But what can we unify around John other than the Truth of God's Word? Just this morning I read that Matthew Henry, the great commentator, stated he would give anything for peace, except the truth...
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 10/11/2004 7:25:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/11/2004 5:33:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I want to get along with everyone, but not at the expense of changing one letter of God's word. I am sure everyone on the list can agree that it can be no other way. John responds: Aahh -- unity. Judyt: But what can we unify around John other than the Truth of God's Word? Just this morning I read that Matthew Henry, the great commentator, stated he would give anything for peace, except the truth... Its just that everyone on this list believes that they have the "truth" and and there is as much dividison as there are individuals. Unless, of course, "unity" is considered a reality on terms other than agreement. John We continue to pray for Jenna. ... and her family.
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:47:12 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/11/2004 7:25:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:In a message dated 10/11/2004 5:33:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:I want to get along with everyone, but not at the expense of changing one letter of God's word. I am sure everyone on the list can agree that it can be no other way.John responds: Aahh -- unity.Judyt:But what can we unify around John other than the Truth of God's Word?Just this morning I read that Matthew Henry, the great commentator, stated he would giveanything for peace, except the truth...John:Its just that everyone on this list believes that they have the "truth" and and there is as much dividison as there are individuals. Unless, of course, "unity" is considered a reality on terms other than agreement. JohnWe continue to pray for Jenna. ... and her family. Judyt: Thanks for remembering Jenna and our kids John, I do appreciate that. I don't believe anyone on TT would claim to have ALL truth. We are all works in progress. I have changed in some areas in the past and am willing to change today if I see "in God's Word" where I am off center, or off on a tangent. It is my belief that when Jesus returns the Church/Bride He is coming for will be of one heart and one mind and this would include the Torah folk since there is just ONE Name by which we are saved and it's not Abraham. jt
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/11/2004 5:33:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I want to get along with everyone, but not at the expense of changing one letter of God's word. I am sure everyone on the list can agree that it can be no other way. Aahh -- unity. JD Unity with God first. Without that it won't matter how many people I agree/disagree with. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 10/11/2004 1:42:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unity with God first. Without that it won't matter how many people I agree/disagree with. Terry Absolutely correct. Actually, that is my definition for unity. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:54:08 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 10/11/2004 1:42:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Unity with God first. Without that it won't matter how many people I agree/disagree with. Terry John writes:Absolutely correct. Actually, that is my definition for unity. John Judyt: Then our dilemma must be "Who has the correct God"?
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
orld can I get you to see what I see as a great truth? Why do you think that? Yeshua is all I need to gain entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven. What you are missing and what you are unable to see is that out of LOVE and ADORATION for the God of Avraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the only reason I keep the commandments. Interesting concept, isn't It. The reasonSlade LIVES is because Messiah loved him first and died for him. In response, the Newer Testament tells me, "If you love me, keep my commandments." This, in my opinion, includes them all. Messiah's culmination of the commandments into two is a completely misunderstood concept to you. In a future email, I will attempt to explain it to you. I must prayerfully request the Holy Spirit to open your heart to what I write. I am not trying to win an argument with either of you. I am simply concerned that you cannot seem to comprehend something so basic. Thank you for your concern, Terry. Likewise, we are concerned for you because you cannot seem to grasp something so basic. Terryslade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Sunday, 10 October, 2004 14.16Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Paul says that if you break one segment of the law, you have broken all. Peter says no Jew has ever been able to keep the whole thing, The Bible makes it clear that the law cannot save us, only condemn us. It also tells us that the law was given specifly to the Children of Israel, no one else. The question then becomes, " Why should I try to keep a law that was not only not meant for me, but a law that even those that it was meant for could not keep." I would be doing something both unecessary and impossible.I can see why you, being Jewish, might try to keep some of the traditions in order to keep peace in the family, but to keep them because you feel that they are necessary for salvation makes no sense to me. Those laws were not there in the beginning, and they are not here now. They were here for a time, to show you that you cannot possibly keep them and to show that without a Savior you are totally lost. You cannot save yourself. That is what Jesus found so frustrating about most Pharisees. They were SELF righteous and needed no Savior. They could do it by keeping the law. People who believed this did not just stumble into sin. Some of them wallowed in it, and got so far off course as to end up sacrificing their own children to idols. The law said "don't worship another god, and the law said don't murder, but people under the law did both on many occasions, so it is certainly no guarantee that living under a buch of rules will do anything except show you how sorry a bunch of people can be. Even King David, who loved the law, commited adultry and murder, so where is the benefit? Why cling to something that is no longer useful? Why not adopt the two commandments that Jesus gave every believer?I know this is the raving of a madman to both you and Jeff, but I am trying to understand why Jesus is not enough for you as He is for me. What am I missing? How in the world can I get you to see what I see as a great truth?I am not trying to win an argument with either of you. I am simply concerned that you cannot seem to comprehend something so basic.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Terry's response in bold. Slade Henson wrote: Paul says that if you break one segment of the law, you have broken all. Peter says no Jew has ever been able to keep the whole thing, The Bible makes it clear that the law cannot save us, only condemn us. Peter said no Jew was able to acquire his own salvation; you have misunderstood. Why would you say that it can only condemn us? Is that the only purpose you see in it? Funny. God said it was our righteousness! God said that when the other nations would see these commandments and be amazed and say "What a wise nation is this who has such wonderful commandmentsand their God dwells among them. Paul says that if you break one segment of the law, you have broken all. Peter says no Jew has ever been able to keep the whole thing, The Bible makes it clear that the law cannot save us, only condemn us. Peter said no Jew was able to acquire his own salvation; you have misunderstood. Why would you say that it can only condemn us? Is that the only purpose you see in it? Funny. God said it was our righteousness! God said that when the other nations would see these commandments and be amazed and say "What a wise nation is this who has such wonderful commandmentsand their God dwells among them. It also tells us that the law was given specify to the Children of Israel, no one else. You are partially right. The commandments are ONLY for the children of God. To complete this idea, when someone comes to faith, are they grafted into Israel?That is not what Lev.27:34 says. It says "Children of Israel". Very few of them were children of God, as the OT makes clear throughout it's pages. The law was for them, not me, not for any Christian. The question then becomes, " Why should I try to keep a law that was not only not meant for me, but a law that even those that it was meant for could not keep." I would be doing something both unnecessary and impossible. This logic is circular and is far below you, Terry. Reread Luke 1:6 and Deuteronomy 30:11-14 again. Do you see how these two passages do not contradict each other yet they call you a liar? Checked out both. They were instructions for people under the law,(Jewish folk) They could be considered righteous even after breaking the law by offering a sin sacrifice. Paul says, "All have sinned". I take that to include every one. The only reason that God has to see me as righteous is that a sin sacrifice has been made for me. I can see why you, being Jewish, might try to keep some of the traditions in order to keep peace in the family, but to keep them because you feel that they are necessary for salvation makes no sense to me. I do not keep them in order to keep peace in the family. I do it out of love and respect for my God and Messiah who said, "If you love me keep my commandments." I am unable to separate the commandments like fishermen catch and release fish. If God the Father said something in the Older Testament Scriptures and Messiah said something in the Newer Testament, I believe they came out of the same mouth. It is good to know that though you are hung up on keeping the law, you are hung up for an honorable reason. Those laws were not there in the beginning, and they are not here now. What part of "perpetual commandment" and "commandment throughout your generations" do you not understand? Do you need me to list them for you or can I trust in the accuracy of your concordance? A covenant can be renewed just as a contract can be rewritten. When that happens, the old version is void. If you get a mortgage at twelve percent for thirty years, and five years later, get a better one for six percent, you do not go on paying twelve percent. You go by the terms in the new agreement. They were here for a time, to show you that you cannot possibly keep them and to show that without a Savior you are totally lost. I must insist that you stop contradicting Scripture. Please read Luke 1:6 and Deuteronomy 30:11-14 once again. However, I will agree with your last phrase ,"without a Savior you are totally lost. See the above. You cannot save yourself. That is what Jesus found so frustrating about most Pharisees. They were SELF righteous and needed no Savior. Save myself? You are comparing colors and tastes.Where do you get the idea the Pharisees were self righteous and needed no Messiah? From a bunch of places in the NT They could do it by keeping the law. You don't seem to understand that in the Jewish mindset, one did not NEED to keep the Teachings of Moses as a substitution for a Savior. They are God's chosen People. WHY do they need to do anything when it's guaranteed anyway? If there is anything you understand from our dialogues, please know that it is impossible for the Chosen People to misinterpret Scripture to read
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
One thing you said I agree with, Terry. You said you don't have to keep Torah and neither does any Christian. That is correct. No one HAS to do anything. Besides that, there is nothing else I can agree with. You see and I hear and we cannot communicate in this realm... much like Helen Keller communicating via the telephone. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Sunday, 10 October, 2004 19.48To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or DemocratTerry's response in bold.Slade Henson wrote: Paul says that if you break one segment of the law, you have broken all. Peter says no Jew has ever been able to keep the whole thing, The Bible makes it clear that the law cannot save us, only condemn us. Peter said no Jew was able to acquire his own salvation; you have misunderstood. Why would you say that it can only condemn us? Is that the only purpose you see in it? Funny. God said it was our righteousness! God said that when the other nations would see these commandments and be amazed and say "What a wise nation is this who has such wonderful commandmentsand their God dwells among them. Paul says that if you break one segment of the law, you have broken all. Peter says no Jew has ever been able to keep the whole thing, The Bible makes it clear that the law cannot save us, only condemn us. Peter said no Jew was able to acquire his own salvation; you have misunderstood. Why would you say that it can only condemn us? Is that the only purpose you see in it? Funny. God said it was our righteousness! God said that when the other nations would see these commandments and be amazed and say "What a wise nation is this who has such wonderful commandmentsand their God dwells among them. It also tells us that the law was given specify to the Children of Israel, no one else. You are partially right. The commandments are ONLY for the children of God. To complete this idea, when someone comes to faith, are they grafted into Israel?That is not what Lev.27:34 says. It says "Children of Israel". Very few of them were children of God, as the OT makes clear throughout it's pages. The law was for them, not me, not for any Christian. The question then becomes, " Why should I try to keep a law that was not only not meant for me, but a law that even those that it was meant for could not keep." I would be doing something both unnecessary and impossible. This logic is circular and is far below you, Terry. Reread Luke 1:6 and Deuteronomy 30:11-14 again. Do you see how these two passages do not contradict each other yet they call you a liar? Checked out both. They were instructions for people under the law,(Jewish folk) They could be considered righteous even after breaking the law by offering a sin sacrifice. Paul says, "All have sinned". I take that to include every one. The only reason that God has to see me as righteous is that a sin sacrifice has been made for me.I can see why you, being Jewish, might try to keep some of the traditions in order to keep peace in the family, but to keep them because you feel that they are necessary for salvation makes no sense to me. I do not keep them in order to keep peace in the family. I do it out of love and respect for my God and Messiah who said, "If you love me keep my commandments." I am unable to separate the commandments like fishermen catch and release fish. If God the Father said something in the Older Testament Scriptures and Messiah said something in the Newer Testament, I believe they came out of the same mouth. It is good to know that though you are hung up on keeping the law, you are hung up for an honorable reason. Those laws were not there in the beginning, and they are not here now. What part of "perpetual commandment" and "commandment throughout your generations" do you not understand? Do you need me to list them for you or can I trust in the accuracy of your concordance? A covenant can be renewed just as a contract can be rewritten. When that happens, the old version is void. If you get a mortgage at twelve percent for thirty years, and five years later, get a better one for six percent, you do not go on paying twelve percent. You go by the terms in the new agreement. They were here for a time, to show you that you cannot possibly keep them and to show that without a Savior you are totally
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Slade Henson wrote: One thing you said I agree with, Terry. You said you don't have to keep Torah and neither does any Christian. That is correct. No one HAS to do anything. Besides that, there is nothing else I can agree with. You see and I hear and we cannot communicate in this realm... much like Helen Keller communicating via the telephone. -- slade Yeah, I think we are beating a dead horse. No matter how long we beat it, it ain't going to go where we want it to. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 12:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat ShieldsFamily wrote: Jeff, I didnt know Terry made the joke first. Sorry. I consider the charge of anti-semitism to be no joking matter, any more than joking about someone being an adulterer. Izzy How about if the adulterer is not a Semite? Would it be funny then, or are you an equal opportunity adultry is not funny type of person? Enquiring minds want to know. Terry Terry, I dont think sin is funny, ever. Sometimes I laugh at it too, but that is so wrong. More importantly, I dont think we should jokingly accuse people of sin wrongfully. If we are serious we should just confront them with it in seriousness. Im glad Jeff was not really accusing you, even jokingly, of something as egregious as anti-Semitism. I think it grieves the Holy Spirit when people wrongfully accuse others of sin, as the Lord is the God of the righteous and He loves them dearly. It is an affront to His holiness when the children He has made holy are subjected to the wiles of the Accuser. I am seeing that I am very sensitive about that issue, for some reasondont know why it bothers me so much. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
I think that one thing being left out of the equation below is that since Messiah came we have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which now makes it POSSIBLE for Believers to obey the Law, if they so choose. What do you think of that? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 3:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Paul says that if you break one segment of the law, you have broken all. Peter says no Jew has ever been able to keep the whole thing, The Bible makes it clear that the law cannot save us, only condemn us. Peter said no Jew was able to acquire his own salvation; you have misunderstood. Why would you say that it can only condemn us? Is that the only purpose you see in it? Funny. God said it was our righteousness! God said that when the other nations would see these commandments and be amazed and say What a wise nation is this who has such wonderful commandmentsand their God dwells among them. It also tells us that the law was given specify to the Children of Israel, no one else. You are partially right. The commandments are ONLY for the children of God. To complete this idea, when someone comes to faith, are they grafted into Israel? The question then becomes, Why should I try to keep a law that was not only not meant for me, but a law that even those that it was meant for could not keep. I would be doing something both unnecessary and impossible. This logic is circular and is far below you, Terry. Reread Luke 1:6 and Deuteronomy 30:11-14 again. Do you see how these two passages do not contradict each other yet they call you a liar? I can see why you, being Jewish, might try to keep some of the traditions in order to keep peace in the family, but to keep them because you feel that they are necessary for salvation makes no sense to me. I do not keep them in order to keep peace in the family. I do it out of love and respect for my God and Messiah who said, If you love me keep my commandments. I am unable to separate the commandments like fishermen catch and release fish. If God the Father said something in the Older Testament Scriptures and Messiah said something in the Newer Testament, I believe they came out of the same mouth. Those laws were not there in the beginning, and they are not here now. What part of perpetual commandment and commandment throughout your generations do you not understand? Do you need me to list them for you or can I trust in the accuracy of your concordance? They were here for a time, to show you that you cannot possibly keep them and to show that without a Savior you are totally lost. I must insist that you stop contradicting Scripture. Please read Luke 1:6 and Deuteronomy 30:11-14 once again. However, I will agree with your last phrase ,without a Savior you are totally lost. You cannot save yourself. That is what Jesus found so frustrating about most Pharisees. They were SELF righteous and needed no Savior. Save myself? You are comparing colors and tastes.Where do you get the idea the Pharisees were self righteous and needed no Messiah? They could do it by keeping the law. You don't seem to understand that in the Jewish mindset, one did not NEED to keep the Teachings of Moses as a substitution for a Savior. They are God's chosen People. WHY do they need to do anything when it's guaranteed anyway? If there is anything you understand from our dialogues, please know that it is impossible for the Chosen People to misinterpret Scripture to read that they MUST keep Torah as a substitute for a suffering Messiah. People who believed this did not just stumble into sin. Some of them wallowed in it, and got so far off course as to end up sacrificing their own children to idols. The law said don't worship another god, and the law said don't murder, but people under the law did both on many occasions, so it is certainly no guarantee that living under a bunch of rules will do anything except show you how sorry a bunch of people can be. SO WHAT!! SO WHAT!!! Your inability and your unwillingness to submit to God's rules does not make His Just Teachings less significant. However, be assured that when the books are opened during the Great White Throne Judgment, your deeds since the recognition of Messiah will be compared to Torah. How do you think you will fare? I pray you do better than I will. Even King David, who loved the law, committed adultery and murder, so where is the benefit? Why cling to something that is no longer useful? Why not adopt the two commandments that Jesus gave every believer? Are you so much greater than David? He was a man after God's own heart. If only you [and I] were HALF the man he was. Again, you have fallen prey to that judgmental
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Jeff Powers wrote: What about the Bet Dein (Jerusalem council) of Acts 15? Jeff Absolutely! "Clergy" has become a word to describe a hierarchy that never was intended and did not exist in the early church or in God's plan. A living organism (Church) has become a giant organization , big business. Terry == Excellent question Jeff. You made me do some quick checking. I found that there were seven councils in the history of the early church, the first one being the most important, because the question "What must I do to be saved" was answered. They seem to have acted in an advisory capacity, not as a heirarchy, and they never ruled or advised that a pastor was necessary for salvation, or baptism. I am sorta surprised that you mentioned this chapter, since it blows all kind of holes in the keeping of Mosaic laws. Blessings, Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
If anything, it affirms it. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Saturday, 09 October, 2004 07.20To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or DemocratJeff Powers wrote: What about the Bet Dein (Jerusalem council) of Acts 15? Jeff Absolutely! "Clergy" has become a word to describe a hierarchy that never was intended and did not exist in the early church or in God's plan. A living organism (Church) has become a giant organization , big business.Terry==Excellent question Jeff. You made me do some quick checking. I found that there were seven councils in the history of the early church, the first one being the most important, because the question "What must I do to be saved" was answered. They seem to have acted in an advisory capacity, not as a heirarchy, and they never ruled or advised that a pastor was necessary for salvation, or baptism. I am sorta surprised that you mentioned this chapter, since it blows all kind of holes in the keeping of Mosaic laws.Blessings,Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
It confirms Torah to me! Explain Acts 15:21 and then tell me how this passage rejects Torah. Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 7:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Jeff Powers wrote: What about the Bet Dein (Jerusalem council) of Acts 15? Jeff Absolutely! "Clergy" has become a word to describe a hierarchy that never was intended and did not exist in the early church or in God's plan. A living organism (Church) has become a giant organization , big business.Terry==Excellent question Jeff. You made me do some quick checking. I found that there were seven councils in the history of the early church, the first one being the most important, because the question "What must I do to be saved" was answered. They seem to have acted in an advisory capacity, not as a heirarchy, and they never ruled or advised that a pastor was necessary for salvation, or baptism. I am sorta surprised that you mentioned this chapter, since it blows all kind of holes in the keeping of Mosaic laws.Blessings,Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Jeff Powers wrote: It confirms Torah to me! Explain Acts 15:21 and then tell me how this passage rejects Torah. Jeff == My friend, you started too late and finished too early. This subject is not dealt with in only one verse. In verses 1 2, Paul disagrees with those who say you must keep the law. In verse ten, Peter says, "No Jew was ever able to keep the law. Why would you expect a Gentile to keep it?" Verse 24 tops it off nicely with no question as to whether or not the keeping of the law is required. It is not. The four things that were requested by the council hardly equal the six hundred plus commands in the law, and were almost certainly recommended so that the Gentile believers would not offend the sensibilities of their Jewish brethren. I say this last because no Gentile was ever under the law unless he became a Jewish proselyte. You can see this if you are open to it. Terry P.S. I hardly ever strangle my food any more and drinking blood is out of the question. I don't even like rare meat.
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
And you haven't killed any Jews in months!!! - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 15:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Jeff Powers wrote: It confirms Torah to me! Explain Acts 15:21 and then tell me how this passage rejects Torah. Jeff==My friend, you started too late and finished too early. This subject is not dealt with in only one verse. In verses 1 2, Paul disagrees with those who say you must keep the law. In verse ten, Peter says, "No Jew was ever able to keep the law. Why would you expect a Gentile to keep it?"Verse 24 tops it off nicely with no question as to whether or not the keeping of the law is required. It is not.The four things that were requested by the council hardly equal the six hundred plus commands in the law, and were almost certainly recommended so that the Gentile believers would not offend the sensibilities of their Jewish brethren. I say this last because no Gentile was ever under the law unless he became a Jewish proselyte.You can see this if you are open to it.Terry P.S. I hardly ever strangle my food any more and drinking blood is out of the question. I don't even like rare meat.
