date:20060320





Do YOU know of anyone who has read that
new biography on Joseph Smith? 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling

DAVEH: I'm not aware of anybody locally who has read it. I belong to
Mormon-Library, and several members have it, but as yet none have
posted a personal review. Several reviews have been posted on M-L
though, but the reviews were not by the MLers. From everything I've
heard, it is a good biography of JS. Several MLers are book dealers,
and they've said RSR is outselling the other JS biographies by a large
margin. FWIWThere must have been at least a half dozen or more
biographies about JS published this past year.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  
  One smiles! Hokey Smokey, Dave!
You'd be so bold as to contrast man-made vs Biblical when, granted IFF
your first 'prophet' wasn't a prophet then, your whole
system/foundation/restored version is man-made.
  
  PS:Do YOU know of anyone who has
read that new biography on Joseph Smith? 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone
Rolling - Richard Lyman Bushman
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave

To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 19, 2006 11:21
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


I was wondering how you would answer.

DAVEH: Thank you for your below succinct answer, Kevin. I will
reciprocate. 

 Contrasted to the man-made doctrine of the Trinity, I believe in
the Biblical version of the Godhead where each person (Father, Son and
Holy Ghost) of the Godhead is referred to as God.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity
that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer.
  
  
  Is this that difficult to answer?
  
  Who do you, believe to be
God?
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
  
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me
answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe you can help me out
here Dave H?
  
  Who do you, believe to be God?
  
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost

Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11





Doesn't that teach us something about God's 
abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?
DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning.

David Miller wrote:

  DaveH, I agree with Judy here.  The argument of a "literal impossibility" is 
a little weak when we are talking about God.  Moses did see a bush that was 
burning but not consumed.  Doesn't that teach us something about God's 
abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11

Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance?  Genesis is not a "science 
book" per se.
Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is 
called "science"
Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and 
Physics?

Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD   (I 
think) ...

KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality 
endless torment.
a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire

DAVEH:   More imagery that is physically an impossibility.  Fire can be 
extinguished, whereas
mental torment can go on forever.

So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who 
delivered what he had
promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. 
A God who was
able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept 
them in the desert for 40yrs
feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing 
out and their feet from
swelling.  The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe 
head to float on water
The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front 
of Jezebels' chariot and
had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave.

Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the 
feeble efforts of man explain
Him?


On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits 
you.

Lance 
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?




Sadly Dave, this is the retort that many/most make 
in the face of disagreement. We're saying 'if you really understood then, you'd 
agree with me/us'.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 19, 2006 17:16
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is 
God?
  Do I know LDS theology as well as you 
  do?DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, 
  Kevin. However, it is obvious that you don't understand it.Kevin 
  Deegan wrote: 
  
Do you agree with Lance DH?
Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!Lance 
Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  

  As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here 
  already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than 
  he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him?
  
  ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph 
  Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman
  - Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 
To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: 
March 19, 2006 07:00
Subject: 
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is 
exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 

Is this that difficult to 
answer?

Who do you, believe to be 
God?
Father
Son
Holy Ghost
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
DAVEH: 
  For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than 
  me answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the 
  Father, Son and Holy Ghost?Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  
Maybe you can help me out here Dave 
H?

Who do you, believe to be 
God?

Father
Son
Holy Ghost

  -- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

I'm reading it now, Dave.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: March 19, 2006 17:17
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is 
God?
  I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith 
  - Rough Stone RollingDAVEH: Have you read it, 
  Lance?Lance Muir wrote: 

As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here 
already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he 
does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him?

ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph 
Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: 
  March 19, 2006 07:00
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

  As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is 
  exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 

  Is this that difficult to 
  answer?

  Who do you, believe to be 
  God?
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  DAVEH: 
For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me 
answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father, 
Son and Holy Ghost?Kevin Deegan wrote: 

  Maybe you can help me out here Dave 
  H?

  Who do you, believe to be 
  God?

  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost

-- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

'muddle in his own puddle', I like it.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 

  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: March 20, 2006 01:36
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is 
God?
  DAVEH: ??? Why do you say that, 
  Kevin? Just because I don't always respond quickly or as often as you do 
  hardly means that I am not willing to defend that which I believe to be 
  true. Nor am I compelled to respond to every post aimed at 
  deriding that which I believe.sometimes I'm quite content letting the 
  poster muddle in his own puddle.Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  I understand your reluctance todefend the mormon 
faith!Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote: 

  You are right about that!
  I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you 
  tell me you really have one.
  Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you 
  have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too.
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  Do 
I know LDS theology as well as you do?DAVEH: You 
certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it is 
obvious that you don't understand it.Kevin Deegan wrote: 

  Do you agree with Lance DH?
  Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
  Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
  I seem to remember you saying quite the 
  opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:

As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone 
here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or 
better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass 
him?

ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 
'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman 
Bushman
- Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: 
  March 19, 2006 07:00
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

  As everyone here alread y knows, I believe God is a Trinity 
  that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 

  Is this that difficult to 
  answer?

  Who do you, 
  believe to be God?
  Father
  Son
  Holy 
  Ghost
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  DAVEH: 
For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather 
than me answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe 
about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?Kevin Deegan wrote: 

  Maybe you can help me out here 
  Dave H?

  Who do you, believe to be 
  God?

  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?




It's OK to answere the oft-asked first question, 
DH. Nobody reads TT of any consequence. IMO your's is a genuinely house of cards 
system. Is it not likely, perhaps even necessarily, the case that IFF JS were a 
fraud then the balance of the LDS superstructure collapses?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 20, 2006 03:10
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is 
God?
  Do YOU know of anyone who has read 
  that new biography on Joseph Smith? 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone 
  RollingDAVEH: I'm not aware of anybody locally who 
  has read it. I belong to Mormon-Library, and several members have it, 
  but as yet none have posted a personal review. Several reviews have been 
  posted on M-L though, but the reviews were not by the MLers. From 
  everything I've heard, it is a good biography of JS. Several MLers are 
  book dealers, and they've said RSR is outselling the other JS biographies by a 
  large margin. FWIWThere must have been at least a half dozen or more 
  biographies about JS published this past year.Lance Muir wrote: 
  



One smiles! Hokey Smokey, Dave! You'd be so 
bold as to contrast man-made vs Biblical when, granted IFF your first 
'prophet' wasn't a prophet then, your whole system/foundation/restored 
version is man-made.

PS:Do YOU know of anyone who has read that 
new biography on Joseph Smith? 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling - 
Richard Lyman Bushman

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  March 19, 2006 11:21
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
  I was wondering how you would 
  answer.DAVEH: Thank you for your below 
  succinct answer, Kevin. I will reciprocate. 
   Contrasted to the man-made doctrine of the 
  Trinity, I believe in the Biblical version of the Godhead where each 
  person (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) of the Godhead is referred to as 
  God.Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  
As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is 
exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 

Is this that difficult to 
answer?

Who do you, believe to be 
God?
Father
Son
Holy Ghost
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
DAVEH: 
  For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than 
  me answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the 
  Father, Son and Holy Ghost?Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  
Maybe you can help me out here Dave 
H?

Who do you, believe to be 
God?

Father
Son
Holy Ghost

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM




Oh but I do rejoice with you, David. God does heal 
and, this may be one of those healings. It was the 'word faith approach' that 
concerned us.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  David Miller 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 19, 2006 14:59
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM
  
  What this reminds me of is when the Pharisees complained about Jesus 
  healing on the Sabbath. My daughter is healed now, and she is happy, I'm 
  happy, my wife is happy, everybody is happy except for these 3 people who came 
  together and talked about how disturbing my post to TT was about it.
  
  At this same time, Dean sent me a post complaining about my testimony 
  concerning childbearing, not using doctors and believing God for painless 
  childbirth. I don't know if I will ever understand how others cannot 
  simply rejoice with me when God is so good.
  
  David Miller
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:19 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

What truth do you refer toLance?
Are you calling him co-leader of a sectarian group 
because he encourages his daughter
to believe God to speed healing of herwrist 
and relieve the pain? or
Because there are many religious sects on this TT 
list?

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:13:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  David could 'justify' this truth better than 
  I, Judy.
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:00:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian 
group.
Can you justify this announcement Lance by 
giving us a list of
the various sects that comprise this 
group? Mormon is obvious,
what are the others.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

David:Will you tell us something about the 'church' you're a part of. What 
is your role in that 'church'?

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 22:31
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

Lance and cohorts, please stop referring to David Miller's sect.  Can 
you
identify or name any such sect? Why do you insist on such arrogant 
insults?

David please close this snakepit.  izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 5:38 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing the commandments of God'.
Everyone (including you along with all of those within your sect, David)
'transgresses the commandments of God', David. You then, David, ought to 
be

and, likely are, warning those non-protestants within your sect concerning
this. Amen, I guess, for consistency if nothing else.

Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 18, 2006 16:11
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

Dave, for what it is worth, your view of hell is also shared by many
Protestants.  In fact, a very well known hell fire and brimestone 
preacher

by the name of Jed Smock (www.brojed.org) believes about hell pretty much
just like you do.  Still, Jed will stand on campus and warn students
loudly
about bur-r-r-n-n-ning in the la-a-a-ke of FI-I-I-R-R-E!  I was
surprised
the first time I learned that Jed believed the fire he preached was
figurative. I'm curious about you. Do you ever warn people about the FIRE
of
hell?  In other words, do you use this metaphor yourself to convey to
people
the danger of transgressing the commandments of God?

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Dave

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

I did think from previous encounters that you believed there was no
literal Hell.

DAVEH:  Quite the contrary.   As I view it, hell is the physical
separation
from God and his love.  The effect of such separation is similar to how 
it

would feel if you were cast into the burning garbage dump of Jerusalem,
except its effect would last forever.

Are you saying then that it is not a place?

DAVEH:  No, I did not say that.  If heaven is located in a place, then
heaven is located in a place other than where heaven is located.  So yes,
hell is a place.a place where God does not reside, nor does his love
emanate.

It is not physical?

DAVEH:  Yes, it is a physical place, but the description of the lake of
fire
and brimstone is symbolic representation of how folks will feel who end 
up
there.  I do not believe people will literally be cast into a burning 
lake

of fire and brimstone.  That is imagery, IMHO.

If this literal Hell you speak of is not a place,

DAVEH:   Since I do believe it is a place, the remaining questions seem
irrelevant.

   Now that I've satisfied your curiosity Kevin, let me now ask where you
think the literal burning pit (hell) will be located?

Kevin Deegan wrote:
I am sorry
I did think from previous encounters that you believed there was no
literal Hell.
Are you saying then that it is not a place?
It is not physical?
When someone uses the term Literal that is synonomous with physical,
perhaps, therein lies the confusion.

If this literal Hell you speak of is not a place, where will those that
suffer this mental anguish be?
Will they be neighbors of those that do not suffer?
Can there be both joy  sorrow in the same place?
Will they be in a physical place?

Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you have been decieved by the Devil

DAVEH:  I respectfully disagree with you on that, Kevin.  Quite the
contraryIn reality, I've been enlightened by a fellow TTer!

   I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand my position
on
this, Kevin.  I do believe in a literal hell.literally being 
separated
from God.  I just don't believe that those who reject Jesus will 
literally

be cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, as many believe.  Lacking the
eternal love of the Lord, those who suffer such separation will eternally
and forever suffer mental anguish at their shortsighted selfish decision
to
choose evil over good.

   Before you had brought these BoM and DC passages to my attention, I
had
never considered how latter-day scriptures handled this topic.  The only
time I had looked into it was several years ago in response to TTers
questioning me about it, and at that time I only looked at Bible passages
that were posted.  Perhaps it was you Kevin, I don't recall.  Back then, 
I
had only examined a number of Biblical passages to come to deter mine 
that
those who mentioned hell in the Bible were doing so symbolically when 
they

used the imagery of the burning trash pit of Jerusalem to reflect how one
who does not go to

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

I understand that a lot of agreement exists between Benny Hinn and Kenneth 
Copeland. So?

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 22:40
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

The problem with you, Lance, is that you live an insular life; thinking 
that

others who don't agree with you don't get out enough. My husband is a
medical doctor and research scientist who believes exactly as DM does, and
he knows many others who believe as he does.  Stop being so narrow minded
about what real scientists believe. izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:21 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

I DID discuss it with you off the list but, you did not respond, David. 
What

we (most believers) have here is a failure to communicate with you (your
sect). You cite Heb 11 as if it amounted to 'case closed'. When I wrote 
you
privately David, I mentioned Hobart Freeman. Please look at his legacy 
and,

take care. E. W. Kenyon's offspring are everywhere. Are you one of them?

I also asked you whether you'd be interested in exposing yourself to some
'real' believing scientists re: Genesis 1-3. Would you? Further David, 
would

you be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' logicians (i.e.
philosophers who employ logic without falling prey to rationalism).

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 08:08
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

Well, perhaps I should have kept that to myself, or shared privately with
a
few others, but then, wouldn't that have tended toward sectarianism?  At
least my daughter is healed, Lance.  You should be rejoicing with me, not
fearing dangerous sect or cult.  The difference between us on this matter
has to do with an understanding of faith.  Please read Heb. 11, and also
consider that I only speak of my personal belief and practice, which is
not
the same as insisting others do the same.  Lastly, you should consider
discussing issues like this one with me, perhaps off the list, rather 
than

making erroneous judgments about me.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

I have read all of these passages numerous times. Yes, I do read the
Bible.

Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group.

You posted a family anecdote on TT in the last week or so. What that
reflected concerning 'your God' spoke volumes. If anyone should be
fearful,
David, I'd say 'look in the mirror.

At least our concern seems mutual. :)
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 07:46
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

Lance wrote:

David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing
the commandments of God'.  Everyone
(including you along with all of those within
your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments
of God', David.

You appear to be using the word sect here rather loosely.  I'm
anti-sectarian, remember?  I do not believe that denominations are of
God.
It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty
recently.

That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing 
the
commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal 
fate.

If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then
that
means that you transgress the commandments of God.  Such indicates that
you
are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ.  Have you not read the
following passages?

Matthew 19:17
(17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

John 14:15
(15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.

John 15:10
(10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I
have
kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

1 John 2:3-4
(3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
(4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a
liar,
and the truth is not in him.

1 John 3:22
(22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his
commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

1 John 3:24
(24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in 
him.

And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath
given
us.

1 John 5:2-3
(2) By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God,
and
keep his commandments.
(3) For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his
commandments are not grievous.

Revelation 12:17
(17) And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with
the
remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the
testimony of Jesus Christ.
Revelation

Do not know who but perhaps you are thinking of Hugh Knox a not so Calvinistic Presbyterian minister who believed in Free Will.The first Missionaries to this area were the Moravians. A full half of them perished before a year. The first two Moravian Missionaries tried to sell themselves into slavery to reach the slaves there.http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/rus_smith/NT.smith.colossians.1.1-13.html On a perilous sea voyage from London to the British colony of Georgia, two young Anglican preachers found themselves trapped on a small ship in a big storm. They, along with the rest of the passengers and the crew, feared for their lives. There was only one exception to the panic on board a band of Moravians who spent the entire storm singing hymns and praising God. These two Anglican
preachers were so impressed by the faith of these Moravians that they sought them out and spent time with them. When the two returned to London, they began to worship with the Moravian community there. One night at a service on Aldersgate Street, one of those young men experienced what he called a warming of the heart. His name was John WesleyAn interesting look at the LOVE for Others they had. http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/mevangel/leprosy.htmSince Moravians existed before the reformation they can not be considered "POTESTants"ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just wondering; does anyone know if this John Knox is the same one who in the early 1700s apparently won Alexander Hamilton to Christ when he was a teenager in the
West Indies? izzyFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 3:52
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance. Know was just a disciple of his Mother the REFORMED CATHOLIC Calvinhttp://www.newgenevacenter.org/biography/knox2.htmKnox
began as a Catholic priestKnox became a major supporter and disciple of Calvin'sLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy:Why indeed! Because he knew the works of Knox thoroughly. He also knew the works of Calvin thoroughly as he was editor of the 22 volumes of Calvin's NT
commentaries. Like all of redeemed humanity Judy, some of what persons say is worthwhile. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 18, 2006 09:00Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.Why does he clearlyquote from what he does not hold to then Lance?Wouldn't you call this being doubleminded? His doctrine is "Reformed" Calvinistic - same thingOn Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:56:21 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I LITERALLY cleaned my glasses, Judy. I took your interpretation to heart and, you are wrong vis a vis TFT's take on 'election'. I do see how you came to the conclusion you did, however. From: Judy Taylor Do you understand what you are reading yourself Lance?The statement below "Reformed doctrine of election" is CalvinisticJohn Knox who ppl say converted Scotland was Presbyterian (Calvinistic)Who pray tell wrote what Torrance calls the "Scots Confession?"Also "unprofitable servants" don't make it ... only the good and "faithful" ones
Clean your eyeglasses Lance and try again This is powerfully driven home by the Scots Confession in several articles, such as the twelfth and the fifteenth. All that we do is unworthy, so that we must fall down before you and unfeignedly confess that we are unprofitable servantsand it is precisely Justification by the free Grace of Christ alone that shows us that all that we are and have done even as believers is called in question.
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:07:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are quite correct as to your TFT observations, JD. Judy brings to her reading of TFT a bias that will not permit an equitable treatment of that which is there in the
text of his article.That is the exact antithesis of the Reformed doctrine of election, which rests salvation upon the prior and objective decision of God in Christ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As far as I know, Torrance believed that salvation was offered to all -- not a Calvinist opinion, my dear. And you are much more the Calvinist that he.His comments below gives us a consistent explanation of the biblical notion that man is justified apart from obedience to the law. It beats
a redactive explanation of same !! that's for sure. jd-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] He also says this: But the Scots Confession laid the axe to the root of any such movement when it insisted that we have to spoil ourselves even of our own regeneration and sanctification as well as justification. What is "axed" so radically was the notion of "co-redemption" which in our

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

Because you took opportunity again to avoid the question, AGAIN One God or Three which is it? Why is that so hard???Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: ??? Why do you say that, Kevin? Just because I don't always respond quickly or as often as you do hardly means that I am not willing to defend that which I believe to be true. Nor am I compelled to respond to every post aimed at deriding that which I believe.sometimes I'm quite content letting the poster muddle in his own puddle.Kevin Deegan wrote: I understand your reluctance todefend the mormon faith!Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are right about that! I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you tell me you really have one. Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do I know LDS theology as well as you do?DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it is obvious that you don't understand it.Kevin Deegan wrote: Do you agree with Lance DH? Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him?ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is
God?As everyone here alread y knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer?Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father, Son and Holy
Ghost?Kevin Deegan wrote: Maybe you can help me out here Dave H?Who do you, believe to be God?Father Son Holy Ghost-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE
and CLIPS.
Yahoo! Travel
Find
great deals to the top 10 hottest destinations!

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

If you do not believe that God is expressesed as a Trinity How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE? Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you tell me you really have one.DAVEH: I don't know if you read my posts, but fail to understand them. Or Kevinperhaps you don't bother reading them at all, but just skim them for the talking points. Do you not recall me saying that I worship only one God?Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too.DAVEH: I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand, Kevin. Do you not recall the Paul saying[1Cor8:5] For though
there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,).then Paul goes on to explain.[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.that to us there is but one God, the Father[Jn 4:23] But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship himand we are to worship the Fatherthe true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship himand if there is any question as to the meaning, he goes on to say the Father seeketh such to worship him.. The Bible is pretty clear on this and makes
it very simple to understand. Once again, Kevin...this is what I believe. If you have a problem understanding it, or comprehending itI don't know what else to say.other than..Perhaps the Trinity Doctrine has muddled your thinking.Kevin Deegan wrote: You are right about that! I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you tell me you really have one. Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do I know LDS theology as well as you
do?DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it is obvious that you don't understand it.Kevin Deegan wrote: Do you agree with Lance DH? Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass
him?ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer?Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?Kevin Deegan wrote: Maybe you can help me out here Dave H?Who do you, believe to be God?Father Son Holy Ghost-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?




1. You, Kevin, could tell him what his sect 
teaches.
2. It is just possible that that which he believes 
differs from that which his sect teaches.
3. It is also possible, as it is with anyone, that 
he might believe truly for the wrong reasons.
4. It is further possible that he, as it is with 
anyone, that he might believe wrongly for the right reasons.

L

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 20, 2006 07:06
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is 
God?
  
  Because you took opportunity again to avoid the question, AGAIN
  One God or Three which is it?
  Why is that so hard???Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  DAVEH: 
??? Why do you say that, Kevin? Just because I don't always 
respond quickly or as often as you do hardly means that I am not willing to 
defend that which I believe to be true. Nor am I compelled to 
respond to every post aimed at deriding that which I believe.sometimes 
I'm quite content letting the poster muddle in his own puddle.Kevin 
Deegan wrote: 
I understand your reluctance todefend the mormon 
  faith!Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  
You are right about that!
I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you 
tell me you really have one.
Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you 
have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend 
too.
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
Do 
  I know LDS theology as well as you do?DAVEH: 
  You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it is 
  obvious that you don't understand it.Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  
Do you agree with Lance DH?
Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
I seem to remember you saying quite the 
opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  

  As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone 
  here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or 
  better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass 
  him?
  
  ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 
  'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman 
  Bushman
  - Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 
To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: 
March 19, 2006 07:00
Subject: 
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

As everyone here alread y knows, I believe God is a Trinity 
that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 

Is this that difficult to 
answer?

Who do you, 
believe to be God?
Father
Son
Holy 
Ghost
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
DAVEH: 
  For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, 
  Kevinrather than me answering this, why don't you tell me 
  how you believe about the Father, Son and Holy 
  Ghost?Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  
Maybe you can help me out 
here Dave H?

Who do you, believe to be 
God?

Father
Son
Holy Ghost

  --   ~~~  Dave Hansen  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.langlitz.com  ~~~  If you wish to receive  things I find interesting,  I maintain six email lists...  JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,  STUFF, MOTORCYCLE
 and CLIPS.
  
  
  Yahoo! TravelFind 
  great deals to the top 10 hottest destinations!

Re: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic

I too should like to hear David's response to 
this.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: March 19, 2006 20:15
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance and 
  logic

  David , in other posts of the day, I find you saying that yoou and 
  Torrance are in agreement concerninglogic. I may ahve 
  misunderstood your wording, but that was what you said according to my 
  perspective. 

  Below you say this: 

  If you define "rationalist" in the more esoteric sense of the idea that 
  reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a 
  rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist 
  either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is 
  rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead 
  others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he 
  expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and 
  action. 
  -- DM

  Torrance might give caution with these words: 

  ".. we should seek to understand Christ, not by way of 
  observational deductions from his appearances, but in the light of what he is 
  in himself in his internal relations with God, that is, in terms of his 
  intrinsic significance disclosed through his self-witness and 
  self-communication to us in word and deed and reflected through the 
  evangelical tradition of the Gospel in the medium which he created for this 
  purpose in the apostolic foundation of the Church .. When we 
  adopt this kind of approach, whether in natural science or in theology, we 
  find that progress in understanding is necessarily circular. We develop 
  a form of inquiry in which we allow some field of reality to disclose itself 
  to us in the complex of its internal relations or its latent structure, and 
  thus seek to understand it in the light of its own intrinsic intelligibility 
  or logos ..Thus we seek to understand something, not by 
  schematising it to an external or alien framework of thought, but by operating 
  wit h a framework of thought appropriate to it" ---The Mediation of 
  Christ pp 4,5

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

You left out It is also possible that anything is possibleLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. You, Kevin, could tell him what his sect teaches. 2. It is just possible that that which he believes differs from that which his sect teaches. 3. It is also possible, as it is with anyone, that he might believe truly for the wrong reasons. 4. It is further possible that he, as it is with anyone, that he might believe wrongly for the right reasons.L- Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 20, 2006 07:06 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?Because you took opportunity again to avoid the question, AGAIN One God or Three which is it? Why is that so hard???Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: ??? Why do you say that, Kevin? Just because I don't always respond quickly or as often as you do hardly means that I am not willing to defend that which I believe to be true. Nor am I compelled to respond to every post aimed at deriding that which I believe.sometimes I'm quite content letting the poster muddle in his own puddle.Kevin Deegan wrote: I understand your reluctance todefend the mormon faith!Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are right about that! I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you tell me you really have one. Take that back you have
an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do I know LDS theology as well as you do?DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it is obvious that you don't understand it.Kevin Deegan wrote: Do you agree with Lance DH? Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him?ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?As everyone here alread y knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer?Who do you,
believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?Kevin Deegan wrote: Maybe you can help me out here Dave H?Who do you, believe to be God?Father Son Holy Ghost-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. Yahoo! TravelFind great deals to the top 10 hottest
destinations!
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?




It is also possible that sometimes you sound like 
your grandchildren.:) Seriously folks, I embrace (figuratively of course, DM) 
all on TT as believers/Christians/members of the body of Christ. Just as each 
takes into account the flawed/redeemed humanity of family members('ceptin 
the Miller family of course who are themselves without spot or wrinkle) we can, 
do and, ought to engage one another vociferously so as to teach and to learn 
from one another.(unless they happen to be a Republican :))

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 20, 2006 07:15
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is 
God?
  
  You left out 
  It is also possible that anything is possibleLance Muir 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  

1. You, Kevin, could tell him what his sect 
teaches.
2. It is just possible that that which he 
believes differs from that which his sect teaches.
3. It is also possible, as it is with anyone, 
that he might believe truly for the wrong reasons.
4. It is further possible that he, as it is 
with anyone, that he might believe wrongly for the right 
reasons.

L

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 20, 2006 07:06
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is 
  God?
  
  Because you took opportunity again to avoid the question, AGAIN
  One God or Three which is it?
  Why is that so hard???Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  DAVEH: 
??? Why do you say that, Kevin? Just because I don't always 
respond quickly or as often as you do hardly means that I am not willing 
to defend that which I believe to be true. Nor am I 
compelled to respond to every post aimed at deriding that which I 
believe.sometimes I'm quite content letting the poster muddle in his 
own puddle.Kevin Deegan wrote: 
I understand your reluctance todefend the mormon 
  faith!Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  
You are right about that!
I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but 
you tell me you really have one.
Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say 
you have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend 
too.
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
Do 
  I know LDS theology as well as you 
  do?DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot 
  about it, Kevin. However, it is obvious that you don't 
  understand it.Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  
Do you agree with Lance DH?
Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
I seem to remember you saying quite the 
opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  

  As DH has acknowledged and, 
  'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his 
  sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to 
  teach or embarrass him?
  
  ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the 
  book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman 
  Bushman
  - Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 

To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: 
March 19, 2006 07:00
Subject: 
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

As everyone here alread y knows, I believe God is a 
Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would 
answer. 

Is this that difficult to 
answer?

Who do 
you, believe to be God?
Father
Son
Holy 
Ghost
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
DAVEH: 
  For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, 
  Kevinrather than me answering this, why don't you tell 
  me how you believe about the Father, Son and Holy 
  Ghost?Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  
Maybe you can help me 
out here Dave H?

Who do you, believe to

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

If Elohim is the ONE God why did Jehovah Michael take part in organizing the earth? "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael . . ." Journal of Discourses 1:51, 9 April 1852Seems like a Trinity of Organizing gods to me. Are they separate individuals? It is true it is HARD to understand how they are THREE mathematically.I did not ask how many gods LDS "have to do" with. I asked how many gods? Father Son Holy Ghost Michael also called AdamFather Son Holy Ghost Father Son Michael the Organizing TRINITY? "Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days" DC 27:11 Why was Adam "The ancient of days"(Michael)involved in the "CREATION" of Earth?
Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you tell me you really have one.DAVEH: I don't know if you read my posts, but fail to understand them. Or Kevinperhaps you don't bother reading them at all, but just skim them for the talking points. Do you not recall me saying that I worship only one God?Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too.DAVEH: I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand, Kevin. Do you not recall the Paul saying[1Cor8:5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,).then Paul goes on to
explain.[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.that to us there is but one God, the Father[Jn 4:23] But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship himand we are to worship the Fatherthe true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship himand if there is any question as to the meaning, he goes on to say the Father seeketh such to worship him.. The Bible is pretty clear on this and makes it very simple to understand. Once again, Kevin...this is what I believe. If you have a problem understanding it, or comprehending
itI don't know what else to say.other than..Perhaps the Trinity Doctrine has muddled your thinking.Kevin Deegan wrote: You are right about that! I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you tell me you really have one. Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do I know LDS theology as well as you do?DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it is obvious that you don't understand it.Kevin
Deegan wrote: Do you agree with Lance DH? Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him?ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman
Bushman - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. Is this that difficult to answer?Who do you, believe to be God? Father Son Holy Ghost Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: DAVEH: For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me answering this, why don't you tell me how
you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?Kevin Deegan wrote: Maybe you can help me out here Dave H?Who do you, believe to be God?Father Son Holy Ghost-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER,
OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is Adam?

Brigham Young taught, "Elohim, Yahova Michael, were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth Michael became Adam" Joseph F. Smith Journal, 17 June 1871"The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with their Grandfather, and their children were more or less acquainted with their Great-Grandfather . . ." (Journal of Discourses 9:148, 12 Jan. 1862).If men areto become gods Men should Follow Adam women are to follow Eve BUT One must never believe that Adam ever actually accomplished his godhood? Even if he was partner with Elohim and Jehovah? Where was the Holy Ghost, what was he doing during this time? Why the substitution of Michael/Adam?Who is this Father - Son - GrandSON
TRINITY?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I too should like to hear David's response to this.- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 19, 2006 20:15 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic David , in other posts of the day, I find you saying that yoou and Torrance are in agreement concerninglogic. I may ahve misunderstood your wording, but that was what you said according to my perspective. Below you say this: If you define "rationalist" in the more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational
thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and action. -- DMTorrance might give caution with these words: ".. we should seek to understand Christ, not by way of observational deductions from his appearances, but in the light of what he is in himself in his internal relations with God, that is, in terms of his intrinsic significance disclosed through his self-witness and self-communication to us in word and deed and reflected through the evangelical tradition of the Gospel in the medium which he created for this purpose in the apostolic foundation of the Church .. When we adopt this kind of approach, whether in natural science or in theology, we find that progress in understanding is necessarily circular. We develop a form of inquiry in which we allow
some field of reality to disclose itself to us in the complex of its internal relations or its latent structure, and thus seek to understand it in the light of its own intrinsic intelligibility or logos ..Thus we seek to understand something, not by schematising it to an external or alien framework of thought, but by operating wit h a framework of thought appropriate to it" ---The Mediation of Christ pp 4,5
Yahoo! Mail
Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?