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Jeff in red: - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 15:42 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Jeff Powers wrote: It confirms Torah to me! Explain Acts 15:21 and then tell me how this passage rejects Torah. Jeff ==My friend, you started too late and finished too early. This subject is not dealt with in only one verse. In verses 1 2, Paul disagrees with those who say you must keep the law. Terry, the question(subject here)is circumcision for Gentile converts.The circumcision that God wants is of our hearts. See Deut.30:6, Jer. 4:4, Romans 2:28-29. In verse ten, Peter says, "No Jew was ever able to keep the law.Peter is talking about the "hedge" around Torah created by men, Pharisees, etc.(but don't take this as a condemnation of the Pharisees, as Slade recently said [and I agree], the Pharisees get a bum rap from the church, they were they good guys!),not Torah itself! Why would you expect a Gentile to keep it?"Verse 24 tops it off nicely with no question as to whether or not the keeping of the law is required. It is not.One cannot keep the law,Torah, without first learning Torah!The four things that were requested by the council hardly equal the six hundred plus commands in the law, and were almost certainly recommended so that the Gentile believers would not offend the sensibilities of their Jewish brethren.100% correct! I say this last because no Gentile was ever under the law unless he became a Jewish proselyte. ?At the time in question, "christianity" was in fact Jewish!You can see this if you are open to it.My point exactly! We will have to work on you some more!Terry P.S. I hardly ever strangle my food any more and drinking blood is out of the question. I don't even like rare meat. Brother, you are on the right track! Now if only you could see what the man-made doctrines have done to truth, you would become like myself and Slade in short order! Jeff
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Jeff Powers wrote: And you haven't killed any Jews in months!!! I have a cofession to make. I have never killed a single Jew. If that isn't bad enough, I actually had two Jewish friends in Hialeah years ago. Neither of them were saved. One was totally uninterested in the things of God, and one was, but not interested in becoming a Christian. I thought a great deal of both of these guys and made a feeble attempt to lead them to Christ. Lenny was not the least bit interested. He was busy trying to sleep with every woman in south Florida, Mario (Mario Ferrar was a Jew from Cuba. He described himself as a Juban.) was interested, and tempted to become a believer, but did not for fear that his whole family would disown him. Mario had had a valve from a pig's heart placed in his heart because his valve failed, and took medication daily so that his body would not reject the pig valve. I figured that if his relatives did not reject him for being part pig, they could live with him becoming a Christian, but Mario said no. I gave up on both of them after a time because I moved away from south Florida to the Panhandle. I lost track of Lenny, but learned that after I left, Mario became a Christian Scientist. He threw away his glasses and stopped taking his medication. Everything went well for a couple of months, and he was convinced that he was on the right track, then he collapsed and died. I point this out to show that I am batting zero for two when it comes to helping God's chosen people understand the Gospel. You and Slade are going to have to try harder if The score is ever to change. It's hard to find a Jew here in redneck country. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
[Terry's friend]was...[]interested in the things of God...but not interested in becoming a Christian. Slade says: Sadly, you don't have a prayer to help this man come to understand the Messiahship of Yeshua. He MUST (out of love for God) reject any Messiah who disbands with Torah... EVEN ONE SINGLE COMMANDMENT. Your Jewish friend who did not have a relationship with God would bemore prone to the modern-day Christian Message. A Jewish person immersed in Torah, must reject the message or reject the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I know this sounds goofy, Terry, but this is why Jewish people sit Sheva (perform a week-long mourning service) for converts to Christianity because of this rejection. They [mostly] DON'T for those who hold Torah AND Messiah to their heart. (Interesting, isn't it?) By the way... thanks for never killing a single Jew. I feel safer already! Be well, my friend! -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry CliftonSent: Saturday, 09 October, 2004 19.39Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or DemocratJeff Powers wrote: And you haven't killed any Jews in months!!!I have a cofession to make. I have never killed a single Jew.If that isn't bad enough, I actually had two Jewish friends in Hialeah years ago. Neither of them were saved. One was totally uninterested in the things of God, and one was, but not interested in becoming a Christian. I thought a great deal of both of these guys and made a feeble attempt to lead them to Christ. Lenny was not the least bit interested. He was busy trying to sleep with every woman in south Florida, Mario (Mario Ferrar was a Jew from Cuba. He described himself as a Juban.) was interested, and tempted to become a believer, but did not for fear that his whole family would disown him. Mario had had a valve from a pig's heart placed in his heart because his valve failed, and took medication daily so that his body would not reject the pig valve. I figured that if his relatives did not reject him for being part pig, they could live with him becoming a Christian, but Mario said no.I gave up on both of them after a time because I moved away from south Florida to the Panhandle. I lost track of Lenny, but learned that after I left, Mario became a Christian Scientist. He threw away his glasses and stopped taking his medication. Everything went well for a couple of months, and he was convinced that he was on the right track, then he collapsed and died.I point this out to show that I am batting zero for two when it comes to helping God's chosen people understand the Gospel. You and Slade are going to have to try harder if The score is ever to change. It's hard to find a Jew here in redneck country.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 10/9/2004 5:43:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jeff Powers wrote: And you haven't killed any Jews in months!!! I have a cofession to make. I have never killed a single Jew. Just married folks??? JD
RE: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
JD... You got me on that one. I usually "pride" myself on getting the puns [AKA "duds"] in, but that opportunity slipped right by me. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, 09 October, 2004 22.09To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or DemocratIn a message dated 10/9/2004 5:43:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jeff Powers wrote: And you haven't killed any Jews in months!!!I have a cofession to make. I have never killed a single Jew.Just married folks???JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
What about the Bet Dein (Jerusalem council) of Acts 15? Jeff Absolutely! "Clergy" has become a word to describe a hierarchy that never was intended and did not exist in the early church or in God's plan. A living organism (Church) has become a giant organization , big business.Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
'Godliest'?So then, do we vote for Pat Robertson or for Benny Hinn? I believe that the existing candidates have excluded themselves by the standards put forward by Judith and Linda. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: October 05, 2004 00:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat In a message dated 10/1/2004 3:54:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Izzy in red: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 9:18 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat My point is this: there is no acceptable defintion for either "liberal" or "conservative" that fits all. We are NOT the Chosen Pagan Nation of God. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS: America is not GODS nation. ALL countries belong to God. HOWEVER, IT IS UP TO GODS PEOPLE IN EACH NATION TO DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY IT IS. (1) BY OUR OWN BEHAVIOR, AND (2) WHERE ALLOWED, BY VOTING FOR THE GODLIEST OF OUR CHOICES!Was it slade -- whoever posted about "Jesus" not being allowed at the RNC in song; if that is true (and time will tell), I am out of here. I certainly do not believe voting is a Christian function so it wll be easy to quit politics altogether. That post from slade (?) was very upsetting to me. John, you are contradicting yourself. Can you see that If I personally were running a Republican event I would NOT allow Christian/Jesus songs, either. Why? Because the Republican Party is for ALL Americans, of ALL faiths, and ALL races. The Rep Party is not, as you repeatedly state, the arm of God. It is not a Church. It is a political party, which represents the most important issues to Believers in America, as well as to any intelligent, moral, economically wise American. Do you get it? IzzyJohnIn a message dated 9/26/2004 4:23:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:In a message dated 9/26/2004 3:15:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:And what is the "conservative philosphy?" Is one a conservative if he believes in states rights, a decreasing federal reality, balanced budgets, a dynamic national defense system and a woman's right to choose? Or, what if one is pro-life, prayer in schools, pro medical mariwana, and anti - gun. Or, what if one is pro-life, pro prayer in schools, pro "in God we trust," for state's rights, for balance budgets, pro national defgense, pro traditional marriage, anti-gay (whatever that is), anti-NEA, for closing the borders by force if necessary and pro socialized medicine? Or, what if he did not have time for politics of any kind, did not vote, and minitered to hundreds of individuals each and every year? JohnWhat is your problem, John? IzzyWould it be possible to answer the question? John Why is this reposted? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Lance writes: 'Godliest'?So then, do we vote for Pat Robertson or for Benny Hinn? I believe that the existing candidates have excluded themselves by the standards put forward by Judith and Linda. Judyt: Pat Robertson and Benny Himm? Are they running for office in this country? Back to earth Lance, earth calling Lance.. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 10/1/2004 3:54:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Izzy in red: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 9:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat My point is this: there is no acceptable defintion for either "liberal" or "conservative" that fits all. We are NOT the Chosen Pagan Nation of God. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS: America is not GODS nation. ALL countries belong to God. HOWEVER, IT IS UP TO GODS PEOPLE IN EACH NATION TO DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY IT IS. (1) BY OUR OWN BEHAVIOR, AND (2) WHERE ALLOWED, BY VOTING FOR THE GODLIEST OF OUR CHOICES! Was it slade -- whoever posted about "Jesus" not being allowed at the RNC in song; if that is true (and time will tell), I am out of here. I certainly do not believe voting is a Christian function so it wll be easy to quit politics altogether. That post from slade (?) was very upsetting to me. John, you are contradicting yourself. Can you see that If I personally were running a Republican event I would NOT allow Christian/Jesus songs, either. Why? Because the Republican Party is for ALL Americans, of ALL faiths, and ALL races. The Rep Party is not, as you repeatedly state, the arm of God. It is not a Church. It is a political party, which represents the most important issues to Believers in America, as well as to any intelligent, moral, economically wise American. Do you get it? Izzy John In a message dated 9/26/2004 4:23:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 9/26/2004 3:15:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And what is the "conservative philosphy?" Is one a conservative if he believes in states rights, a decreasing federal reality, balanced budgets, a dynamic national defense system and a woman's right to choose? Or, what if one is pro-life, prayer in schools, pro medical mariwana, and anti - gun. Or, what if one is pro-life, pro prayer in schools, pro "in God we trust," for state's rights, for balance budgets, pro national defgense, pro traditional marriage, anti-gay (whatever that is), anti-NEA, for closing the borders by force if necessary and pro socialized medicine? Or, what if he did not have time for politics of any kind, did not vote, and minitered to hundreds of individuals each and every year? John What is your problem, John? Izzy Would it be possible to answer the question? John Why is this reposted? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/28/2004 11:20:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/28/2004 2:43:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It was on 11 Sep 2001 when I discovered a terrible mistake. Bush encouraged people to pray at their Church, Synagogue, and Mosque. When he said that, my heart sank. He didn't learn the lesson. When Bush said the God of A, I, J was the same as the god of Islam my heart sank again and it never recovered. I cannot by good conscience vote for this man. I cannot spit in God's face by allowing a godly man of this caliber to remain in office. I do not want the presence of the God of Avraham to leave my home. Wasted vote? It's a wasted vote IF I vote for EITHER of the two horned beasts of the US political system. (However, everyone's vote is wasted because the Electoral College is the one who truly decides... a point we all seem to forget.) I'm a negative loser, Izzy? You are still my friend, but you hurt me. I am not a negative thinker. I am one who hears clearly and is able to listen from many different vantage points... not just the angle most comfortable from my chair at home. -- slade My vote will be for Bush in spite of the inconsistency you point to, brother slade. And I do agree with your concern. Obviously, I am not voting my faith and you are -- and I am thinking that both have a place in the political process. If I were selecting an Elder, Bush would not be my choice. But I am selecting a President, of course, and, for me, the rules are different. The President is one who represents the people of this country -- all of them. Which man best accomplishes that? And two words are important to me in that question. "Best" and "accomplish." GW does have conviction. He has been sorely criticized for his faith stance. In the first debate with Gore and Nader, it was Bush who named Christ as the most influential person in his life -- right there on TV, in front of God and everyone. And his faith message is clearly seen (by me, at least.) Paul said something once, that is one of the most profound comments I have ever read and it is --- I become all things, to all men so that by all means I might save some. Awesome. And I see that idea in Bush's attempt at being a (Christian) President for all the people. Who do I want as a commander and chief of the military and one who has the power of life and death for my boys? Not a typical Christian concern, I might add. My two youngest boys would be among the first in line to fight if things got that bad --- so my vote is extremely important to me. I don't look to Iraq as the major issue. Nor do I care that much about President Bush's way of dealing with the various gods of the people he governs. I care only about how he governs in comparison to those who run against him. It is not a religious decision -- it is a political one. I honestly see GW as one who is trying to apply his faith to the opportunity he has to govern. Right or wrong. I see him as one who is doing the best that he can do. Kerry is very much the opposite -- without a political conscience. The Constitutional Party candidate would not be able to accomplish anything if he, in fact, won the election. Keep in mind, that Bush is doing something I could not do. I could not be the President because many of my views as a Christian would make it an impossible task. In matters of faith, I personally, could make few if any compromises and "compromise" is the bedrock of the political decision making process. If I voted my faith -- without compromise -- well, I can't think of anyone I would vote for other than me and it would be wrong for me to be President. So, it is not a religious decision. JohnJohn. Have you ever considered that the qualifications of the elder are the same things that should be seen in every Christian man? Elders are simply other Christians, not a race of supermen or a group of men that are extra important to God. If Bush is living the normal Christian life, he should have those qualities, and should be evaluated by the qualities we see and the witness to God's grace that he is. At least that's how I see it, but then I've been told that I am a stupid loser, so maybe what I say shpold be taken with a grain of salt. Terry Paul saw a higher standard, I believe. Cf. I Tim 3:1-13. He "rules" by the force of example, not position or institutional authority of any kind. ( I Pet 5:2,3). It is my opinion that the very first departure from 1st century standards within the Church was this idea that pastors are the primary decision makers, the Shepherd of the congregational "flock." What do you think? John Absolutely! "Clergy" has become a word
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/29/2004 5:23:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Absolutely! "Clergy" has become a word to describe a hierarchy that never was intended and did not exist in the early church or in God's plan. A living organism (Church) has become a giant organization , big business. Terry Yes and by the way, Terry, you do know I was kidding about the blind pathetic loser thing, right? John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/29/2004 5:23:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Absolutely! "Clergy" has become a word to describe a hierarchy that never was intended and did not exist in the early church or in God's plan. A living organism (Church) has become a giant organization , big business. Terry Yes and by the way, Terry, you do know I was kidding about the blind pathetic loser thing, right? John Yeah, I knew. No offense taken. Just send half as much money. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/29/2004 10:50:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, I knew. No offense taken. Just send half as much money. Terry I'll start savin up John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
What was the name of this forum? OH, I remember, TRUTH-TALK!! - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 22:49 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat What a bunch of NEGATIVE thinkers. If I didnt know better, Id think you were Democrats. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Monday, September 27, 2004 8:08 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Well spoken, Jeff. I was going into politics in Denver Colorado back in the 80s. As I delved into the system and watched those who would be my [political] peers, I noticed a disturbing trend Most of the men and women enter the foray with wonderful intention. They planned to change this and that and to make the county, state, or Federal Government abetter, happier place. Unfortunately one thing stood in each and every person's way. MONEY. Money is needed to run a campaign. All this money -- even money from private institutions and individuals -- come with strings attached. The really big money have hawser [really big rope] attached. If a candidate who wins does not keep the promises attached as "riders" to this money, there is no money for the next campaign. Also there's the scandals that suddenly appear against candidates who vote their conscience and not the "riders." Those who manage to begin change either die on the altar of political shame or they die. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jeff PowersSent: Monday, 27 September, 2004 20.28To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat I'm breaking a self-imposed silence regarding this thread. I think Terry is the only one making any sense of this can of worms! Politicians, both believers and non-believers are little more than puppets of special interest groups. Not since before the American Civil War has politics and Governmentbeen anywhere close to being legitimately By, For and Of the People! The framers of our constitition saw the truth in the sages words,"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is the reason that they wrote the Constitution the way they did, when govt. becomes corrupt, it is up to the people to put down the corruption. The original constitution saw no need for a federal military as we know it today. Consequently, we were free and obligated by that Constitution to overthrow a corrupt govt. But, by the time of the Civil War Americans had given up that right! A result of this apathy was the USA then had a govt. police force (the military) to do the bidding of the rich and powerful privledged few who then pulled the strings of the politicians. Our rights have continually eroded away to the point that we are now at the mercy of the rich and powerful puppet masters that control the govt., if We The People demanded an abolition of the current govt. and revolted as was our right(it's no longer possible, the A. Lincoln administration and the congress of that day saw to it that we cannot toss out the govt. and start anew)we could possibly correct the system. That being now impossible, I see no reason for us to fool ourselves into beliving that we can make a difference. Look at the last Presidential election (and for those of you old enough, remember Dewey beat Roosevelt!, Lincoln and Douglas), now how can anyone tell me they honestly belive in this corrupt system? Personally, I belive God can, does and will use anyone, believer or not,(hey, even human or not; Baalam's Donkey!) to achieve His desired outcome. Believers need to quit arguing about politics and get back to God's buisness and word. Remember, another sage said,"Politics and Religion do not mix." Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton ==The Republican party is anything but the party of God. Why do you want to keep Jesus locked up in a church house when the world needs to hear about him? Would it be terrible if a president who claims to be a tool of God promoted that same God to unbelievers? Would that be peddling, or testifying?Honest well thought out answers please.Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
I would love to be proven wrong here. I beg you to give the data to show that my experience and the experience of others within the system is all wrong and/or that it has all changed. Will you please do that? Please give me the data that proves special interest groups no longer haunt the halls of the houses and senates controlling the vote and the presence of catered bills. PLEASE! -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Monday, 27 September, 2004 22.50To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat What a bunch of NEGATIVE thinkers. If I didnt know better, Id think you were Democrats. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade HensonSent: Monday, September 27, 2004 8:08 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Well spoken, Jeff. I was going into politics in Denver Colorado back in the 80s. As I delved into the system and watched those who would be my [political] peers, I noticed a disturbing trend Most of the men and women enter the foray with wonderful intention. They planned to change this and that and to make the county, state, or Federal Government abetter, happier place. Unfortunately one thing stood in each and every person's way. MONEY. Money is needed to run a campaign. All this money -- even money from private institutions and individuals -- come with strings attached. The really big money have hawser [really big rope] attached. If a candidate who wins does not keep the promises attached as "riders" to this money, there is no money for the next campaign. Also there's the scandals that suddenly appear against candidates who vote their conscience and not the "riders." Those who manage to begin change either die on the altar of political shame or they die. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jeff PowersSent: Monday, 27 September, 2004 20.28To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat I'm breaking a self-imposed silence regarding this thread. I think Terry is the only one making any sense of this can of worms! Politicians, both believers and non-believers are little more than puppets of special interest groups. Not since before the American Civil War has politics and Governmentbeen anywhere close to being legitimately By, For and Of the People! The framers of our constitition saw the truth in the sages words,"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is the reason that they wrote the Constitution the way they did, when govt. becomes corrupt, it is up to the people to put down the corruption. The original constitution saw no need for a federal military as we know it today. Consequently, we were free and obligated by that Constitution to overthrow a corrupt govt. But, by the time of the Civil War Americans had given up that right! A result of this apathy was the USA then had a govt. police force (the military) to do the bidding of the rich and powerful privledged few who then pulled the strings of the politicians. Our rights have continually eroded away to the point that we are now at the mercy of the rich and powerful puppet masters that control the govt., if We The People demanded an abolition of the current govt. and revolted as was our right(it's no longer possible, the A. Lincoln administration and the congress of that day saw to it that we cannot toss out the govt. and start anew)we could possibly correct the system. That being now impossible, I see no reason for us to fool ourselves into beliving that we can make a difference. Look at the last Presidential election (and for those of you old enough, remember Dewey beat Roosevelt!, Lincoln and Douglas), now how can anyone tell me they honestly belive in this corrupt system? Personally, I belive God can, does and will use anyone, believer or not,(hey, even human or not; Baalam's Donkey!) to achieve His desired outcome. Believers need to quit arguing about politics and get back to God's buisness and word. Remember, another sage said,"Politics and Religion do not mix." Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton ==The Republican party is anything but the party of God. Why do you want to keep Jesus locked up in a church house when the world needs to hea
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