Everyone on TT is 'an heretick'. One question is 
'Can one be 'an heretick' yet have their name written in 'The Lamb's book of 
Life'?


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 20, 2006 07:28
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is 
God?
  
  If Elohim is the ONE God why did Jehovah  Michael take part in 
  organizing the earth?
  "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, 
  namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael . . ." Journal of Discourses 
  1:51, 9 April 1852
  
  Seems like a Trinity of Organizing gods to me. Are they separate 
  individuals?
  It is true it is HARD to understand how they are THREE 
  mathematically.
  
  I did not ask how many gods LDS "have to do" with.
  I asked how many gods?
  Father 
  Son 
  Holy Ghost
  Michael also called Adam
  
  Father Son Holy Ghost  Father Son  Michael the Organizing 
  TRINITY?
  "Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days" 
  DC 27:11
  Why was Adam "The ancient of days"(Michael)involved in the 
  "CREATION" of Earth?
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I 
do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you tell me 
you really have one.DAVEH: I don't know if you read 
my posts, but fail to understand them. Or Kevinperhaps you don't 
bother reading them at all, but just skim them for the talking 
points. Do you not recall me saying that I worship only one 
God?Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say 
you have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend 
too.DAVEH: I'm not sure why it is difficult to 
understand, Kevin. Do you not recall the Paul 
saying[1Cor8:5] For though there be that are called gods, 
whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords 
many,).then Paul goes on to explain.[6] 
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, 
and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by 
him.that to us there is but one God, the 
Father[Jn 4:23] But the hour cometh, and now is, 
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in 
truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship himand 
we are to worship the 
Fatherthe true worshippers shall 
worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to 
worship himand if there is any question as to the 
meaning, he goes on to say the Father seeketh such to worship 
him.. The Bible is pretty clear on this and makes it very 
simple to understand. Once again, Kevin...this is what I 
believe. If you have a problem understanding it, or comprehending 
itI don't know what else to say.other than..Perhaps the Trinity 
Doctrine has muddled your thinking.Kevin 
Deegan wrote: 

  You are right about that!
  I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but 
  you tell me you really have one.
  Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you 
  have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend 
  too.
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  Do 
I know LDS theology as well as you do?DAVEH: You 
certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it is 
obvious that you don't understand it.Kevin Deegan wrote: 

  Do you agree with Lance DH?
  Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
  Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
  I seem to remember you saying quite the 
  opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  



As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone 
here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or 
better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass 
him?

ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 
'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman 
Bushman
- Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  March 19, 2006 07:00
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
  
  As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a Trinity 
  that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 
  
  Is this that difficult to 
  answer?
  
  Who do you, 
  believe to be God?
  Father
  Son
  Holy 
  Ghost
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  DAVEH: 
For a guy who knows so much about LDS

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is Adam?




Did you mean to attach this post to 'that' post? 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin 
  Deegan 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 20, 2006 07:36
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is 
  Adam?
  
  Brigham Young taught, "Elohim, Yahova  Michael, were father, Son and 
  grandson. They made this Earth  Michael became Adam" 
  Joseph F. Smith Journal, 17 June 1871
  
  "The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked 
  with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with their 
  Grandfather, and their children were more or less acquainted with their 
  Great-Grandfather . . ." (Journal of Discourses 9:148, 12 
  Jan. 1862).
  
  If men areto become gods Men should Follow Adam  women are to 
  follow Eve
  BUT One must never believe that Adam ever actually accomplished his 
  godhood?
  Even if he was partner with Elohim and Jehovah?
  Where was the Holy Ghost, what was he doing during this time?
  Why the substitution of Michael/Adam?
  
  Who is this Father - Son - GrandSON 
  TRINITY?Lance Muir 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  



I too should like to hear David's response to 
this.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 19, 2006 20:15
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance and 
  logic
  
  
  David , in other posts of the day, I find you saying that yoou 
  and Torrance are in agreement concerninglogic. I may 
  ahve misunderstood your wording, but that was what you said according to 
  my perspective. 
  
  Below you say this: 
  
  If you define "rationalist" in the more esoteric sense of the idea 
  that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy 
  Spirit is a rationalist. By this definition, I am not a 
  rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit 
  is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead 
  others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, 
  and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and 
  action. 
  -- DM
  
  Torrance might give caution with these words: 
  
  ".. we should seek to understand Christ, not by way of 
  observational deductions from his appearances, but in the light of what he 
  is in himself in his internal relations with God, that is, in terms of his 
  intrinsic significance disclosed through his self-witness and 
  self-communication to us in word and deed and reflected through the 
  evangelical tradition of the Gospel in the medium which he created for 
  this purpose in the apostolic foundation of the Church .. 
  When we adopt this kind of approach, whether in natural science or in 
  theology, we find that progress in understanding is necessarily 
  circular. We develop a form of inquiry in which we allow some field 
  of reality to disclose itself to us in the complex of its internal 
  relations or its latent structure, and thus seek to understand it in the 
  light of its own intrinsic intelligibility or logos 
  ..Thus we seek to understand something, not by schematising it 
  to an external or alien framework of thought, but by operating wit h a 
  framework of thought appropriate to it" ---The Mediation of 
  Christ pp 4,5
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Yahoo! MailBring photos to life! New 
  PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

[TruthTalk] Fw: It just SEEMS patronizing!

Title: It just SEEMS patronizing!

- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: March 19, 2006 15:37
Subject: It just SEEMS patronizing!

…this of DM's, to 
"Don't-confuse-me-with-the-facts" Lance: 
I could be wrong, but 
as best I can tell, in theological circles, there appear to be biases expressed 
against concepts like "rationalism" and "dualism" and "reductionism" etc. You seem to try and operate in line with those biases without really 
understanding the reasoning behind the criticisms leveled against the ideas expressed 
by these words. 
He left out gnosticism. Like so many 
other people, you have an inexplicable bias against this, too, which could be 
cleared up by a little more reading and careful reflection. Don't just naively 
believe those gnostic-bashers because they're cool. 
I've been meaning to speak to you 
too about your stubborn, knee-jerk rejection of the pelagian position. It has 
its merits. Put on your thinking cap.
D --No virus found in this outgoing 
message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 
268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 3/17/2006

[TruthTalk] Fw: and now

- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: March 19, 2006 15:56
Subject: and now

sectarianism. Is 
nobody safe from your ignorance 
andbigotry?

DM has never really understood what an ad hominem is. 
It has nothing to do with rudeness. All ad homs, as a form of logical 
fallacy,are a variant of "Your disagreeing with me is just an intellectual 
failure on your part. Hence I am 
right."

The rude parts are 
just incidental extensions of the first sentence, of the form "...resulting from 
your being Catholic, Calvinist, prejudiced, poorly-read, Canadian, Communist, 
stupid, deceived by the devil, blind, itchy-eared, liberal, [fill in the 
blank]."

D
--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG 
Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 
3/17/2006

[TruthTalk] Fw: but of course





- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: March 19, 2006 16:02
Subject: but of course

that makes 80% of the 
communication on TT, from all quarters, ad hom rather than actual argument. We 
all do it.

D
--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG 
Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 
3/17/2006

[TruthTalk] Fw: [Wrightsaid] Digest Number 1245

Title: RE: [Wrightsaid] Digest Number 1245




- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: March 19, 2006 14:24
Subject: RE: [Wrightsaid] Digest Number 1245

I took note of the 
following: 
Ian noted from Wrights response to 
Barnett:declare that if the Reformed emphasis on continuity 
between   
OT and NT had been dominant in NT scholarship rather than the 
  Lutheran 
discontinuity view, much of the NPP would have been   unnecessary. 
  I find that an interesting comment. 

I too find it "an 
interesting comment", for reasons you've already heard me on; i.e., a 
significant amount of what I hear as new and fresh in the evangelical community 
is very familiar from the Reformed part of my background.
The other message I 
really appreciated, especially the day after watching Good Night and Good Luck, 
was Ian's below. I noted, without having read the book myself, how much of the 
reaction from Americans on the list was negative. It seems that in America, the 
entire left-right spectrum is shifted sharply to the right, so that if you are 
anywhere near the centre, or at all critical of the US, you are a Marxist!! How, 
otherwise, could anyone confuse Wright with a Marxist?
D 
Message: 17  Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 
05:50:35 -  From: "Ian Packer" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Subject: Re: Wright's politics 
  Bill S: Having read a lot of Wright's 
stuff I think it is fair to  call him Marxist...   Ian P: Nonsense... as a reader of sociology and philosophy, I 
can  hardly 
imagine how you make such a connection between Wright and a 
 materialistic, deterministic, 
economic apocalypticist.   
--   BS: 
... and hard left but that is inevitably a matter of opinion and 
 of semantics. 
  IP: Opinion it may be but not 'mere 
opinion'... one would expect  the 'semantics' to match in some clearer way to how one 
can  accurately 
describe the world. But this discussion seems all the  more absurd having just heard Wright 
talk about the childishness  of 'left' and 'right' talk as though things can be so 
neatly  
characterised as such. (e.g. Archbishop Rowan Williams holds open 
 the prospect long-term gay 
relationships as warranting some kind of  affirmation of the church but is against 
abortion. Is he right or  left?) It is this kind of talk which I think is 
"fundamentally  
naive"; as is anyone who imagines that matching troops around the 
 world is actually what 'we' 
Christians are about... for goodness  sake, don't we believe we are part of God's transnational 
people  now... 
why all the defensiveness over our views (from the irrelevant 
 sidelines) over American, 
British or Australian policy? Hail,  Caesar...   If Wright is "in the corner with violently anti American and 
anti  Jewish 
political types", then that is a corner so vast that it  hardly deserves to be called a corner 
(note the highly conflictual  boxing analogy for any disagreement).   May I suggest that no-one talk about 'their politics' in 
relation to  
Wright until they can articulate it from an ecclesiology that 
takes  seriously 
the corporate nature of Christian faith and our unique  vocation in the world between the 
horizons of our crucified but  risen Lord and the inaugurated eschatology of peace 
(shalom).   
Thanks to John S and Rance for sharpening the significant issues 
for  us though, 
as usual.   
Grace and peace   Ian 

--No virus found in this 
outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus 
Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 3/17/2006

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc

IFO should like to have this conflict elaborated upon, David. Is it fair of 
me to ask that you accuse TFT of the same heresy you accused me of some time 
back? This is that same distinction is it not? As I recall you tacked on one 
of those infamous warnings you've come to be known for.



- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 15:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc



Judy quotes a mentor of Lance:

Out of sheer respect for the majesty of
the Truth as it is revealed in the Holy
Scriptures, we have to do our utmost
to speak correctly and exactly about it
-that is the meaning of orthodoxy and
the way of humility-but when we have
done all this, we have still to confess that
we are unfaithful servants, that all our efforts
fall far short of the truth.


Judy wrote:

I see a very definite conflict between the
teaching of God's Word and your favorite
mentors Barth and TFT


Judy, which mentor are you quoting above?

There is a definite conflict between God's Word and what you quote above.
Is there anybody on this list who does not see this conflict?  If so, I 
will

elaborate as time permits.

David Miller

--
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.





--
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] Lance, TFT, Promises etc




Hey Iz; you and your husband are in the medical 
field. What do they say about ppl
who like to dialogue with themselves all the 
time like this? I note none of these are questions
they are all answers. What was the 
question?

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:21:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  ..e.g., "Take a guard..Go, make the tomb as secure as 
  you know how" means thatPilate knew, implictly,that he 
  never could 'wash his hands' ofJC (who was, 
  quiteinterestingly, 
  apprehending him)
  
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:11:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
..the 
difference betw her  Pilate is that his language, implicitly, his 
notion of having 'apprehended'JC, is suspect

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:41:10 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..in her 
  psyche, the writer already knows the notion is 
  suspect
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:28:55 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
myth (note 
the quotes)

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:51:52 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  .. 
  apprehend Christ..
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM


David:

4. Will you kindly name those 'believing scientists' with whom you've 
engaged? I'll name but two for now with whom you might 'engage'. 1. John 
Polkinghorne (See his newest: 'Science and The Trinity - The Christian 
Encounter with Reality' 2004 2. Alexei V. Nesteruk 'Light from the East - 
Theology, Science, and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition'2003. Should you 
actually check 'em out, you'll see competence in both disciplines.


5. Once again I'll name but two; Thomas V. Morris 'The Logic of God 
Incarnate', 1986 2. 'Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God', 1984


Should you wish to present the positive side of rationalism, dualism, 
reductionism and, perhaps even gnosticism then, I should like to hear it.


Lance
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 14:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM



Lance, I don't know what you are talking about.  We do have a failure to
communicate here.

1.  Heb. 11 isn't meant to be case closed, just helpful.
2.  I don't know who Hobart Freeman is, or his legacy.
3.  I am familiar a little with E.W. Kenyon.  No, I am not one of his
offspring.
4.  Exposing myself to believing scientists?  I'm not sure what you mean 
by
exposing myself. I have engaged many believing scientists about this. 
What
I'm really more interested in are theologians.  The few I have engaged 
can't

handle the science side, and generally they plead ignorance in our
discussion, falling back on I'm a theologian... sorry...  Would I expose
myself to scientists and theologians?  Of course.  Your question seems
nonsensical.
5.  Real logicians?  Of course I would welcome that.

I could be wrong, but as best I can tell, in theological circles, there
appear to be biases expressed against concepts like rationalism and
dualism and reductionism etc.  You seem to try and operate in line 
with

those biases without really understanding the reasoning behind the
criticisms leveled against the ideas expressed by these words.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM


I DID discuss it with you off the list but, you did not respond, David. 
What

we (most believers) have here is a failure to communicate with you (your
sect). You cite Heb 11 as if it amounted to 'case closed'. When I wrote 
you
privately David, I mentioned Hobart Freeman. Please look at his legacy 
and,

take care. E. W. Kenyon's offspring are everywhere. Are you one of them?

I also asked you whether you'd be interested in exposing yourself to some
'real' believing scientists re: Genesis 1-3. Would you? Further David, 
would

you be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' logicians (i.e.
philosophers who employ logic without falling prey to rationalism).


- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 08:08
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM



Well, perhaps I should have kept that to myself, or shared privately with
a
few others, but then, wouldn't that have tended toward sectarianism?  At
least my daughter is healed, Lance.  You should be rejoicing with me, not
fearing dangerous sect or cult.  The difference between us on this matter
has to do with an understanding of faith.  Please read Heb. 11, and also
consider that I only speak of my personal belief and practice, which is
not
the same as insisting others do the same.  Lastly, you should consider
discussing issues like this one with me, perhaps off the list, rather 
than

making erroneous judgments about me.