It was on 11 Sep 2001 when I discovereda terrible mistake. Bush encouraged people to pray at their Church, Synagogue, and Mosque. When he said that, my heart sank. He didn't learn the lesson. When Bush said the God of A, I, J was the same as the god of Islam my heart sank again and it never recovered. I cannot by good conscience vote for this man. I cannot spit in God's face by allowing a godly man of this caliber to remain in office. I do not want the presence of the God of Avraham to leave my home. Wasted vote? It's a wasted vote IF I vote for EITHER of the two horned beasts of the US political system. (However, everyone's vote is wasted because the Electoral College is the one who truly decides... a point we all seem to forget.) I'm a negative loser, Izzy? You are still my friend, but you hurt me. I am not a negative thinker. I am one who hears clearly and is able to listen from many different vantage points... not just the angle most comfortable from my chair at home. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jonathan HughesSent: Monday, 27 September, 2004 22.09To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Izzy, your posts in the last few days have included a lot of bold and capital letters. Are you aware that they make it look as if you are yelling? Are you as angry as your posts make you look? The same President Bush has repeatedly and unequivocally testified that his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the same God that is worshipped by Muslims: Allah. Does this in any way frighten you? Does Bush believing that Allah is just another way to God (actually is the same God) set off any red flags in your mind? Is Jesus the only way to the Father? Are you aware of how Jesus is thought of in Islamic thought? Do you agree with President Bush that Allah is God? Jonathan
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/28/2004 2:43:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It was on 11 Sep 2001 when I discovered a terrible mistake. Bush encouraged people to pray at their Church, Synagogue, and Mosque. When he said that, my heart sank. He didn't learn the lesson. When Bush said the God of A, I, J was the same as the god of Islam my heart sank again and it never recovered. I cannot by good conscience vote for this man. I cannot spit in God's face by allowing a godly man of this caliber to remain in office. I do not want the presence of the God of Avraham to leave my home. Wasted vote? It's a wasted vote IF I vote for EITHER of the two horned beasts of the US political system. (However, everyone's vote is wasted because the Electoral College is the one who truly decides... a point we all seem to forget.) I'm a negative loser, Izzy? You are still my friend, but you hurt me. I am not a negative thinker. I am one who hears clearly and is able to listen from many different vantage points... not just the angle most comfortable from my chair at home. -- slade My vote will be for Bush in spite of the inconsistency you point to, brother slade. And I do agree with your concern. Obviously, I am not voting my faith and you are -- and I am thinking that both have a place in the political process. If I were selecting an Elder, Bush would not be my choice. But I am selecting a President, of course, and, for me, the rules are different. The President is one who represents the people of this country -- all of them. Which man best accomplishes that? And two words are important to me in that question. "Best" and "accomplish." GW does have conviction. He has been sorely criticized for his faith stance. In the first debate with Gore and Nader, it was Bush who named Christ as the most influential person in his life -- right there on TV, in front of God and everyone. And his faith message is clearly seen (by me, at least.) Paul said something once, that is one of the most profound comments I have ever read and it is --- I become all things, to all men so that by all means I might save some. Awesome. And I see that idea in Bush's attempt at being a (Christian) President for all the people. Who do I want as a commander and chief of the military and one who has the power of life and death for my boys? Not a typical Christian concern, I might add. My two youngest boys would be among the first in line to fight if things got that bad --- so my vote is extremely important to me. I don't look to Iraq as the major issue. Nor do I care that much about President Bush's way of dealing with the various gods of the people he governs. I care only about how he governs in comparison to those who run against him. It is not a religious decision -- it is a political one. I honestly see GW as one who is trying to apply his faith to the opportunity he has to govern. Right or wrong. I see him as one who is doing the best that he can do. Kerry is very much the opposite -- without a political conscience. The Constitutional Party candidate would not be able to accomplish anything if he, in fact, won the election. Keep in mind, that Bush is doing something I could not do. I could not be the President because many of my views as a Christian would make it an impossible task. In matters of faith, I personally, could make few if any compromises and "compromise" is the bedrock of the political decision making process. If I voted my faith -- without compromise -- well, I can't think of anyone I would vote for other than me and it would be wrong for me to be President. So, it is not a religious decision. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/28/2004 2:09:52 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What was the name of this forum? OH, I remember, TRUTH-TALK!! Sometimes, Jeffery, you cut to the chase. Good one. JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/27/2004 7:56:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You on TT are all (except Michael and Judy) such a bunch of negative losers. I think Ill take a vacation from you for a while as you are sincerely getting on my last nerve. I have better things to do than trying to instill some sense into you. Have a nice time watching Bush win the election. Izzy And such a postive counter to this forum's negative majority!!! See, this is exactly why we should stick to religious discussion. There is a place in The Faith for losers. Not the case in the political process, apparently. I mean, every time we get on politics, we all go wingie -- as if God needs any help at all in dealing with this pathetic, loser filled world. !!! John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/27/2004 3:35:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi John, The conference wraps up tonight. I will give a report on it later this week. I did spend some good time with Baxter including dinner Friday night. Jonathan Does he ever come out to the left coast? JD
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
ShieldsFamily wrote: I think that's nice. Don't force anyone to accept Christ. Just the mention of Jesus' name would probably force a bunch of them to be saved against their will. We can't have people in Heaven who don't want to be there, can we, even if they are Republicans. You and W just keep on with what you are doing. That's nice. What was I thinking? Terry Terry, do you honestly think it is the right venue to just mention Jesus name at a political rally? In what manner? By whom? For what purpose? How many will that save I lay awake at night worrying about all the poor people who didnt get saved at the last political rally. Or the last baseball game. Or at the grocery checkout line. Or at the license bureau. Really. Izzy Yes. Lovingly. By everyone who claims that name. To be a witness. Only God knows. Really. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/28/2004 11:20:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/28/2004 2:43:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It was on 11 Sep 2001 when I discovered a terrible mistake. Bush encouraged people to pray at their Church, Synagogue, and Mosque. When he said that, my heart sank. He didn't learn the lesson. When Bush said the God of A, I, J was the same as the god of Islam my heart sank again and it never recovered. I cannot by good conscience vote for this man. I cannot spit in God's face by allowing a godly man of this caliber to remain in office. I do not want the presence of the God of Avraham to leave my home. Wasted vote? It's a wasted vote IF I vote for EITHER of the two horned beasts of the US political system. (However, everyone's vote is wasted because the Electoral College is the one who truly decides... a point we all seem to forget.) I'm a negative loser, Izzy? You are still my friend, but you hurt me. I am not a negative thinker. I am one who hears clearly and is able to listen from many different vantage points... not just the angle most comfortable from my chair at home. -- slade My vote will be for Bush in spite of the inconsistency you point to, brother slade. And I do agree with your concern. Obviously, I am not voting my faith and you are -- and I am thinking that both have a place in the political process. If I were selecting an Elder, Bush would not be my choice. But I am selecting a President, of course, and, for me, the rules are different. The President is one who represents the people of this country -- all of them. Which man best accomplishes that? And two words are important to me in that question. "Best" and "accomplish." GW does have conviction. He has been sorely criticized for his faith stance. In the first debate with Gore and Nader, it was Bush who named Christ as the most influential person in his life -- right there on TV, in front of God and everyone. And his faith message is clearly seen (by me, at least.) Paul said something once, that is one of the most profound comments I have ever read and it is --- I become all things, to all men so that by all means I might save some. Awesome. And I see that idea in Bush's attempt at being a (Christian) President for all the people. Who do I want as a commander and chief of the military and one who has the power of life and death for my boys? Not a typical Christian concern, I might add. My two youngest boys would be among the first in line to fight if things got that bad --- so my vote is extremely important to me. I don't look to Iraq as the major issue. Nor do I care that much about President Bush's way of dealing with the various gods of the people he governs. I care only about how he governs in comparison to those who run against him. It is not a religious decision -- it is a political one. I honestly see GW as one who is trying to apply his faith to the opportunity he has to govern. Right or wrong. I see him as one who is doing the best that he can do. Kerry is very much the opposite -- without a political conscience. The Constitutional Party candidate would not be able to accomplish anything if he, in fact, won the election. Keep in mind, that Bush is doing something I could not do. I could not be the President because many of my views as a Christian would make it an impossible task. In matters of faith, I personally, could make few if any compromises and "compromise" is the bedrock of the political decision making process. If I voted my faith -- without compromise -- well, I can't think of anyone I would vote for other than me and it would be wrong for me to be President. So, it is not a religious decision. JohnJohn. Have you ever considered that the qualifications of the elder are the same things that should be seen in every Christian man? Elders are simply other Christians, not a race of supermen or a group of men that are extra important to God. If Bush is living the normal Christian life, he should have those qualities, and should be evaluated by the qualities we see and the witness to God's grace that he is. At least that's how I see it, but then I've been told that I am a stupid loser, so maybe what I say shpold be taken with a grain of salt. Terry Paul saw a higher standard, I believe. Cf. I Tim 3:1-13. He "rules" by the force of example, not position or institutional authority of any kind. ( I Pet 5:2,3). It is my opinion that the very first departure from 1st century standards within the Church was this idea that pastors are the primary decision makers, the Shepherd of the congregational "flock." What do you think? John
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Was it slade -- whoever posted about Jesus not being allowed at the RNC in song; if that is true (and time will tell), I am out of here. I certainly do not believe voting is a Christian function so it wll be easy to quit politics altogether. That post from slade (?) was very upsetting to me. John, you are contradicting yourself. Can you see that If I personally were running a Republican event I would NOT allow Christian/Jesus songs, either. Why? Because the Republican Party is for ALL Americans, of ALL faiths, and ALL races. The Rep Party is not, as you repeatedly state, the arm of God. It is not a Church. It is a political party, which represents the most important issues to Believers in America, as well as to any intelligent, moral, economically wise American. Actually, I am talking about freedom of speech which has nothing to do with whether or not the Republican Party is the party of God. I think I am understanding your point -- not sure if you are understanding mine. Banning the use of the name Jesus because of projected emotional injury or insult does not hold water with me. It is a compromise that denies the principle of free speech. I will not support anything organization that does not permit me the freedom to include comments about my faith. Apparently you dont quite get it yet, John. What I think was said that AT A POLITICAL RALLY the Republicans did not allow songs ABOUT JESUS. This is NOT a free-speech issue. (duh!) This is an issue of what is APPROPRIATE at a NON-SECTARIAN POLITICAL RALLY. It is NOT a church meetingtherefore hymns are not appropriate!!! Patriotic songs would be appropriate. GWB is the President of EVERY AmericanNOT just Christians!!! To push Jesus in their faces because of his political power would be an insult the Christ. Jesus is not a vacuum sweeper; He does not need to be peddled like one! Give Him some reverence, please. If you were having a church service I think you would forbid someone to make an appearance to plug Amway. Because you were against free speech? NO. Because it would not be an appropriate venue for selling soap products. There is a time and a place for everything. Where is your COMMON SENSE? What if your favorite political candidate was a Jew and he wanted the Torah recited at every rally? Wouldnt you think that was out of place? Or a Moslem who wanted to sing the Koran? Terry, on the other hand wants Jesus peddled at every venue. I guess he thinks that the Republican Party IS the party of God, rather than the party of ALL Americans. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Hi John, The conference wraps up tonight. I will give a report on it later this week. I did spend some good time with Baxter including dinner Friday night. Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 8:24 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Jonathan, since your are up, did you get in on any of the time with Baxter Kruger? John --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
I'm breaking a self-imposed silence regarding this thread. I think Terry is the only one making any sense of this can of worms! Politicians, both believers and non-believers are little more than puppets of special interest groups. Not since before the American Civil War has politics and Governmentbeen anywhere close to being legitimately By, For and Of the People! The framers of our constitition saw the truth in the sages words,"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is the reason that they wrote the Constitution the way they did, when govt. becomes corrupt, it is up to the people to put down the corruption. The original constitution saw no need for a federal military as we know it today. Consequently, we were free and obligated by that Constitution to overthrow a corrupt govt. But, by the time of the Civil War Americans had given up that right! A result of this apathy was the USA then had a govt. police force (the military) to do the bidding of the rich and powerful privledged few who then pulled the strings of the politicians. Our rights have continually eroded away to the point that we are now at the mercy of the rich and powerful puppet masters that control the govt., if We The People demanded an abolition of the current govt. and revolted as was our right(it's no longer possible, the A. Lincoln administration and the congress of that day saw to it that we cannot toss out the govt. and start anew)we could possibly correct the system. That being now impossible, I see no reason for us to fool ourselves into beliving that we can make a difference. Look at the last Presidential election (and for those of you old enough, remember Dewey beat Roosevelt!, Lincoln and Douglas), now how can anyone tell me they honestly belive in this corrupt system? Personally, I belive God can, does and will use anyone, believer or not,(hey, even human or not; Baalam's Donkey!) to achieve His desired outcome. Believers need to quit arguing about politics and get back to God's buisness and word. Remember, another sage said,"Politics and Religion do not mix." Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton ==The Republican party is anything but the party of God. Why do you want to keep Jesus locked up in a church house when the world needs to hear about him? Would it be terrible if a president who claims to be a tool of God promoted that same God to unbelievers? Would that be peddling, or testifying?Honest well thought out answers please.Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Well spoken, Jeff. I was going into politics in Denver Colorado back in the 80s. As I delved into the system and watched those who would be my [political] peers, I noticed a disturbing trend Most of the men and women enter the foray with wonderful intention. They planned to change this and that and to make the county, state, or Federal Government abetter, happier place. Unfortunately one thing stood in each and every person's way. MONEY. Money is needed to run a campaign. All this money -- even money from private institutions and individuals -- come with strings attached. The really big money have hawser [really big rope] attached. If a candidate who wins does not keep the promises attached as "riders" to this money, there is no money for the next campaign. Also there's the scandals that suddenly appear against candidates who vote their conscience and not the "riders." Those who manage to begin change either die on the altar of political shame or they die. -- slade -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jeff PowersSent: Monday, 27 September, 2004 20.28To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat I'm breaking a self-imposed silence regarding this thread. I think Terry is the only one making any sense of this can of worms! Politicians, both believers and non-believers are little more than puppets of special interest groups. Not since before the American Civil War has politics and Governmentbeen anywhere close to being legitimately By, For and Of the People! The framers of our constitition saw the truth in the sages words,"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." That is the reason that they wrote the Constitution the way they did, when govt. becomes corrupt, it is up to the people to put down the corruption. The original constitution saw no need for a federal military as we know it today. Consequently, we were free and obligated by that Constitution to overthrow a corrupt govt. But, by the time of the Civil War Americans had given up that right! A result of this apathy was the USA then had a govt. police force (the military) to do the bidding of the rich and powerful privledged few who then pulled the strings of the politicians. Our rights have continually eroded away to the point that we are now at the mercy of the rich and powerful puppet masters that control the govt., if We The People demanded an abolition of the current govt. and revolted as was our right(it's no longer possible, the A. Lincoln administration and the congress of that day saw to it that we cannot toss out the govt. and start anew)we could possibly correct the system. That being now impossible, I see no reason for us to fool ourselves into beliving that we can make a difference. Look at the last Presidential election (and for those of you old enough, remember Dewey beat Roosevelt!, Lincoln and Douglas), now how can anyone tell me they honestly belive in this corrupt system? Personally, I belive God can, does and will use anyone, believer or not,(hey, even human or not; Baalam's Donkey!) to achieve His desired outcome. Believers need to quit arguing about politics and get back to God's buisness and word. Remember, another sage said,"Politics and Religion do not mix." Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton ==The Republican party is anything but the party of God. Why do you want to keep Jesus locked up in a church house when the world needs to hear about him? Would it be terrible if a president who claims to be a tool of God promoted that same God to unbelievers? Would that be peddling, or testifying?Honest well thought out answers please.Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Izzy, your posts in the last few days have included a lot of bold and capital letters. Are you aware that they make it look as if you are yelling? Are you as angry as your posts make you look? The same President Bush has repeatedly and unequivocally testified that his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the same God that is worshipped by Muslims: Allah. Does this in any way frighten you? Does Bush believing that Allah is just another way to God (actually is the same God) set off any red flags in your mind? Is Jesus the only way to the Father? Are you aware of how Jesus is thought of in Islamic thought? Do you agree with President Bush that Allah is God? Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 7:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat ShieldsFamily wrote: Izzy in red below: Terry, WHERE have you been for the past four plus years, while President Bush REPEATEDLY and UNEQUIVOCABLY testified of his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Why would you accuse him of not testifying? How many other Presidents have EVER done that, or clearly gave their testimony as he has? --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/27/2004 4:40:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Apparently you dont quite get it yet, John. What I think was said that AT A POLITICAL RALLY the Republicans did not allow songs ABOUT JESUS. This is NOT a free-speech issue. (duh!) This is an issue of what is APPROPRIATE at a NON-SECTARIAN POLITICAL RALLY. It is NOT a church meetingtherefore hymns are not appropriate!!! Patriotic songs would be appropriate. GWB is the President of EVERY AmericanNOT just Christians!!! To push Jesus in their faces because of his political power would be an insult the Christ. Jesus is not a vacuum sweeper; He does not need to be peddled like one! Give Him some reverence, please. Palse. This is so bogess that it is surprising. Let's take "in God we Trust" off our money -- or is it appropriate to mention the Father but not the Son??? If you were having a church service I think you would forbid someone to make an appearance to plug Amway. Because you were against free speech? NO. Because it would not be an appropriate venue for selling soap products. There is a time and a place for everything. Where is your COMMON SENSE? What if your favorite political candidate was a Jew and he wanted the Torah recited at every rally? Wouldnt you think that was out of place? Or a Moslem who wanted to sing the Koran? Terry, on the other hand wants Jesus peddled at every venue. I guess he thinks that the Republican Party IS the party of God, rather than the party of ALL Americans. Izzy This is the very argument used by the godless in our society. Precisely. It is always appropriate to mention Jesus -- always. It is not always popular, however. Our country was founded, in part, on Christian principles. Why do we call it it "Christian?" If our country is or was founded on Christian principles, then it is appropriate to speak the Name. You have already been influenced by secularism on this point. I hasten to add that this does not effect your sisterhood -- but you are clearly mistaken. John
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
I think that's nice. Don't force anyone to accept Christ. Just the mention of Jesus' name would probably force a bunch of them to be saved against their will. We can't have people in Heaven who don't want to be there, can we, even if they are Republicans. You and W just keep on with what you are doing. That's nice. What was I thinking? Terry Terry, do you honestly think it is the right venue to just mention Jesus name at a political rally? In what manner? By whom? For what purpose? How many will that save I lay awake at night worrying about all the poor people who didnt get saved at the last political rally. Or the last baseball game. Or at the grocery checkout line. Or at the license bureau. Really. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
What a bunch of NEGATIVE thinkers. If I didnt know better, Id think you were Democrats. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Slade Henson Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 8:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Well spoken, Jeff. I was going into politics in Denver Colorado back in the 80s. As I delved into the system and watched those who would be my [political] peers, I noticed a disturbing trend Most of the men and women enter the foray with wonderful intention. They planned to change this and that and to make the county, state, or Federal Government abetter, happier place. Unfortunately one thing stood in each and every person's way. MONEY. Money is needed to run a campaign. All this money -- even money from private institutions and individuals -- come with strings attached. The really big money have hawser [really big rope] attached. If a candidate who wins does not keep the promises attached as riders to this money, there is no money for the next campaign. Also there's the scandals that suddenly appear against candidates who vote their conscience and not the riders. Those who manage to begin change either die on the altar of political shame or they die. -- slade -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jeff Powers Sent: Monday, 27 September, 2004 20.28 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat I'm breaking a self-imposed silence regarding this thread. I think Terry is the only one making any sense of this can of worms! Politicians, both believers and non-believers are little more than puppets of special interest groups. Not since before the American Civil War has politics and Governmentbeen anywhere close to being legitimately By, For and Of the People! The framers of our constitition saw the truth in the sages words,Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is the reason that they wrote the Constitution the way they did, when govt. becomes corrupt, it is up to the people to put down the corruption. The original constitution saw no need for a federal military as we know it today. Consequently, we were free and obligated by that Constitution to overthrow a corrupt govt. But, by the time of the Civil War Americans had given up that right! A result of this apathy was the USA then had a govt. police force (the military) to do the bidding of the rich and powerful privledged few who then pulled the strings of the politicians. Our rights have continually eroded away to the point that we are now at the mercy of the rich and powerful puppet masters that control the govt., if We The People demanded an abolition of the current govt. and revolted as was our right(it's no longer possible, the A. Lincoln administration and the congress of that day saw to it that we cannot toss out the govt. and start anew)we could possibly correct the system. That being now impossible, I see no reason for us to fool ourselves into beliving that we can make a difference. Look at the last Presidential election (and for those of you old enough, remember Dewey beat Roosevelt!, Lincoln and Douglas), now how can anyone tell me they honestly belive in this corrupt system? Personally, I belive God can, does and will use anyone, believer or not,(hey, even human or not; Baalam's Donkey!) to achieve His desired outcome. Believers need to quit arguing about politics and get back to God's buisness and word. Remember, another sage said,Politics and Religion do not mix. Jeff - Original Message - From: Terry Clifton == The Republican party is anything but the party of God. Why do you want to keep Jesus locked up in a church house when the world needs to hear about him? Would it be terrible if a president who claims to be a tool of God promoted that same God to unbelievers? Would that be peddling, or testifying? Honest well thought out answers please. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Jonathan, I am fed up with your incessant complaining and harping. NOTHING IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR JONATHAN. There, did I sound like I was YELLING? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hughes Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 8:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Izzy, your posts in the last few days have included a lot of bold and capital letters. Are you aware that they make it look as if you are yelling? Are you as angry as your posts make you look? The same President Bush has repeatedly and unequivocally testified that his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is the same God that is worshipped by Muslims: Allah. Does this in any way frighten you? Does Bush believing that Allah is just another way to God (actually is the same God) set off any red flags in your mind? Is Jesus the only way to the Father? Are you aware of how Jesus is thought of in Islamic thought? Do you agree with President Bush that Allah is God? Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terry Clifton Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 7:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat ShieldsFamily wrote: Izzy in red below: Terry, WHERE have you been for the past four plus years, while President Bush REPEATEDLY and UNEQUIVOCABLY testified of his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Why would you accuse him of not testifying? How many other Presidents have EVER done that, or clearly gave their testimony as he has? --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/17/2004
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
You on TT are all (except Michael and Judy) such a bunch of negative losers. I think Ill take a vacation from you for a while as you are sincerely getting on my last nerve. I have better things to do than trying to instill some sense into you. Have a nice time watching Bush win the election. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 27, 2004 8:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat In a message dated 9/27/2004 4:40:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Apparently you dont quite get it yet, John. What I think was said that AT A POLITICAL RALLY the Republicans did not allow songs ABOUT JESUS. This is NOT a free-speech issue. (duh!) This is an issue of what is APPROPRIATE at a NON-SECTARIAN POLITICAL RALLY. It is NOT a church meetingtherefore hymns are not appropriate!!! Patriotic songs would be appropriate. GWB is the President of EVERY AmericanNOT just Christians!!! To push Jesus in their faces because of his political power would be an insult the Christ. Jesus is not a vacuum sweeper; He does not need to be peddled like one! Give Him some reverence, please. Palse. This is so bogess that it is surprising. Let's take in God we Trust off our money -- or is it appropriate to mention the Father but not the Son??? If you were having a church service I think you would forbid someone to make an appearance to plug Amway. Because you were against free speech? NO. Because it would not be an appropriate venue for selling soap products. There is a time and a place for everything. Where is your COMMON SENSE? What if your favorite political candidate was a Jew and he wanted the Torah recited at every rally? Wouldnt you think that was out of place? Or a Moslem who wanted to sing the Koran? Terry, on the other hand wants Jesus peddled at every venue. I guess he thinks that the Republican Party IS the party of God, rather than the party of ALL Americans. Izzy This is the very argument used by the godless in our society. Precisely. It is always appropriate to mention Jesus -- always. It is not always popular, however. Our country was founded, in part, on Christian principles. Why do we call it it Christian? If our country is or was founded on Christian principles, then it is appropriate to speak the Name. You have already been influenced by secularism on this point. I hasten to add that this does not effect your sisterhood -- but you are clearly mistaken. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
thisisyour reason for participating? On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 21:56:07 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have better things to do than trying to instill some sense into you.
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
DAVEH: Hm againWould you consider Jesus to have been cultish, if that is the right term? Or perhaps a better question, would he have been considered to have been the founder (or focal point) of a cult? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/25/2004 12:54:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Hm.Can Jesus be classified as either a liberal or conservative? By political definition, Jesus was a liberal (I hate to admit this). And most "conservatives"n our day would have defended the status quo of the 1st century. John -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/25/2004 11:14:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Hm againWould you consider Jesus to have been cultish, if that is the right term? Or perhaps a better question, would he have been considered to have been the founder (or focal point) of a cult? Not at all. His gospel, given full revelation in the writings of Paul and others, simply mirrors the "hidden: agenda of the Father from the beginning of time. An example of this would be David's comments in Ps 51, telling all those who would read that psalm that God cares more for true worship (brokenness and contribtion than prescribed acts of worship [i.e. sacrifices], even if they were presecibed by Him. The message has always been there -- it got lost in man's evolving effort at solving his own problems in his own way. IMO a brother, John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Dave Hansen wrote: DAVEH: Hm againWould you consider Jesus to have been cultish, if that is the right term? Or perhaps a better question, would he have been considered to have been the founder (or focal point) of a cult? Cult leader is exactly how He was viewed by the chief priest, and others. Terry
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
DAVEH: Hm.Can Jesus be classified as either a liberal or conservative? By political definition, Jesus was a liberal (I hate to admit this). And most conservativesn our day would have defended the status quo of the 1st century. John In all seriousness, I think the question is not Can Jesus be classified as either a liberal or conservative? The question is, Which of those two philosophies today most reflects Jesus? You know what I think of that. Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
ShieldsFamily wrote: In all seriousness, I think the question is not Can Jesus be classified as either a liberal or conservative? The question is, Which of those two philosophies today most reflects Jesus? You know what I think of that. Izzy Good thinking Iz. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
DAVEH: How do you think the prevailing establishment would have perceived him, John? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/25/2004 11:14:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Hm againWould you consider Jesus to have been cultish, if that is the right term? Or perhaps a better question, would he have been considered to have been the founder (or focal point) of a cult? Not at all. His gospel, given full revelation in the writings of Paul and others, simply mirrors the "hidden: agenda of the Father from the beginning of time. An example of this would be David's comments in Ps 51, telling all those who would read that psalm that God cares more for true worship (brokenness and contribtion than prescribed acts of worship [i.e. sacrifices], even if they were presecibed by Him. The message has always been there -- it got lost in man's evolving effort at solving his own problems in his own way. IMO a brother, John -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
I think Jesus was a liberal... but He was a religious liberal. He was not a political liberal. After all, He seemed to suggest a more passive stance against Rome than the Zealots. Yeshua would not have been cultic. He was a House Hillel Pharisee who spoke against the conservative [religious] position held by House Shammai Pharisees. In fact, He spoke vehemently against them often (remember the "Woe to you" phrases)? [For more information on this topic, see the book... Jesus the Pharisee..." if you can find it affordable!] -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Sunday, 26 September, 2004 12.23To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or DemocratDAVEH: How do you think the prevailing establishment would have perceived him, John?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/25/2004 11:14:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Hm againWould you consider Jesus to have been cultish, if that is the right term? Or perhaps a better question, would he have been considered to have been the founder (or focal point) of a cult?Not at all. His gospel, given full revelation in the writings of Paul and others, simply mirrors the "hidden: agenda of the Father from the beginning of time. An example of this would be David's comments in Ps 51, telling all those who would read that psalm that God cares more for true worship (brokenness and contribtion than prescribed acts of worship [i.e. sacrifices], even if they were presecibed by Him. The message has always been there -- it got lost in man's evolving effort at solving his own problems in his own way. IMOa brother,John-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
As near as I can tell, a copy of this book is around $100 right now! I wish mine would hurry up and get here! On a serious note Slade, you just confirmed a musing of mine from a couple of years ago. Now I know I'll enjoy this book! Jeff - Original Message - From: Slade Henson To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 16:02 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat I think Jesus was a liberal... but He was a religious liberal. He was not a political liberal. After all, He seemed to suggest a more passive stance against Rome than the Zealots. Yeshua would not have been cultic. He was a House Hillel Pharisee who spoke against the conservative [religious] position held by House Shammai Pharisees. In fact, He spoke vehemently against them often (remember the "Woe to you" phrases)? [For more information on this topic, see the book... Jesus the Pharisee..." if you can find it affordable!] -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave HansenSent: Sunday, 26 September, 2004 12.23To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or DemocratDAVEH: How do you think the prevailing establishment would have perceived him, John?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/25/2004 11:14:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Hm againWould you consider Jesus to have been cultish, if that is the right term? Or perhaps a better question, would he have been considered to have been the founder (or focal point) of a cult?Not at all. His gospel, given full revelation in the writings of Paul and others, simply mirrors the "hidden: agenda of the Father from the beginning of time. An example of this would be David's comments in Ps 51, telling all those who would read that psalm that God cares more for true worship (brokenness and contribtion than prescribed acts of worship [i.e. sacrifices], even if they were presecibed by Him. The message has always been there -- it got lost in man's evolving effort at solving his own problems in his own way. IMOa brother,John-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/26/2004 7:26:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Hm.Can Jesus be classified as either a liberal or conservative? By political definition, Jesus was a liberal (I hate to admit this). And most "conservatives"n our day would have defended the status quo of the 1st century. John In all seriousness, I think the question is not Can Jesus be classified as either a liberal or conservative? The question is, Which of those two philosophies today most reflects Jesus? You know what I think of that. Izzy And what is the "conservative philosphy?" Is one a conservative if he believes in states rights, a decreasing federal reality, balanced budgets, a dynamic national defense system and a woman's right to choose? Or, what if one is pro-life, prayer in schools, pro medical mariwana, and anti - gun. Or, what if one is pro-life, pro prayer in schools, pro "in God we trust," for state's rights, for balance budgets, pro national defgense, pro traditional marriage, anti-gay (whatever that is), anti-NEA, for closing the borders by force if necessary and pro socialized medicine? Or, what if he did not have time for politics of any kind, did not vote, and minitered to hundreds of individuals each and every year? John