David Miller

- Original Message - 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM


I have read all of these passages numerous times. Yes, I do read the
Bible.

Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group.

You posted a family anecdote on TT in the last week or so. What that
reflected concerning 'your God' spoke volumes. If anyone should be
fearful,
David, I'd say 'look in the mirror.

At least our concern seems mutual. :)
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 07:46
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM



Lance wrote:

David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing
the commandments of God'.  Everyone
(including you along with all of those within
your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments
of God', David.


You appear to be using the word sect here rather loosely.  I'm
anti-sectarian, remember?  I do not believe that denominations are of
God.
It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty
recently.

That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing 
the
commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal 
fate.

If you think

Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?




If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have prayed 
"make them "unity in diversity" just as we are ...
I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said if 
someone had seen him they had seen the Father 
because he did only what he first saw the Father do and 
he said only what he first heard from the 
Father. This is the kind of unity he was praying 
about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what the
end times "harlot church" is all about.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  We 
  shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday, Judy. Right 
  now, unity inspite of diversity is all we've got. 
  
  Because 
  you and I are not of the same Christ does not mean that unity in diversity 
  does not exist.jd
  


From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  
  Agreed! I to hate all the 
  isms and all the ologies.
  
  In fact I don't see why we can not 
  lay them aside so that we may recognize the 
  faith
  
  once delivered to the saints and 
  "walk in Truth" or reality. Jesus was not referring to 
  any
  
  "Unity in diversity" in John 
  17.He prayed they would be One as He and the Father are 
  One
  
  Is "Unity in diversity" how you 
  seethe Godhead or "Trinity?" JD
  
  
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

Sectarianism! Amen! Have you 
(of course you have) taken note of those who so identify others as 
sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective of a 
repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the 
truth.

  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  
  
  It has occurred to me that legalism, although 
  unattractive as it is, is not my real complaint. Henceforth and 
  forever more, I will be opposed to sectarianism. The legal 
  content of the sectarian is often different -- but the 
  sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless of his/her 
  stripes. They are the ones who oppose the unity concerns 
  expressed by Christ in John 17. There can be 
  unity in diversity. In sectarian circles, the only unity 
  that exists is one borne of thefearof reprisal. 
  jd
  
  
  
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 




One other thought on the creation 
thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor than 
for any other reason. My comments can stand on their 
own, I believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old 
earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches such - for the 
reasons stated. Could the earth be only 6000 years 
old. I suppose so, but only the sectarians beleive 
such, IMHO. Is God the creator? Now 
that is the real question. I would think we all agree on 
the answer to that question. 




End of the matter for me. And, 
so, the opportunity to delve into the character of the opponent is 
side tracked. Motivation be damned -- 
in a biblical sense , of course. 




jd





From: "David 
Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
John wrote:   To your first question , "no."  
 If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. 
  John wrote:   To your second question, 
either you   did not read my post or you have  
 decided to insult my presentation?   I read 
your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. 
 Most of your argument revolves around why we should 
consider using a  figurative meaning. This is the approach I 
hear from most Bible scholars,  but the pressure for doing 
this seems to come from science not good  theology, in my 
opinion.   The strongest statement you make is where 
you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses  the word day figuratively. 
This is easily understood to be figurative, but  ; the uses 
of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First 
 Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that 
numbered days  are figurative. It is the numbering of the 
day as well as its coupling with  the evening and morning 
statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as  being 
anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and 
 morning. You would have to argue that

Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?




What follows is not a 'shot'...I repeat, THIS IS 
NOT A SHOT! Re: 'end times 'harlot church' is that which I'd see as the mantra 
of David Miller's sect. I believe he's part of a sect which, as they used to 
say, has hived off from the 'end times harlot church' so as to recover the true 
(his) gospel.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 20, 2006 08:23
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in 
  Genesis literal or figurative?
  
  If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have prayed 
  "make them "unity in diversity" just as we are ...
  I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said if 
  someone had seen him they had seen the Father 
  because he did only what he first saw the Father do 
  and he said only what he first heard from the 
  Father. This is the kind of unity he was 
  praying about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what the
  end times "harlot church" is all about.
  
  On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  


We 
shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday, Judy. Right 
now, unity inspite of diversity is all we've got. 

Because you and I are not of the same Christ does 
not mean that unity in diversity does not 
exist.jd

  
  
  From: Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  

Agreed! I to 
hate all the isms and all the 
ologies.

In fact I don't see 
why we can not lay them aside so that we may recognize the 
faith

once delivered to 
the saints and "walk in Truth" or reality. Jesus was not referring 
to any

"Unity in 
diversity" in John 17.He prayed they would be One as He and the 
Father are One

Is "Unity in 
diversity" how you seethe Godhead or "Trinity?" 
JD



On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  Sectarianism! Amen! Have 
  you (of course you have) taken note of those who so identify others as 
  sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective of a 
  repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the 
  truth.
  

From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 




It has occurred to me that legalism, 
although unattractive as it is, is not my real complaint. 
Henceforth and forever more, I will be opposed to 
sectarianism. The legal content of the sectarian is often 
different -- but the sectarian is the same kind of cat, 
regardless of his/her stripes. They are the ones who 
oppose the unity concerns expressed by Christ in John 
17. There can be unity in diversity. 
In sectarian circles, the only unity that exists is one borne 
of thefearof reprisal. 
jd



  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  
  
  One other thought on the creation 
  thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor than 
  for any other reason. My comments can stand on their 
  own, I believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old 
  earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches such - for 
  the reasons stated. Could the earth be only 6000 years 
  old. I suppose so, but only the sectarians beleive 
  such, IMHO. Is God the creator? Now 
  that is the real question. I would think we all agree 
  on the answer to that question. 
  
  
  
  
  End of the matter for me. And, 
  so, the opportunity to delve into the character of the opponent is 
  side tracked. Motivation be damned 
  -- in a biblical sense , of course. 
  
  
  
  
  jd
  
  
  
  
  
  From: "David 
  Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
  John wrote:   To your first question , "no."  
   If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. 
John wrote:   To your second 
  question, either you   did not read my post or you 
  have   decided to insult my presentation?  
   I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to 
  insult you at all.  Most of your argument revolves around 
  why we should consider using a  figurative meaning. This 
  is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars,  but the 
  pressure for

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: and now




Strange friend you have Lance; she has her own 
definitions for everything. If something false that
sounds logical is the criteria then we should begin to 
censure everyone who speaks the truth, it sure
would be a lot less work for the moderator. 1984 
has arrived.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:43:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  From: Debbie Sawczak 
  
  sectarianism. Is 
  nobody safe from your ignorance 
  andbigotry?
  
  DM has never really understood what an 
  ad hominem is. It has nothing to do with rudeness. 
  
  All ad homs, as a form of logical fallacy,are a 
  variant of "Your disagreeing with me is just an 
  intellectual
  failure on 
  your part. Hence I am right."
  
  The rude parts are 
  just incidental extensions of the first sentence, of the form 
  "...
  resulting from your 
  being Catholic, Calvinist, prejudiced, poorly-read, Canadian, Communist, 
  stupid, deceived 
  by the devil, blind, 
  itchy-eared, liberal, [fill in the 
  blank]."
  
  D

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: and now




I'm curious, Judy. Have you read 1984 by George 
Orwell?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 20, 2006 08:30
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: and 
now
  
  Strange friend you have Lance; she has her own 
  definitions for everything. If something false that
  sounds logical is the criteria then we should begin 
  to censure everyone who speaks the truth, it sure
  would be a lot less work for the moderator. 
  1984 has arrived.
  
  On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:43:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
From: Debbie Sawczak 

sectarianism. Is nobody safe from your ignorance 
andbigotry?

DM has never really understood what an 
ad hominem is. It has nothing to do with rudeness. 

All ad homs, as a form of 
logical fallacy,are a variant of "Your disagreeing with me is 
just an intellectual
failure on your part. Hence I am 
right."

The rude parts are just incidental extensions of 
the first sentence, of the form 
"...
resulting from your being Catholic, Calvinist, 
prejudiced, poorly-read, Canadian, Communist, stupid, deceived 

by the devil, blind, itchy-eared, liberal, [fill in 
the blank]."

D

Fw: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic

- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: March 20, 2006 08:35
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic

The TFT quote is apropos. I am appreciating the way Victor 
uses the word 'logic' to mean something similar to what 'logos' means as used by 
TFT below; it is always the logic of something, that is, peculiar to 
something.It strikes me thatthe unqualified use of the word, i.e., 
as a sort of absolute standardto whichall truth must 
conform,is the same thing as rationalism.

What David calls the 'esoteric' sense of rationalism is 
just the normal sense. Interestingly, if he applies his own kind of logic, the 
distinction between reason as the source of truth andreason as 
the standard (or criterion) of truth is spurious, for if everything 
conforms to reason, then everything is ultimately discoverable by 
reason.

D

From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 7:17 AMTo: Debbie 
SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] torrance and 
logic

- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 19, 2006 20:15
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic

David , in other posts of the day, I find you saying that yoou and 
Torrance are in agreement concerninglogic. I may ahve 
misunderstood your wording, but that was what you said according to my 
perspective. 

Below you say this: 

If you define "rationalist" in the more esoteric sense of the idea that 
reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a 
rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. 
However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does 
not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses 
rational thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as 
a basis of belief and 
action. 
-- DM

Torrance might give caution with these words: 

".. we should seek to understand Christ, not by way of 
observational deductions from his appearances, but in the light of what he is in 
himself in his internal relations with God, that is, in terms of his intrinsic 
significance disclosed through his self-witness and self-communication to us in 
word and deed and reflected through the evangelical tradition of the Gospel in 
the medium which he created for this purpose in the apostolic foundation of the 
Church .. When we adopt this kind of approach, whether in 
natural science or in theology, we find that progress in understanding is 
necessarily circular. We develop a form of inquiry in which we allow some 
field of reality to disclose itself to us in the complex of its internal 
relations or its latent structure, and thus seek to understand it in the light 
of its own intrinsic intelligibility or logos ..Thus we 
seek to understand something, not by schematising it to an external or alien 
framework of thought, but by operating wit h a framework of thought appropriate 
to it" ---The Mediation of Christ pp 4,5

--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG 
Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 
3/17/2006
--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG 
Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 
3/17/2006

Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?




Lance you are truly an obdurant person. DM has 
said over and over ad nauseum that he
is not leading and does not belong to a sect. Why do 
you insist on using this type terminology. Do you
really want to communicate with him or just 
totweak him a little? Because you are by your actions
calling him a liar. Your belief about DM has nothing at 
all to do with reality along with your belief in 

some other areas.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:30:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  What follows is not a 'shot'...I repeat, THIS IS 
  NOT A SHOT! Re: 'end times 'harlot church' is that which 
  I'd see as the mantra of David Miller's sect. I 
  believe he's part of a sect which, as they used to say, has hived 

  off from the 'end times harlot church' so as to 
  recover the true (his) gospel.
  
From: Judy Taylor 

If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have 
prayed "make them "unity in diversity" just as we are ...
I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said 
if someone had seen him they had seen the Father 
because he did only what he first saw the Father do 
and he said only what he first heard from the 
Father. This is the kind of unity he was 
praying about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what the
end times "harlot church" is all 
about.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  We 
  shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday, Judy. 
  Right now, unity inspite of diversity is all we've got. 
  
  Because you and I are not of the same Christ does 
  not mean that unity in diversity does not 
  exist.jd
  


From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  
  Agreed! I 
  to hate all the isms and all the 
  ologies.
  
  In fact I don't 
  see why we can not lay them aside so that we may recognize the 
  faith
  
  once delivered to 
  the saints and "walk in Truth" or reality. Jesus was not 
  referring to any
  
  "Unity in 
  diversity" in John 17.He prayed they would be One as He and the 
  Father are One
  
  Is "Unity in 
  diversity" how you seethe Godhead or "Trinity?" 
  JD
  
  
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 "Lance 
  Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

Sectarianism! Amen! Have 
you (of course you have) taken note of those who so identify others 
as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective of a 
repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the 
truth.

  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  
  
  It has occurred to me that legalism, 
  although unattractive as it is, is not my real complaint. 
  Henceforth and forever more, I will be opposed to 
  sectarianism. The legal content of the sectarian is often 
  different -- but the sectarian is the same kind of 
  cat, regardless of his/her stripes. They are the ones 
  who oppose the unity concerns expressed by Christ in John 
  17. There can be unity in diversity. 
  In sectarian circles, the only unity that exists is one 
  borne of thefearof reprisal. 
  jd
  
  
  
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 




One other thought on the creation 
thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor 
than for any other reason. My comments can stand on 
their own, I believe. I do not believe in a 6000 
year old earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches such 
- for the reasons stated. Could the earth be only 
6000 years old. I suppose so, but only the 
sectarians beleive such, IMHO. Is God the 
creator? Now that is the real question. 
I would think we all agree on the answer to that question. 




End of the matter for me. 
And, so, the opportunity to delve into the character of the 
opponent is side tracked. Motivation be 
damned -- in a biblical sense , of course. 




jd





From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  John wrote:  
 To your first question ,

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?




Why would he call himself a Mormon or for that matter 
identify with any 'ism in which he
did not believe Lance? I go to a Reformed Church 
but I will not join and I do not identify myself
with or tell others that I am Presbyterian. It is 
possible not to be affiliated with a sect Lance.
Just as it is possible to understand and walk in 
Truth. HELLO?

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:12:37 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  1. You, Kevin, could tell him what his sect 
  teaches.
  2. It is just possible that that which he 
  believes differs from that which his sect teaches.
  3. It is also possible, as it is with anyone, 
  that he might believe truly for the wrong reasons.
  4. It is further possible that he, as it is with 
  anyone, that he might believe wrongly for the right reasons.
  
  L
  
From: Kevin Deegan 

Because you took opportunity again to avoid the question, AGAIN
One God or Three which is it?
Why is that so hard???Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
DAVEH: 
  ??? Why do you say that, Kevin? Just because I don't always 
  respond quickly or as often as you do hardly means that I am not willing 
  to defend that which I believe to be true. Nor am I compelled 
  to respond to every post aimed at deriding that which I 
  believe.sometimes I'm quite content letting the poster muddle in his 
  own puddle.Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  I understand your reluctance todefend the mormon 
faith!Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote: 

  You are right about that!
  I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but 
  you tell me you really have one.
  Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you 
  have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend 
  too.
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  Do 
I know LDS theology as well as you do?DAVEH: 
You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it 
is obvious that you don't understand it.Kevin Deegan wrote: 

  Do you agree with Lance DH?
  Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
  Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
  I seem to remember you saying quite the 
  opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  



As DH has acknowledged and, 
'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his 
sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach 
or embarrass him?

ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 
'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman 
Bushman
- Original Message - 
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  March 19, 2006 07:00
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
  
  As everyone here alread y knows, I believe God is a 
  Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would 
  answer. 
  
  Is this that difficult to 
  answer?
  
  Who do you, 
  believe to be God?
  Father
  Son
  Holy 
  Ghost
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  DAVEH: 
For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, 
Kevinrather than me answering this, why don't you tell 
me how you believe about the Father, Son and Holy 
Ghost?Kevin Deegan wrote: 

  Maybe you can help me out 
  here Dave H?
  
  Who do you, believe to be 
  God?
  
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
  
--   ~~~  Dave Hansen  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  http://www.langlitz.com  ~~~  If you wish to receive  things I find interesting,  I maintain six email lists...  JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,  STUFF, MOTORCYCLE
 and CLIPS.


Yahoo! TravelFind 
great deals to the top 10 hottest destinations!

Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?




Tell me then Judy, what you actually know about the 
group with whom he worships. You appear confident that his 'group' is not a 
'sect' so, let's hear what you actually KNOW.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 20, 2006 08:35
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in 
  Genesis literal or figurative?
  
  Lance you are truly an obdurant person. DM has 
  said over and over ad nauseum that he
  is not leading and does not belong to a sect. Why do 
  you insist on using this type terminology. Do you
  really want to communicate with him or just 
  totweak him a little? Because you are by your actions
  calling him a liar. Your belief about DM has nothing 
  at all to do with reality along with your belief in 
  
  some other areas.
  
  On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:30:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
What follows is not a 'shot'...I repeat, THIS 
IS NOT A SHOT! Re: 'end times 'harlot church' is that which 
I'd see as the mantra of David Miller's sect. I 
believe he's part of a sect which, as they used to say, has hived 

off from the 'end times harlot church' so as to 
recover the true (his) gospel.

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have 
  prayed "make them "unity in diversity" just as we are ...
  I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said 
  if someone had seen him they had seen the Father 
  because he did only what he first saw the Father 
  do and he said only what he first heard from the 
  Father. This is the kind of unity he was 
  praying about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what the
  end times "harlot church" is all 
  about.
  
  On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  


We shall be one as He and the Father are one, 
someday, Judy. Right now, unity inspite of diversity 
is all we've got. 
Because you and I are not of the same Christ 
does not mean that unity in diversity does not 
exist.jd

  
  
  From: Judy 
  Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  

Agreed! I 
to hate all the isms and all the 
ologies.

In fact I don't 
see why we can not lay them aside so that we may recognize the 
faith

once delivered 
to the saints and "walk in Truth" or reality. Jesus was not 
referring to any

"Unity in 
diversity" in John 17.He prayed they would be One as He and 
the Father are One

Is "Unity in 
diversity" how you seethe Godhead or "Trinity?" 
JD



On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 "Lance 
Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  Sectarianism! Amen! 
  Have you (of course you have) taken note of those who so identify 
  others as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective 
  of a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' 
  the truth.
  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 




It has occurred to me that legalism, 
although unattractive as it is, is not my real complaint. 
Henceforth and forever more, I will be opposed to 
sectarianism. The legal content of the sectarian is often 
different -- but the sectarian is the same kind of 
cat, regardless of his/her stripes. They are the 
ones who oppose the unity concerns expressed by Christ in John 
17. There can be unity in 
diversity. In sectarian circles, the only unity that 
exists is one borne of thefearof reprisal. 
jd



  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  
  
  One other thought on the creation 
  thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor 
  than for any other reason. My comments can stand 
  on their own, I believe. I do not believe in a 
  6000 year old earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches 
  such - for the reasons stated. Could the 
  earth be only 6000 years old. I suppose so, but 
  only the sectarians beleive such, IMHO. Is 
  God the creator? Now that is the real 
  question. I

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?




Hello? (I believe that it was Bill Cosby who 
popularized this put down) I guess even you are a part of pop culture, 
Judy.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 20, 2006 08:43
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is 
God?
  
  Why would he call himself a Mormon or for that matter 
  identify with any 'ism in which he
  did not believe Lance? I go to a Reformed 
  Church but I will not join and I do not identify myself
  with or tell others that I am Presbyterian. It 
  is possible not to be affiliated with a sect Lance.
  Just as it is possible to understand and walk in 
  Truth. HELLO?
  
  On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:12:37 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
1. You, Kevin, could tell him what his sect 
teaches.
2. It is just possible that that which he 
believes differs from that which his sect teaches.
3. It is also possible, as it is with anyone, 
that he might believe truly for the wrong reasons.
4. It is further possible that he, as it is 
with anyone, that he might believe wrongly for the right 
reasons.

L

  From: Kevin Deegan 
  
  Because you took opportunity again to avoid the question, AGAIN
  One God or Three which is it?
  Why is that so hard???Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  DAVEH: 
??? Why do you say that, Kevin? Just because I don't always 
respond quickly or as often as you do hardly means that I am not willing 
to defend that which I believe to be true. Nor am I 
compelled to respond to every post aimed at deriding that which I 
believe.sometimes I'm quite content letting the poster muddle in his 
own puddle.Kevin Deegan wrote: 
I understand your reluctance todefend the mormon 
  faith!Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  
You are right about that!
I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but 
you tell me you really have one.
Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say 
you have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend 
too.
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
Do 
  I know LDS theology as well as you 
  do?DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot 
  about it, Kevin. However, it is obvious that you don't 
  understand it.Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  
Do you agree with Lance DH?
Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
I seem to remember you saying quite the 
opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  

  As DH has acknowledged and, 
  'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his 
  sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to 
  teach or embarrass him?
  
  ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the 
  book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman 
  Bushman
  - Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 

To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: 
March 19, 2006 07:00
Subject: 
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

As everyone here alread y knows, I believe God is a 
Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would 
answer. 

Is this that difficult to 
answer?

Who do 
you, believe to be God?
Father
Son
Holy 
Ghost
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
DAVEH: 
  For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, 
  Kevinrather than me answering this, why don't you tell 
  me how you believe about the Father, Son and Holy 
  Ghost?Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  
Maybe you can help me 
out here Dave H?

Who do you, believe to 
be God?

Father
Son
Holy Ghost

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM





I don't know if closing down TT is Lance's ultimate 
agenda but he does
appear to like the idea. Reminds me of Tobias who 
kept nipping at the
heels of those engaged in rebuilding the temple. 
Nehemiah said he didn't
have time to engage him because he was a diversion and 
seemingly on
a mission. .

Lance and cohorts, please stop referring to David Miller's 
"sect". Canyou identify or name any such sect? Why do you insist 
on such arrogant insults? David please close this snakepit. 
izzy
Lance writes:  David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing 
the commandments of  God'.  Everyone (including you along 
with all of those within your sect,  David)  'transgresses 
the commandments of God', David. You then, David,  ought to  
 be  and, likely are, warning those non-protestants within your 
sect  concerning  this. Amen, I guess, for consistency if 
nothing else.
  From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: March 18, 2006 16:11  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell 
BoMDave, for what it is worth, your 
view of hell is also shared by  many  Protestants. 
In fact, a very well known hell fire and brimestone
preacher  by the name of Jed Smock (www.brojed.org) believes 
about hell  pretty much  just like you do. Still, 
Jed will stand on campus and warn  students  
loudly  about "bur-r-r-n-n-ning in the la-a-a-ke of 
FI-I-I-R-R-E!" I  was  surprised  
the first time I learned that Jed believed the fire he preached  
was  figurative. I'm curious about you. Do you ever warn people 
about  the FIRE  of  hell? In 
other words, do you use this metaphor yourself to  convey to 
 people  the danger of transgressing the commandments of 
God?   David Miller  
  - Original Message -   From: 
Dave  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:34 PM  Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] Hell BoM   I did think from previous 
encounters that you believed there was  no  "literal" 
Hell.   DAVEH: Quite the 
contrary. As I view it, hell is the physical  
separation  from God and his love. The effect of such 
separation is similar  to how   it  
would feel if you were cast into the burning garbage dump of  
Jerusalem,  except its effect would last forever. 
  Are you saying then that it is not a place? 
  DAVEH: No, I did not say that. If heaven 
is located in a place,  then  heaven is located in a 
place other than where heaven is located.  So yes, 
 hell is a place.a place where God does not reside, nor does 
 his love  emanate.   It 
is not physical?   DAVEH: Yes, it is a 
physical place, but the description of the  lake of  
fire  and brimstone is symbolic representation of how folks will 
feel  who end   up  there. I do 
not believe people will literally be cast into a  burning  
 lake  of fire and brimstone. That is imagery, 
IMHO.   If this "literal" Hell you speak of is 
not a place,   DAVEH: Since I do 
believe it is a place, the remaining  questions seem  
irrelevant.   Now that I've 
satisfied your curiosity Kevin, let me now ask  where you 
 think the literal burning pit (hell) will be located? 
Kevin Deegan 
wrote:  I am sorry  I did think from previous 
encounters that you believed there was  no  "literal" 
Hell.  Are you saying then that it is not a place? 
 It is not physical?  When someone uses the term Literal 
that is synonomous with  physical,  perhaps, therein 
lies the confusion.   If this "literal" Hell you 
speak of is not a place, where will  those that  suffer 
this mental anguish be?  Will they be neighbors of those that do 
not suffer?  Can there be both joy  sorrow in the same 
place?  Will they be in a physical place? 
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
 you have been decieved by the Devil   
DAVEH: I respectfully disagree with you on that, Kevin. Quite 
 the  contraryIn reality, I've been enlightened by a 
fellow TTer!   I don't know 
why it is so difficult for you to understand my  position 
 on  this, Kevin. I do believe in a literal 
hell.literally beingseparated  
from God. I just don't believe that those who reject Jesus will  
  literally  be cast into a lake of fire and 
brimstone, as many believe.  Lacking the  eternal 
love of the Lord, those who suffer such separation will  
eternally  and forever suffer mental anguish at their 
shortsighted selfish  decision  to  
choose evil over good.   
Before you had brought these BoM and DC passages to my  attention, 
I  had  never considered how latter-day 
scriptures handled this topic.  The only  time I 
had looked into it was several years ago in response to  TTers 
 questioning me about it, and at that time I only looked at Bible 
 passages  that were posted. Perhaps it was you 
Kevin, I don't recall.  Back then,   I 
 had only examined a number of Biblical passages to come to deter 
 mine   that  those who mentioned hell 
in the Bible were doing so symbolically  when   
they  used the imagery of the burning trash pit of Jerusalem to 
reflect  how one  who does not

Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?




I know what he has shared publicly which is that he has 
a house Church and meets with believers
inhomes. He also ministers publicly on college 
campuses and in the streets. Kind of like Paul in the 

book of Acts who taught in his home for 3 1/2yrs as 
well as on the streets. What is your problem 
Lance? 
You are all over DM like a rash.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:46:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Tell me then Judy, what you actually know about 
  the group with whom he worships. You appear confident that his 'group' is not 
  a 'sect' so, let's hear what you actually KNOW.
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Lance you are truly an obdurant person. DM 
has said over and over ad nauseum that he
is not leading and does not belong to a sect. Why 
do you insist on using this type terminology. Do you
really want to communicate with him or just 
totweak him a little? Because you are by your 
actions
calling him a liar. Your belief about DM has 
nothing at all to do with reality along with your 
belief in 
some other areas.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:30:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  What follows is not a 'shot'...I repeat, THIS 
  IS NOT A SHOT! Re: 'end times 'harlot church' is that which 
  I'd see as the mantra of David Miller's sect. 
  I believe he's part of a sect which, as they used to say, has hived 
  
  off from the 'end times harlot church' so as 
  to recover the true (his) gospel.
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have 
prayed "make them "unity in diversity" just as we are ...
I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus 
said if someone had seen him they had seen the Father 
because he did only what he first saw the 
Father do and he said only what he first heard from the 
Father. This is the kind of unity he was 
praying about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what 
the
end times "harlot church" is all 
about.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  
  We shall be one as He and the Father are one, 
  someday, Judy. Right now, unity inspite of diversity 
  is all we've got. 
  Because you and I are not of the same Christ 
  does not mean that unity in diversity does not 
  exist.jd
  


From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


  
  Agreed! 
  I to hate all the isms and all the 
  ologies.
  
  In fact I 
  don't see why we can not lay them aside so that we may recognize 
  the faith
  
  once 
  delivered to the saints and "walk in Truth" or reality. 
  Jesus was not referring to any
  
  "Unity in 
  diversity" in John 17.He prayed they would be One as He and 
  the Father are One
  
  Is "Unity in 
  diversity" how you seethe Godhead or "Trinity?" 
  JD
  
  
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 "Lance 
  Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

Sectarianism! Amen! 
Have you (of course you have) taken note of those who so 
identify others as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus 
reflective of a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 
'recovering' the truth.

  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  
  
  It has occurred to me that legalism, 
  although unattractive as it is, is not my real 
  complaint. Henceforth and forever more, I will be 
  opposed to sectarianism. The legal content of the 
  sectarian is often different -- but the sectarian 
  is the same kind of cat, regardless of his/her 
  stripes. They are the ones who oppose the unity 
  concerns expressed by Christ in John 
  17. There can be unity in 
  diversity. In sectarian circles, the only unity 
  that exists is one borne of thefearof 
  reprisal. jd
  
  
  
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 




One other thought on the creation 
thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM




What is the "Word of Faith" approach 
Lance?

Just because there are a few nuts and flakes out there 
will you throw all healing down the
drain with them? This is why the church in 
general has so many sick ppl. Sin is not understood or dealt with
most of the time because we don't want to offend 
anyone. If someone would just get up there and boldly
teach truth things might begin to change. If 
people could just begin to recognize what it is and were willing
to take responsibility, repenting and renouncing it 
then we could get rid of it once and for all and they would
know enough to resist when it tries to come back. 
But Oh well! We can't offend anyone, they might leave
and take their offering with them. Got to have 
those big tithers to pay for the building fund while the ppl
perish. Peter rightly said "If the righteous 
scarcely be saved" 


On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:20:24 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Oh but I do rejoice with you, David. God does 
  heal and, this may be one of those healings. 
  It was the 'word faith approach' that concerned 
  us.
  
From: David Miller 

What this reminds me of is when the Pharisees complained about Jesus 
healing on the Sabbath. My daughter is healed now, and she is happy, 
I'm happy, my wife is happy, everybody is happy except for these 3 people 
who came together and talked about how disturbing my post to TT was about 
it.

At this same time, Dean sent me a post complaining about my testimony 
concerning childbearing, not using doctors and believing God for painless 
childbirth. I don't know if I will ever understand how others cannot 
simply rejoice with me when God is so good.

David Miller



  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  What truth do you refer 
  toLance?
  Are you calling him co-leader of a sectarian 
  group because he encourages his daughter
  to believe God to speed healing of herwrist 
  and relieve the pain? or
  Because there are many religious sects on this TT 
  list?
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:13:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
David could 'justify' this truth better 
than I, Judy.

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:00:09 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes: Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian 
  group.
  Can you justify this announcement Lance by 
  giving us a list of
  the various sects that comprise this 
  group? Mormon is obvious,
  what are the others.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?





It's OK to answere the oft-asked first
question, DH.

DAVEH: ??? What first question?