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Izzy in red below. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 3:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat In a message dated 9/26/2004 7:26:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Hm.Can Jesus be classified as either a liberal or conservative? By political definition, Jesus was a liberal (I hate to admit this). And most conservativesn our day would have defended the status quo of the 1st century. John In all seriousness, I think the question is not Can Jesus be classified as either a liberal or conservative? The question is, Which of those two philosophies today most reflects Jesus? You know what I think of that. Izzy And what is the conservative philosphy? Is one a conservative if he believes in states rights, a decreasing federal reality, balanced budgets, a dynamic national defense system and a woman's right to choose? Or, what if one is pro-life, prayer in schools, pro medical mariwana, and anti - gun. Or, what if one is pro-life, pro prayer in schools, pro in God we trust, for state's rights, for balance budgets, pro national defgense, pro traditional marriage, anti-gay (whatever that is), anti-NEA, for closing the borders by force if necessary and pro socialized medicine? Or, what if he did not have time for politics of any kind, did not vote, and minitered to hundreds of individuals each and every year? John What is your problem, John? Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
DAVEH: Hm.Can Jesus be classified as either a liberal or conservative? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FW: Republican or Democrat wwjd? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:06:04 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subject: Republican or Democrat || -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/25/2004 12:54:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: Hm.Can Jesus be classified as either a liberal or conservative? By political definition, Jesus was a liberal (I hate to admit this). And most "conservatives"n our day would have defended the status quo of the 1st century. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Title: FW: Republican or Democrat wwjd? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:06:04 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subject: Republican or Democrat ||
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Title: FW: Republican or Democrat Hi Izzy, Nice joke. Jokes and stories are nice when one wants to avoid facts. The facts: More people are below the poverty line since Bush took office than before. More poverty, more homeless. This is what conservative compassion is all about. An estimated 850 000 people are homeless in the United States on any given night, according to advocates for the homeless.About 45 million people were without health care insurance for part of 2003, according to a US Census Bureau report published last week.The report showed that since Bush took office in 2001, 4,3 million people have fallen below the poverty line. That brought the number of people living in poverty in 2003 to 35,9 million, or 12,5 percent of the population.Several thousand protesters representing groups called Still We Rise and Housing Works marched to within two blocks of Madison Square Garden accusing Republicans of ignoring the plight of the poor and those living with HIV and Aids."Today's march is about the reality of the Republicans' compassion agenda," said Michael Kink of Housing Works."They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk on AIDS, homelessness and poverty. We have more AIDS, more homelessness and more extreme poverty than we did four years ago." http://news.lp.findlaw.com/politics/s/20040830/campaignprotestsdc.html Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamilySent: Friday, September 24, 2004 4:06 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Subject: Republican or Democrat A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they cameto a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person hisbusiness card and told him to come to his business for a job. He thentook twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homelessperson.The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homelessperson, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person andgave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into theRepublican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept 15 forAdministrative Fees and gave the homeless person five.Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents sy rattachant contiennent de linformation confidentielle et privilgie. Si vous ntes pas le destinataire vis, s.v.p. en informer immdiatement son expditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et dtruire toute copie (lectronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire vis est interdite et peut tre illgale. Merci de votre coopration relativement au message susmentionn.
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Title: FW: Republican or Democrat Oh here we go on yet another tirade against Bush. You just cannot stick to one subject before you start bouncing off the walls on several tangents. What would you do for a life if you couldnt bash President Bush? Fortunately for me, I have better things to do. Enjoy yourself. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hughes Jonathan Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Hi Izzy, Nice joke. Jokes and stories are nice when one wants to avoid facts. The facts: More people are below the poverty line since Bush took office than before. More poverty, more homeless. This is what conservative compassion is all about. An estimated 850 000 people are homeless in the United States on any given night, according to advocates for the homeless. About 45 million people were without health care insurance for part of 2003, according to a US Census Bureau report published last week. The report showed that since Bush took office in 2001, 4,3 million people have fallen below the poverty line. That brought the number of people living in poverty in 2003 to 35,9 million, or 12,5 percent of the population. Several thousand protesters representing groups called Still We Rise and Housing Works marched to within two blocks of Madison Square Garden accusing Republicans of ignoring the plight of the poor and those living with HIV and Aids. Today's march is about the reality of the Republicans' compassion agenda, said Michael Kink of Housing Works. They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk on AIDS, homelessness and poverty. We have more AIDS, more homelessness and more extreme poverty than we did four years ago. http://news.lp.findlaw.com/politics/s/20040830/campaignprotestsdc.html Jonathan Hughes From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ShieldsFamily Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 4:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat Subject: Republican or Democrat A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person. The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept 15 for Administrative Fees and gave the homeless person five. Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats This e-mail and any attachments contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Thank you for your cooperation in connection with the above. Ce courriel ainsi que tous les documents sy rattachant contiennent de linformation confidentielle et privilégiée. Si vous nêtes pas le destinataire visé, s.v.p. en informer immédiatement son expéditeur par retour de courriel, effacer le message et détruire toute copie (électronique ou autre). Toute diffusion ou utilisation de cette information par une personne autre que le destinataire visé est interdite et peut être illégale. Merci de votre coopération relativement au message susmentionné.
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Title: FW: Republican or Democrat who would crucify him for that? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:29:03 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He would vote Republican, obviously. Must you ask? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:23 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat wwjd? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:06:04 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subject: Republican or Democrat || G ~ P 235
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Title: FW: Republican or Democrat Jonathan. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat who would crucify him for that? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:29:03 -0500 ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He would vote Republican, obviously. Must you ask? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat wwjd? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:06:04 -0500 ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Subject: Republican or Democrat || G ~ P 235
RE: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Title: FW: Republican or Democrat
I
can't resistthis is hysterical. I'm cracking up
laughing
Kay
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
ShieldsFamilySent: Friday, 24 September, 2004
17.58To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Jonathan.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:14
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or
Democrat
who would crucify him for
that?
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:29:03 -0500 "ShieldsFamily"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
He would vote
Republican, obviously. Must you ask? Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 2:23
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or
Democrat
wwjd?
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:06:04 -0500 "ShieldsFamily"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Subject:
Republican or Democrat ||
G ~ P
235
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/24/2004 1:24:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: An estimated 850 000 people are homeless in the United States on any given night, according to advocates for the homeless. These people are provided for -- at least here in Fresno. This number indicates nothing of any real consequence. If so what? About 45 million people were without health care insurance for part of 2003, according to a US Census Bureau report published last week. Understand that this figure is one which relates to private health care insurance. Somewhere around 19 million of this 45 million total are children fully covered in the community health care system. In California, it is against the law to turn away a child who has come to the hospital for health care. Another 15 million of this 45 million total are those who moved from one job to another, loosing their insurance but only for a time. The actual number of those who have no coverage is 11 million -- and that does need to be given some attention. The report showed that since Bush took office in 2001, 4,3 million people have fallen below the poverty line. That brought the number of people living in poverty in 2003 to 35,9 million, or 12,5 percent of the population. Nearly all of these people are young people in their 20's or younger and uneducated or untrained for better paying jobs. It is a transitory number -- the number remaining somewhat constant while most of the particular individuals, in time, move out of this total. My youngest daughter and her husband live on around $10,000 per year. She owns a new car. All of the furniture inside their very small home is new. They have a child -- four months old. Things are good for them. The fact that money is lean, that they are below the "poverty line," is not the problem. The problem is money management -- not poverty. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
In a message dated 9/24/2004 2:59:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jonathan. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 3:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat who would crucify him for that? On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:29:03 -0500 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He would vote Republican, obviously. Must you ask? Izzy Ok -- you got a laugh out of me on this one. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Republican or Democrat
Hughes Jonathan wrote: FW: Republican or Democrat Hi Izzy, Nice joke. Jokes and stories are nice when one wants to avoid facts. The facts: More people are below the poverty line since Bush took office than before. More poverty, more homeless. This is what conservative compassion is all about. An estimated 850 000 people are homeless in the United States on any given night, according to advocates for the homeless. About 45 million people were without health care insurance for part of 2003, according to a US Census Bureau report published last week. The report showed that since Bush took office in 2001, 4,3 million people have fallen below the poverty line. That brought the number of people living in poverty in 2003 to 35,9 million, or 12,5 percent of the population. Several thousand protesters representing groups called Still We Rise and Housing Works marched to within two blocks of Madison Square Garden accusing Republicans of ignoring the plight of the poor and those living with HIV and Aids. "Today's march is about the reality of the Republicans' compassion agenda," said Michael Kink of Housing Works. "They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk on AIDS, homelessness and poverty. We have more AIDS, more homelessness and more extreme poverty than we did four years ago." === Poverty can be traced to dishonesty and greed on the part of employers, or it can be traced to lazyness on the part of an indiviidual. Most people who have AIDS cannot blame the republicans and should not hold government responsible for their poor moral standards. Most homeless, including some relatives of mine, fall into a somewhat similar situation. If you don't work, you don't eat. I read that last line somewhere. Oh yeah, the Bible. mean spirited Terry