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  It's OK to answere the oft-asked
first question, DH. Nobody reads TT of any consequence. IMO your's
is a genuinely house of cards system. Is it not likely, perhaps even
necessarily, the case that IFF JS were a fraud then the balance of the
LDS superstructure collapses?
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave
Hansen 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 20, 2006 03:10
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


Do YOU know of anyone who has read
that new biography on Joseph Smith? 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling

DAVEH: I'm not aware of anybody locally who has read it. I belong to
Mormon-Library, and several members have it, but as yet none have
posted a personal review. Several reviews have been posted on M-L
though, but the reviews were not by the MLers. From everything I've
heard, it is a good biography of JS. Several MLers are book dealers,
and they've said RSR is outselling the other JS biographies by a large
margin. FWIWThere must have been at least a half dozen or more
biographies about JS published this past year.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  One smiles! Hokey Smokey, Dave!
You'd be so bold as to contrast man-made vs Biblical when, granted IFF
your first 'prophet' wasn't a prophet then, your whole
system/foundation/restored version is man-made.
  
  PS:Do YOU know of anyone who
has read that new biography on Joseph Smith? 'Joseph Smith - Rough
Stone Rolling - Richard Lyman Bushman
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave

To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 19, 2006 11:21
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


I was wondering how you would answer.

DAVEH: Thank you for your below succinct answer, Kevin. I will
reciprocate. 

 Contrasted to the man-made doctrine of the Trinity, I believe in
the Biblical version of the Godhead where each person (Father, Son and
Holy Ghost) of the Godhead is referred to as God.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a
Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer.
  
  
  Is this that difficult to
answer?
  
  Who do you, believe
to be God?
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
  
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH:
For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me
answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe you can help me out
here Dave H?
  
  Who do you, believe to be
God?
  
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
   
  

  


  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

[TruthTalk] RSR





DAVEH: How far are you into it, and do you think it is a good read?
I'm too cheap to buy it now, but rather prefer to wait until it pops up
on the used market for much cheaper.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  I'm reading it now, Dave.
  
I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith
- Rough Stone Rolling

DAVEH: Have you read it, Lance?

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  As DH has acknowledged and,
'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as
well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass
him?
  
  ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend
the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman



  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?





 We're saying 'if you really understood
then, you'd agree with me/us'.

DAVEH: I don't see it that way at all, Lance. One can understand
something and still disagree. For instance, I understand why some
denominations baptize infants. That does not mean that I agree with
them.rather it just means I can understand their rationale for
doing so. 

 As I see it, some people read something related to LDS theology and
then assume it means something entirely different than what LDS people
understand it to mean. Usually that is because the person either has
an agenda, and reads into the words the meaning that fits that
agenda...or, the person takes the words out of context and/or fails
to consider related clarifying information ...or, the person fails
to consider the source of the information and assumes the information
has more relevance than reality dictates.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  Sadly Dave, this is the retort that
many/most make in the face of disagreement. We're saying 'if you
really understood then, you'd agree with me/us'.
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave

To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 19, 2006 17:16
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


Do I know LDS theology as well as you do?

DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it
is obvious that you don't understand it.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Do you agree with Lance DH?
  Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
  Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
  I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!
  
  

  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


dH, hopefully, you will not feel the need to respond to Kevin's 
pretense that you shy away from a Mormon defense. It is apparent
to any thinking person on this forum that such is not the case. Rather
it is Kevin who avoids such opportunities, time after time. 

I would not take seriously the criticism of one who does not practice 
what he preaches. 

jd

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

'muddle in his own puddle', I like it.

- Original Message - 
From: Dave Hansen 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 20, 2006 01:36
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
DAVEH: ??? Why do you say that, Kevin? Just because I don't always respond quickly or as often as you do hardly means that I am not willing to defend that which I believe to be true. Nor am I compelled to respond to every post aimed at deriding that which I believe.sometimes I'm quite content letting the poster muddle in his own puddle.Kevin Deegan wrote: 
I understand your reluctance todefend the mormon faith!Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

You are right about that!
I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you tell me you really have one.
Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you have one.That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too.
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do I know LDS theology as well as you do?DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it is obvious that you don't understand it.Kevin Deegan wrote: 

Do you agree with Lance DH?
Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him?

ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman
- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

As everyone here alread y knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 

Is this that difficult to answer?

Who do you, believe to be God?
Father
Son
Holy Ghost
Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DAVEH: For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?Kevin Deegan wrote: 

Maybe you can help me out here Dave H?

Who do you, believe to be God?

Father
Son
Holy Ghost

-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] RSR





For those who are not all that interested and those who 
do not have the $35 to spend on this book; here is an online Review from another 
cult the Christian Science Monitor  This is what Lance has been talking 
about. judyt
Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard L Bushman 
Founder of a church, he stirred up the United States A Review by Jane Lampman 
How did a young man from a poor farm family -- who as a boy received minimal 
education and had little religious background -- come to found a church that 
today boasts millions of members worldwide? 
A religious leader for only 14 years until his assassination in 1844, Joseph 
Smith drew thousands during his lifetime to his vision of a theocratic New 
Jerusalem in the American heartland. Possessing what one critic called a genius 
for "religion making," Smith wrote new scriptures and created a complex 
institution that has long survived his death.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints celebrated its 175th 
anniversary last year, and on December 23, the 200th anniversary of Smith's 
birth.
In Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, historian Richard Bushman, 
professor emeritus at Columbia University and a practicing Mormon, fashions a 
fascinating, definitive biography of the rough-hewn Yankee who stirred 
controversy from the start.
Bushman's intimate, 740-page portrait explores all the corners of controversy 
but does not resolve them, suggesting that -- given the nature of the man and 
his story -- such resolution is never likely to occur. An honest yet sympathetic 
portrayal, the book is rich in its depiction of developing Mormonism.
During an era of revivals and religious ferment, Smith saw himself as a major 
prophet and revelator -- a restorer of the one true church. Despite a story that 
appeared fantastical to many, Smith's teaching caught the interest of others in 
search of a faith different from that offered by the churches of the time.
As a youth, Smith engaged with family and friends in magic and 
treasure-digging. He also prayed to know which church to attend. He said later 
that he was then told by God and Jesus that the existing churches were in 
apostasy.
In a second vision, Smith said, an angel named Moroni directed him to buried 
golden plates that were to become the source for his Book of Mormon, which he 
translated from hieroglyphs through the use of a seer stone and spectacles that 
he called the Urim and Thummim. (The angel later retrieved the plates.)
The Book of Mormon is understood by Latter-day Saints to be the history of 
Jews who traveled to the Western hemisphere around 600 BCE, and of Jesus' visit 
to them after his resurrection. (The assumption that the Indians of the Americas 
are the descendants of the people in the book has been upset recently by DNA 
studies -- done by Mormons -- which show no connection to the ancient 
Hebrews.)
Smith -- called simply "Joseph" by Mormons -- published the book in 1830, and 
later published others (The Book of Abraham and The Book of Moses) 
purporting to provide true histories that go far beyond the Bible.
It was not preaching, but his ongoing "revelations" that shaped the 
developing religion and its practices. They were full of biblical phrasings, and 
many practices derived from Old Testament teachings (such as restoration of 
Aaron's priesthood).
The revelations included establishment of a hierarchical priesthood in which 
all males participate; secret temple rites; the deeding of property to church 
bishops, to be distributed as appropriate to the needy and toward purchase of 
land; and the nature of the afterlife, which includes "plural marriage."
Some may feel the author sanitizes Smith's motives for establishing polygamy 
and marrying dozens of wives.
Bushman tells an engrossing tale of a charismatic leader who was egalitarian 
and loved working with others, yet who was sensitive to criticism or 
dissent.
Mormons believed the Second Coming to be imminent, and converts followed 
their leader from New York to Ohio to Missouri, where Joseph said New Jerusalem 
was to be situated. But in purchasing large amounts of land for their City of 
Zion, the Mormons clashed -- and even went to war -- with other residents.
Smith lived in a biblical world where God's laws alone were of concern; He 
did not acknowledge governments, the nation, or the Constitution, Bushman says, 
until his flock ran into trouble and needed government protection. He then 
turned to state governors, and later to the US Congress for aid. The Mormons' 
story and self-image shifted from one of revelation to persecution.
Driven out of Missouri, the Saints regrouped in Nauvoo, Ill., where they 
built a temple and city, drawing church members from as far away as England. Yet 
Joseph's polygamous practice stirred controversy even among the faithful 
(including his first wife, Emma), and a few dissidents were excommunicated.
After he destroyed a dissenting Nauvoo newspaper, Smith was jailed in a

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc


It should be obvious why G does this. 
It is to some of us. 

jd

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







Hey Iz; you and your husband are in the medical field. What do they say about ppl
who like to dialogue with themselves all the time like this? I note none of these are questions
they are all answers. What was the question?

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:21:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


..e.g., "Take a guard..Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how" means thatPilate knew, implictly,that he never could 'wash his hands' ofJC (who was, quiteinterestingly, apprehending him)


On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:11:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

..the difference betw her  Pilate is that his language, implicitly, his notion of having 'apprehended'JC, is suspect

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:41:10 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

..in her psyche, the writer already knows the notion is suspect

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:28:55 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

myth (note the quotes)

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:51:52 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


.. apprehend Christ..
||

Re: [TruthTalk] Science versus science



David:4. Will you kindly name those 'believing scientists' with whom you've engaged? I'll name but two for now with whom you might 'engage'. 1. John Polkinghorne (See his newest: 'Science and The Trinity - The Christian Encounter with Reality' 2004 2. Alexei V. Nesteruk 'Light from the East - Theology, Science, and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition'2003. Should you actually check 'em out, you'll see competence in both disciplines.5. Once again I'll name but two; Thomas V. Morris 'The Logic of God Incarnate', 1986 2. 'Faith and Rationality: Reason and Belief in God', 1984Should you wish to present the positive side of rationalism, dualism, reductionism and, perhaps even gnosticism then, I should like to hear it.Lance

Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?


You don't see it ianywhere in scripture??? Try reading Romans 14. Or look to the solutions offered in Acts 15. Unity in diversity is the very theme of those passages. 

jd

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have prayed "make them "unity in diversity" just as we are ...
I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said if someone had seen him they had seen the Father 
because he did only what he first saw the Father do and he said only what he first heard from the 
Father. This is the kind of unity he was praying about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what the
end times "harlot church" is all about.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



We shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday, Judy. Right now, unity inspite of diversity is all we've got. 
Because you and I are not of the same Christ does not mean that unity in diversity does not exist.jd



From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


Agreed! I to hate all the isms and all the ologies.

In fact I don't see why we can not lay them aside so that we may recognize the faith

once delivered to the saints and "walk in Truth" or reality. Jesus was not referring to any

"Unity in diversity" in John 17.He prayed they would be One as He and the Father are One

Is "Unity in diversity" how you seethe Godhead or "Trinity?" JD



On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have) taken note of those who so identify others as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective of a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the truth.


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



It has occurred to me that legalism, although unattractive as it is, is not my real complaint. Henceforth and forever more, I will be opposed to sectarianism. The legal content of the sectarian is often different -- but the sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless of his/her stripes. They are the ones who oppose the unity concerns expressed by Christ in John 17. There can be unity in diversity. In sectarian circles, the only unity that exists is one borne of thefearof reprisal. jd



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



One other thought on the creation thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor than for any other reason. My comments can stand on their own, I believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches such - for the reasons stated. Could the earth be only 6000 years old. I suppose so, but only the sectarians beleive such, IMHO. Is God the creator? Now that is the real question. I would think we all agree on the answer to that question. 



End of the matter for me. And, so, the opportunity to delve into the character of the opponent is side tracked. Motivation be damned -- in a biblical sense , of course. 



jd





From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  John wrote:   To your first question , "no."   If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you.   John wrote:   To your second question, either you   did not read my post or you have   decided to insult my presentation?   I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all.  Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a  figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars,  but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good  theology, in my opinion.   The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses  t
he word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but  ; the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says, First  Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days  are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling with  the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it as  being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and  morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly  extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative  chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants  created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a biologist's  perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious  explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation.   What bothers me about the approach many theologians 
take to Genesis 1 is  that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must be  figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this  way. I have no trouble understanding that it might be read this way. I  have trouble with the idea that it should be read this way.   What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the motivation  is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for science and the claims  of science,

Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11





On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  What is a physical impossibility for God? 
  DAVEH: Did you ever read the SCREWTAPE LETTERS, 
  Judy? 
  
  jt: I started to but lost interest. I prefer to spend 
  time on studying the real thing rather than someone else's
  opinion about the subject.
  
  At one point, Screwtape (the devil) tells Wormwood that humans are too 
  quick to attribute their all their ills to him, effectively suggesting that 
  sometime humans give credit to where credit isn't due.
  
  jt: Well the devil isn't known for telling the truth 
  DH;Jesus called him the father of lies. He is the one who 
  comes
  to steal, to kill, and to destroy. Jesus was 
  sent to heal all who are oppressed of the devil. I don't believe 
  Lewis
  understood the realm of darkness all that well, and 
  in fact he played with it in 
  hiswritings. I think the same can be 
  said of God. Sometimes we assume he does things he really doesn't. 
  In this case, by suggesting God can do the impossible might just be painting 
  God into a corner from which he would prefer not to be.
  
  jt: What is too difficult for the Creator of 
  everything that is DH?
  
  You asked the question.What is a 
  physical impossibility for God?...
  
  .and the obvious answer is that which you have undoubtedly heard 
  before.Can God create a rock to heavy for him to lift? Would 
  you agree that doing so is a physical impossibility for 
  God, Judy?
  
  No, I would say nothing but nothing is impossible 
  with God other than evil which is an affront to His Holy 
  nature. I prefer to believe God operates 
  within the laws of his creation. Those laws define him and all his 
  creation, and I do not think God could/would break those laws, but is capable 
  of using them in ways of which we are unaware in order to perform miracles 
  that confound his Adversary.
  
  You would be wrong then DH because Jesus as God's Son 
  walking about in a flesh body defied the laws of
  creation many times. The creation as it stands 
  presently is under the curse of death. Jesus is the Lord of Life
  The resurrection itself defied the laws of 
  nature. So if you believe what is written you will have to change 
  your
  mind DH.Judy Taylor wrote: 
  



Just this morning I read this interaction between 
DaveH and KevinD (I think) ...

KD:That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery 
that is in reality endless torment. a fire which cannot 
be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: 
More imagery that is physically an 
impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereas 
mental torment can go on forever.

So tell me - What is a physical impossibility 
for God? The sameGod who delivered what he had 
promised to Abraham and 
Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who was 

able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward 
kept themin the desert for 40yrs 

feeding them with manna from heavenand 
keepingtheir clothes from wearing out and their feet from 

swelling. The sameGod whostopped the sun for 24 
hours andcaused an axe head to float on water
The God who energized 
His prophet causing him torun for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' 
chariot and 
had the ravensfeed 
him while he rested and regrouped in a cave. 

Tell me - what would be too difficult for a 
God like this and how can the feeble efforts of 
man explain 
Him?
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame 
  this in whatever fashion suits you.
  
  Lance
  -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?




DH:IFF that position you claim to understand is, in 
reality, true THEN you don't actually understand it, do you?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 20, 2006 10:08
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is 
God?
  We're saying 'if you really 
  understood then, you'd agree with me/us'.DAVEH: I 
  don't see it that way at all, Lance. One can understand something and 
  still disagree. For instance, I understand why some denominations 
  baptize infants. That does not mean that I agree with them.rather it 
  just means I can understand their rationale for doing so. 
   As I see it, some people read something related to 
  LDS theology and then assume it means something entirely different than what 
  LDS people understand it to mean. Usually that is because the person 
  either has an agenda, and reads into the words the meaning that fits that 
  agenda...or, the person takes the words out of context and/or fails to 
  consider related clarifying information ...or, the person fails to 
  consider the source of the information and assumes the information has more 
  relevance than reality dictates.Lance Muir wrote: 
  

Sadly Dave, this is the retort that many/most 
make in the face of disagreement. We're saying 'if you really understood 
then, you'd agree with me/us'.

  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  March 19, 2006 17:16
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
  Do I know LDS theology as well as you 
  do?DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about 
  it, Kevin. However, it is obvious that you don't understand 
  it.Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  
Do you agree with Lance DH?
Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
I seem to remember you saying quite the 
opposite!-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc




Then I suggest that those of you who are titillated by 
this kind of thing take G with you and
form your own List because this is not only rude it is 
divisive and sectarian - Oh thou discerner
of sects  DM does not do this. He works 
hard to try and communicate with others wherever
they are at -This is preferring one's 
brother/sister - in LOVE. An alien concept to some.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:26:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  It should be obvious why G does this. 
  It is to some of us. 
  
  jd
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







Hey Iz; you and your husband are in the 
medical field. What do they say about ppl
who like to dialogue with themselves all 
the time like this? I note none of these are 
questions
they are all answers. What was the 
question?

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:21:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  ..e.g., "Take a guard..Go, make the tomb as secure 
  as you know how" means thatPilate knew, implictly,that he 
  never could 'wash his hands' ofJC (who was, 
  quiteinterestingly, 
  apprehending him)
  
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:11:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
..the 
difference betw her  Pilate is that his language, implicitly, his 
notion of having 'apprehended'JC, is suspect

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:41:10 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..in her 
  psyche, the writer already knows the notion is 
  suspect
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:28:55 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
myth 
(note the quotes)

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:51:52 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  .. 
  apprehend Christ..
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] RSR

Thanks for this, Judy.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: March 20, 2006 10:19
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] RSR

  For those who are not all that interested and those who 
  do not have the $35 to spend on this book; here is an online Review from 
  another cult the Christian Science Monitor  This is what Lance has been 
  talking about. judyt
  Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard L Bushman 
  Founder of a church, he stirred up the United States A Review by Jane Lampman 
  How did a young man from a poor farm family -- who as a boy received 
  minimal education and had little religious background -- come to found a 
  church that today boasts millions of members worldwide? 
  A religious leader for only 14 years until his assassination in 1844, 
  Joseph Smith drew thousands during his lifetime to his vision of a theocratic 
  New Jerusalem in the American heartland. Possessing what one critic called a 
  genius for "religion making," Smith wrote new scriptures and created a complex 
  institution that has long survived his death.
  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints celebrated its 175th 
  anniversary last year, and on December 23, the 200th anniversary of Smith's 
  birth.
  In Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, historian Richard Bushman, 
  professor emeritus at Columbia University and a practicing Mormon, fashions a 
  fascinating, definitive biography of the rough-hewn Yankee who stirred 
  controversy from the start.
  Bushman's intimate, 740-page portrait explores all the corners of 
  controversy but does not resolve them, suggesting that -- given the nature of 
  the man and his story -- such resolution is never likely to occur. An honest 
  yet sympathetic portrayal, the book is rich in its depiction of developing 
  Mormonism.
  During an era of revivals and religious ferment, Smith saw himself as a 
  major prophet and revelator -- a restorer of the one true church. Despite a 
  story that appeared fantastical to many, Smith's teaching caught the interest 
  of others in search of a faith different from that offered by the churches of 
  the time.
  As a youth, Smith engaged with family and friends in magic and 
  treasure-digging. He also prayed to know which church to attend. He said later 
  that he was then told by God and Jesus that the existing churches were in 
  apostasy.
  In a second vision, Smith said, an angel named Moroni directed him to 
  buried golden plates that were to become the source for his Book of Mormon, 
  which he translated from hieroglyphs through the use of a seer stone and 
  spectacles that he called the Urim and Thummim. (The angel later retrieved the 
  plates.)
  The Book of Mormon is understood by Latter-day Saints to be the history of 
  Jews who traveled to the Western hemisphere around 600 BCE, and of Jesus' 
  visit to them after his resurrection. (The assumption that the Indians of the 
  Americas are the descendants of the people in the book has been upset recently 
  by DNA studies -- done by Mormons -- which show no connection to the ancient 
  Hebrews.)
  Smith -- called simply "Joseph" by Mormons -- published the book in 1830, 
  and later published others (The Book of Abraham and The Book of 
  Moses) purporting to provide true histories that go far beyond the 
  Bible.
  It was not preaching, but his ongoing "revelations" that shaped the 
  developing religion and its practices. They were full of biblical phrasings, 
  and many practices derived from Old Testament teachings (such as restoration 
  of Aaron's priesthood).
  The revelations included establishment of a hierarchical priesthood in 
  which all males participate; secret temple rites; the deeding of property to 
  church bishops, to be distributed as appropriate to the needy and toward 
  purchase of land; and the nature of the afterlife, which includes "plural 
  marriage."
  Some may feel the author sanitizes Smith's motives for establishing 
  polygamy and marrying dozens of wives.
  Bushman tells an engrossing tale of a charismatic leader who was 
  egalitarian and loved working with others, yet who was sensitive to criticism 
  or dissent.
  Mormons believed the Second Coming to be imminent, and converts followed 
  their leader from New York to Ohio to Missouri, where Joseph said New 
  Jerusalem was to be situated. But in purchasing large amounts of land for 
  their City of Zion, the Mormons clashed -- and even went to war -- with other 
  residents.
  Smith lived in a biblical world where God's laws alone were of concern; He 
  did not acknowledge governments, the nation, or the Constitution, Bushman 
  says, until his flock ran into trouble and needed government protection. He 
  then turned to state governors, and later to the US Congress for aid. The 
  Mormons' story and self-image shifted from one of revelation to 
  persecution.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

That is a different THREAD.

--- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Everyone on TT is 'an heretick'. One question is 'Can one be 'an
 heretick' yet have their name written in 'The Lamb's book of Life'?

   - Original Message - 
   From: Kevin Deegan 
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Sent: March 20, 2006 07:28
   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

   If Elohim is the ONE God why did Jehovah  Michael take part in
 organizing the earth?
   It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct
 characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael . . . Journal of
 Discourses 1:51, 9 April 1852

   Seems like a Trinity of Organizing gods to me. Are they separate
 individuals?
   It is true it is HARD to understand how they are THREE
 mathematically.

   I did not ask how many gods LDS have to do with.
   I asked how many gods?
   Father 
   Son 
   Holy Ghost
   Michael also called Adam

   Father Son Holy Ghost  Father Son  Michael the Organizing
 TRINITY?
   Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days 
 DC 27:11

   Why was Adam The ancient of days (Michael) involved in the
 CREATION of Earth?

   Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but
 you tell me you really have one.

 DAVEH:   I don't know if you read my posts, but fail to
 understand them.  Or Kevinperhaps you don't bother reading them
 at all, but just skim them for the talking points.   Do you not
 recall me saying that I worship only one God?

 Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you
 have one.
 That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too.

 DAVEH:   I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand, Kevin. 
 Do you not recall the Paul saying

 [1Cor8:5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in
 heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

 .then Paul goes on to explain.

 [6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all
 things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all
 things, and we by him.

 that to us there is but one God, the Father

 [Jn 4:23] But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true
 worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the
 Father seeketh such to worship him.

 ...and we are to worship the Father

 the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in
 truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

 ...and if there is any question as to the meaning, he goes on
 to say the Father seeketh such to worship him..  The Bible is pretty
 clear on this and makes it very simple to understand.  Once again,
 Kevin...this is what I believe.  If you have a problem understanding
 it, or comprehending itI don't know what else to say.other
 than..Perhaps the Trinity Doctrine has muddled your thinking.

 Kevin Deegan wrote: 
   You are right about that!
   I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but
 you tell me you really have one.
   Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say
 you have one.
   That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too.

   Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Do I know LDS theology as well as you do?

 DAVEH:   You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. 
 However, it is obvious that you don't understand it.

 Kevin Deegan wrote: 
   Do you agree with Lance DH?
   Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
   Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
   I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!

   Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already
 knows', you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he
 does. Are you attempting to teach or embarrass him?

 ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough
 Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman
   - Original Message - 
   From: Kevin Deegan 
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Sent: March 19, 2006 07:00
   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

   As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a
 Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 

   Is this that difficult to answer?

   Who do you, believe to be God?
   Father
   Son
   Holy Ghost

   Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 DAVEH:  For a guy who knows so much about LDS
 theology, Kevinrather than me answering this, why don't you tell
 me how you believe about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

 Kevin Deegan wrote: 
   Maybe you can help me out here Dave H?

   Who do you, believe

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: [Wrightsaid] Digest Number 1245

My what a Broad Brush you have!

--- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 RE: [Wrightsaid] Digest Number 1245
 - Original Message - 
 From: Debbie Sawczak 
 To: 'Lance Muir' 
 Sent: March 19, 2006 14:24
 Subject: RE: [Wrightsaid] Digest Number 1245

 I took note of the following: 

 Ian noted from Wrights response to Barnett: 

   declare that if the Reformed emphasis on continuity between 
   OT and NT had been dominant in NT scholarship rather than the 
   Lutheran discontinuity view, much of the NPP would have been 
   unnecessary. 

  I find that an interesting comment. 

 I too find it an interesting comment, for reasons you've already
 heard me on; i.e., a significant amount of what I hear as new and
 fresh in the evangelical community is very familiar from the Reformed
 part of my background.

 The other message I really appreciated, especially the day after
 watching Good Night and Good Luck, was Ian's below. I noted, without
 having read the book myself, how much of the reaction from Americans
 on the list was negative. It seems that in America, the entire
 left-right spectrum is shifted sharply to the right, so that if you
 are anywhere near the centre, or at all critical of the US, you are a
 Marxist!! How, otherwise, could anyone confuse Wright with a Marxist?

 D 

 Message: 17 
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:50:35 - 
From: Ian Packer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Subject: Re:  Wright's politics 

  Bill S: Having read a lot of Wright's stuff I think it is fair to 
  call him Marxist... 

  Ian P: Nonsense... as a reader of sociology and philosophy, I can 
  hardly imagine how you make such a connection between Wright and a 
  materialistic, deterministic, economic apocalypticist. 

  -- 

  BS: ... and hard left but that is inevitably a matter of opinion
 and 
  of semantics. 

  IP: Opinion it may be but not 'mere opinion'... one would expect 
  the 'semantics' to match in some clearer way to how one can 
  accurately describe the world. But this discussion seems all the 
  more absurd having just heard Wright talk about the childishness 
  of 'left' and 'right' talk as though things can be so neatly 
  characterised as such. (e.g. Archbishop Rowan Williams holds open 
  the prospect long-term gay relationships as warranting some kind of

  affirmation of the church but is against abortion. Is he right or 
  left?) It is this kind of talk which I think is fundamentally 
  naive; as is anyone who imagines that matching troops around the 
  world is actually what 'we' Christians are about... for goodness 
  sake, don't we believe we are part of God's transnational people 
  now... why all the defensiveness over our views (from the
 irrelevant 
  sidelines) over American, British or Australian policy? Hail, 
  Caesar... 

  If Wright is in the corner with violently anti American and anti 
  Jewish political types, then that is a corner so vast that it 
  hardly deserves to be called a corner (note the highly conflictual 
  boxing analogy for any disagreement). 

  May I suggest that no-one talk about 'their politics' in relation
 to 
  Wright until they can articulate it from an ecclesiology that takes

  seriously the corporate nature of Christian faith and our unique 
  vocation in the world between the horizons of our crucified but 
  risen Lord and the inaugurated eschatology of peace (shalom). 

  Thanks to John S and Rance for sharpening the significant issues
 for 
  us though, as usual. 

  Grace and peace 

  Ian 

 --
 No virus found in this outgoing message.
 Checked by AVG Free Edition.
 Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date:
 3/17/2006

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
--
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] Lance, TFT, Promises etc

What question? Was there a sentence?

--- Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Hey Iz; you and your husband are in the medical field. What do they
 say
 about ppl
 who like to dialogue with themselves all the time like this?  I note
 none
 of these are questions
 they are all answers.  What was the question?
 
 On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:21:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 ..e.g., Take a guard..Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how
 means
 that Pilate knew, implictly, that he never could 'wash his hands' of
 JC
 (who was, quite interestingly, apprehending him)
 
 
 On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:11:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 ..the difference betw her  Pilate is that his language, implicitly,
 his
 notion of having 'apprehended' JC, is suspect
 
 On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:41:10 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 ..in her psyche, the writer already knows the notion is suspect
 
 On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:28:55 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 myth (note the quotes)
 
 On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:51:52 -0600 ShieldsFamily
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 ..  apprehend  Christ..
  ||


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
--
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] Fw: [Wrightsaid] Digest Number 1245

'All the better to paint you with', Little Red Riding Hood!
- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 20, 2006 11:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: [Wrightsaid] Digest Number 1245

My what a Broad Brush you have!

--- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

RE: [Wrightsaid] Digest Number 1245
- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak

To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: March 19, 2006 14:24
Subject: RE: [Wrightsaid] Digest Number 1245

I took note of the following:

Ian noted from Wrights response to Barnett:

  declare that if the Reformed emphasis on continuity between
  OT and NT had been dominant in NT scholarship rather than the
  Lutheran discontinuity view, much of the NPP would have been
  unnecessary.

 I find that an interesting comment.

I too find it an interesting comment, for reasons you've already
heard me on; i.e., a significant amount of what I hear as new and
fresh in the evangelical community is very familiar from the Reformed
part of my background.

The other message I really appreciated, especially the day after
watching Good Night and Good Luck, was Ian's below. I noted, without
having read the book myself, how much of the reaction from Americans
on the list was negative. It seems that in America, the entire
left-right spectrum is shifted sharply to the right, so that if you
are anywhere near the centre, or at all critical of the US, you are a
Marxist!! How, otherwise, could anyone confuse Wright with a Marxist?

D

Message: 17
   Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:50:35 -
   From: Ian Packer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re:  Wright's politics

 Bill S: Having read a lot of Wright's stuff I think it is fair to
 call him Marxist...

 Ian P: Nonsense... as a reader of sociology and philosophy, I can
 hardly imagine how you make such a connection between Wright and a
 materialistic, deterministic, economic apocalypticist.

 -- 

 BS: ... and hard left but that is inevitably a matter of opinion
and
 of semantics.

 IP: Opinion it may be but not 'mere opinion'... one would expect
 the 'semantics' to match in some clearer way to how one can
 accurately describe the world. But this discussion seems all the
 more absurd having just heard Wright talk about the childishness
 of 'left' and 'right' talk as though things can be so neatly
 characterised as such. (e.g. Archbishop Rowan Williams holds open
 the prospect long-term gay relationships as warranting some kind of

 affirmation of the church but is against abortion. Is he right or
 left?) It is this kind of talk which I think is fundamentally
 naive; as is anyone who imagines that matching troops around the
 world is actually what 'we' Christians are about... for goodness
 sake, don't we believe we are part of God's transnational people
 now... why all the defensiveness over our views (from the
irrelevant
 sidelines) over American, British or Australian policy? Hail,
 Caesar...

 If Wright is in the corner with violently anti American and anti
 Jewish political types, then that is a corner so vast that it
 hardly deserves to be called a corner (note the highly conflictual
 boxing analogy for any disagreement).

 May I suggest that no-one talk about 'their politics' in relation
to
 Wright until they can articulate it from an ecclesiology that takes

 seriously the corporate nature of Christian faith and our unique
 vocation in the world between the horizons of our crucified but
 risen Lord and the inaugurated eschatology of peace (shalom).

 Thanks to John S and Rance for sharpening the significant issues
for
 us though, as usual.

 Grace and peace

 Ian

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date:
3/17/2006

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
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.

--
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.

[TruthTalk] Can 'an heretick' have her name written in the Lamb's Book of Life?




Of course!

Lance

Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?






On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:30:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  You don't see it ianywhere in scripture??? 
  Try reading Romans 14. 
  Or look to the solutions offered in Acts 15. 
  Unity in diversity is the very theme of those 
  passages. jd
  
  Only if you are intent on reading it into these 
  passages JD
  Romans 14 speaks of how to treat those 
  weak in the faith; I don't see any "diversity" there; 
  unity
  is something they will grow into as they grow in 
  faith, it is still the faith once delivered to the saints.
  Acts 15 does not address "diversity" either, 
  in fact the instruction is only about sin that would cause
  them to stumble as they grown. Interesting that they 
  didn't send them a book of rules. However, this
  is not so they could "do their own thing" - Note: 
  "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" so
  they are to be under the tutelage of the Holy 
  Spirit. 
  
  The goal is for all "to come in the unity of 
  the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, 
  unto 
  a perfect man, unto the measure of 
  the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph 4:13)
  
  
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

If your idea were so JD then Jesus would have 
prayed "make them "unity in diversity" just as we are ...
I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said 
if someone had seen him they had seen the Father 
because he did only what he first saw the Father do 
and he said only what he first heard from the 
Father. This is the kind of unity he was 
praying about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what the
end times "harlot church" is all 
about.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  We 
  shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday, Judy. 
  Right now, unity inspite of diversity is all we've got. 
  
  Because you and I are not of the same Christ does 
  not mean that unity in diversity does not 
  exist.jd
  


From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

  
  Agreed! I 
  to hate all the isms and all the 
  ologies.
  
  In fact I don't 
  see why we can not lay them aside so that we may recognize the 
  faith
  
  once delivered to 
  the saints and "walk in Truth" or reality. Jesus was not 
  referring to any
  
  "Unity in 
  diversity" in John 17.He prayed they would be One as He and the 
  Father are One
  
  Is "Unity in 
  diversity" how you seethe Godhead or "Trinity?" 
  JD
  
  
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 "Lance 
  Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

Sectarianism! Amen! Have 
you (of course you have) taken note of those who so identify others 
as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective of a 
repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the 
truth.

  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  
  
  It has occurred to me that legalism, 
  although unattractive as it is, is not my real complaint. 
  Henceforth and forever more, I will be opposed to 
  sectarianism. The legal content of the sectarian is often 
  different -- but the sectarian is the same kind of 
  cat, regardless of his/her stripes. They are the ones 
  who oppose the unity concerns expressed by Christ in John 
  17. There can be unity in diversity. 
  In sectarian circles, the only unity that exists is one 
  borne of thefearof reprisal. 
  jd
  
  
  
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 




One other thought on the creation 
thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor 
than for any other reason. My comments can stand on 
their own, I believe. I do not believe in a 6000 
year old earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches such 
- for the reasons stated. Could the earth be only 
6000 years old. I suppose so, but only the 
sectarians beleive such, IMHO. Is God the 
creator? Now that is the real question. 
I would think we all agree on the answer to that question. 




End of the matter for me. 
And, so, the opportunity to delve into the character of the 
opponent is side tracked. Motivation be 
damned -- in

Re: [TruthTalk] Real Signs Wonders

Sometimes you just dont know the will of God, but at the end of the
day one can connect the dots and your eyes are open.   Sunday was the
yearly Los Angeles marathon and we hit it a few locations.   

On a side note, you do not go to hell if you run the marathon, most of
these people are normal, disciplined folks that eat and live right,
nevertheless sinners that need Jesus Christ.  At this event we do not
fly anti-sodomite or God hates sin banners nor do we hold those 
abortion signs, just the basic Gospel as the (over 25,000) runners are
exhorted to run the Christian race.  We had a team at the start and
finish, another team at the five mile mark and I stood (solo) at the
one mile mark (on Figueroa and Martin Luther King).   I took that
location because you could see the banner for blocks right in front of
you before the runners make a right on MLK and location is paramount at
an event like this.  Well, as fate or GOD will have it two runners died
and another had a heart attack during the run (see story below).  Oh
yeah, one last thing.my banner that I flew said PREPARE TO MEET THY
GOD

From the WATCHTOWER:

Ruben  




 Exuberance of L.A. Marathon Tempered by Runners' Deaths

Two men suffer fatal heart attacks along the 26.2-mile route. Another
who collapsed is hospitalized in critical condition.

By Cynthia H. Cho and Sandy Banks, Times Staff Writers
March 20, 2006 

 

The weather was perfect, the field enthusiastic, the times respectable,
but Los Angeles' annual street party masquerading as street race was
marred Sunday by the deaths of two runners and the collapse of an
elderly man who was hospitalized in critical condition.

Two retired law enforcement officers died after collapsing on the
route. Det. Raul Reyna, 53, suffered a heart attack at mile 24 near
Olympic Boulevard and 
Westmoreland Avenue
, two miles short of the finish line. He died at Good Samaritan
Hospital. The 28-year Los Angeles Police Department veteran had worked
on the use of force investigation team at Parker Center, officials
said.

 

Retired Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy James Leone, 60, collapsed
at mile 3, near Exposition Boulevard and Figueroa Street. He just
dropped  keeled over and hit his face on the pavement, said David
Lawson, who interrupted his own run to administer CPR to the fallen
runner. 

His face was covered with blood and his eyes were open, but we never
really got a pulse, said Lawson, a private pilot who volunteers part
time on a ski patrol team. He and another runner, a physician, spent
several minutes trying to revive Leone before paramedics arrived, said
Lawson, who then resumed his run. Leone was pronounced dead upon
arrival at California Hospital Medical Center.

Sheriff's officials said Leone was participating in his 11th L.A.
marathon. He was a 26-year member of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department and had retired in July 2000. 

Lt. Fred Corral of the Los Angeles County's coroner's investigation
division said Leone, who lived in St. George, Utah, had been under a
doctor's care and may have suffered from cardiovascular disease. 

He was accompanied to the marathon by his wife and daughter. Marathon
officials said this was the second time in the 21-year history of the
race that there had been a fatality along the course.

The only other known death during the Los Angeles Marathon came in
1990, when a 59-year-old Altadena man under a doctor's care for
hypertension suffered a fatal heart attack while running in the fifth
annual race. William McKinney, who had trained for the contest under a
physician's care, suffered heart failure at the 21-mile mark near
Crenshaw and Pico boulevards. 

Just nine blocks into the race Sunday, a third runner, believed to be
in his 70s, suffered a heart attack near the intersection of Figueroa
and 15th streets. The man, whose name was not released, was taken by
paramedics to California Hospital Medical Center, where he was in
critical but stable condition Sunday night. 

The tragedies unfolded unnoticed by most runners. 

More than 25,000 competed in the marathon, and 20,000 participated in
the wheelchair race, bicycle run or companion 5-kilometer race. Open to
all comers, the marathon has no qualifying requirements. 

Race purists were captivated by the to-the-wire competition between
elite men and women runners for a $100,000 bonus given to whoever
crossed the finish line first. Russian Lidiya Grigoryeva won that
distinction though her time was 17 minutes slower than the men's
winner, Benson Cherono of Kenya, because women were given a head start
intended to equalize their chances in the novel challenge competition.

Thousands of other runners considered themselves winners just because
they finished. 

Sixteen months ago, Liz Roark weighed 323 pounds. A nurse, she got
winded just walking down a hospital corridor. Gastric bypass surgery
enabled her to lose 100 pounds, and eight months of training for the
marathon

Re: [TruthTalk] Can 'an heretick' have her name written in the Lamb's Book of Life?




Only in your "book" Lance; the Lamb's Book contains 
those who are His disciples
and hereticks do not qualify. They have a 
different root along with different fruit in
their lives.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:26:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Of course!
  
  Lance

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

RIDDLE me that Batman!

--- Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 *It's OK to answere the oft-asked first question, DH.*
 
 DAVEH:  ???   What first question?
 
 Lance Muir wrote:
 
  *It's OK to answere the oft-asked first question, DH.* Nobody reads
 TT 
  of any consequence. IMO your's is a genuinely house of cards
 system. 
  Is it not likely, perhaps even necessarily, the case that IFF JS
 were 
  a fraud then the balance of the LDS superstructure collapses?
 
  - Original Message -
  *From:* Dave Hansen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  *To:* TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  mailto:TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  *Sent:* March 20, 2006 03:10
  *Subject:* Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
 
  *Do YOU know of anyone who has read that new biography on
 Joseph
  Smith? 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling*
 
  DAVEH:  I'm not aware of anybody locally who has read it.  I
  belong to Mormon-Library, and several members have it, but as
 yet
  none have posted a personal review.  Several reviews have been
  posted on M-L though, but the reviews were not by the MLers. 
 From
  everything I've heard, it is a good biography of JS.  Several
  MLers are book dealers, and they've said RSR is outselling the
  other JS biographies by a large margin.  FWIWThere must
 have
  been at least a half dozen or more biographies about JS
 published
  this past year.
 
  Lance Muir wrote:
 
  One smiles! Hokey Smokey, Dave! You'd be so bold as to
 contrast
  man-made vs Biblical when, granted IFF your first 'prophet'
  wasn't a prophet then, your whole system/foundation/restored
  version is man-made. 
   
  PS:*Do YOU know of anyone who has read that new biography on
  Joseph Smith? 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling* - Richard
  Lyman Bushman  
 
  - Original Message -
  *From:* Dave mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  *To:* TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  mailto:TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  *Sent:* March 19, 2006 11:21
  *Subject:* Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
 
  /*I was wondering how you would answer.*/
 
  DAVEH:   Thank you for your below succinct answer, Kevin. 
 I
  will reciprocate. 
 
  Contrasted to the man-made doctrine of the Trinity, I
  believe in the Biblical version of the Godhead where each
  person (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) of the Godhead is
  referred to as God.
 
  Kevin Deegan wrote:
 
  As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a
 Trinity
  that is exactly why /*I was wondering how you would
 answer.*/
   
  Is this that difficult to answer?
   
  *Who do you, believe to be God?*
  *Father*
  *Son*
  *Holy Ghost*
 
 
  */Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]/* wrote:
 
  DAVEH:  For a guy who knows so much about LDS
 theology,
  Kevinrather than me answering this, why don't you
  tell me how you believe about the Father, Son and
 Holy
  Ghost?
 
  Kevin Deegan wrote:
 
  Maybe you can help me out here Dave H?
   
  Who do you, believe to be God?
   
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
 


 
 
 
 -- 
 ~~~
 Dave Hansen
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 http://www.langlitz.com
 ~~~
 If you wish to receive
 things I find interesting,
 I maintain six email lists...
 JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
 STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
 
 


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
--
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] Can 'an heretick' have her name written in the Lamb's Book of Life?




So then Judy, were the impossible possible, 
(demonstrating that YOU ARE AN HERETICK) would that mean that your name is not 
included in that book?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 20, 2006 11:30
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Can 'an 
  heretick' have her name written in the Lamb's Book of Life?
  
  Only in your "book" Lance; the Lamb's Book contains 
  those who are His disciples
  and hereticks do not qualify. They have a 
  different root along with different fruit in
  their lives.
  
  On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:26:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Of course!

Lance

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc


Why not form your own list, Judy. I would be interested in seeing just how that would work. And you miss the point of G's monologue, altogether -- IMO. Hint: it has to do with thepossibility for a reply that leaves open the notion of true exchange -- from G's perspective, maybe there is a message to be gleaned from the very presence of syntax in this regard.

jd .

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Then I suggest that those of you who are titillated by this kind of thing take G with you and
form your own List because this is not only rude it is divisive and sectarian - Oh thou discerner
of sects  DM does not do this. He works hard to try and communicate with others wherever
they are at -This is preferring one's brother/sister - in LOVE. An alien concept to some.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:26:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

It should be obvious why G does this. 
It is to some of us. 

jd

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







Hey Iz; you and your husband are in the medical field. What do they say about ppl
who like to dialogue with themselves all the time like this? I note none of these are questions
they are all answers. What was the question?

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:21:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


..e.g., "Take a guard..Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how" means thatPilate knew, implictly,that he never could 'wash his hands' ofJC (who was, quiteinterestingly, apprehending him)


On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:11:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

..the difference betw her  Pilate is that his language, implicitly, his notion of having 'apprehended'JC, is suspect

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:41:10 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

..in her psyche, the writer already knows the notion is suspect

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:28:55 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

myth (note the quotes)

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:51:52 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


.. apprehend Christ..
||

Re: [TruthTalk] Can 'an heretick' have her name written in the Lamb's Book of Life?




My belief is that everyone's name was written in there 
before the foundation of the world but that
some have their names blotted out as time goes by; for 
reasons that are plainly evident in the 
Word of God; the "elect" being the remnant that when 
all has been said and done comprise the
Church of the Living God. This is why 
"overcoming" is important.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:44:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  So then Judy, were the impossible possible, 
  (demonstrating that YOU ARE AN HERETICK) would that 
  mean that your name is not included in that 
  book?
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Only in your "book" Lance; the Lamb's Book contains 
those who are His disciples
and hereticks do not qualify. They have a 
different root along with different fruit in
their lives.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:26:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Of course!
  
  Lance

Re: [TruthTalk] Can 'an heretick' have her name written in the Lamb's Book of Life?

OK

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

  Sent: March 20, 2006 12:05
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Can 'an 
  heretick' have her name written in the Lamb's Book of Life?

  My belief is that everyone's name was written in 
  there before the foundation of the world but that
  some have their names blotted out as time goes by; 
  for reasons that are plainly evident in the 
  Word of God; the "elect" being the remnant that when 
  all has been said and done comprise the
  Church of the Living God. This is why 
  "overcoming" is important.

  On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:44:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

So then Judy, were the impossible possible, 
(demonstrating that YOU ARE AN HERETICK) would that 
mean that your name is not included in that 
book?

  From: Judy Taylor 

  Only in your "book" Lance; the Lamb's Book 
  contains those who are His disciples
  and hereticks do not qualify. They have a 
  different root along with different fruit in
  their lives.

  On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:26:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:

Of course!

Lance

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc




Why? I am OK with this one
As for G's monologue, most of the time I bypass it, I 
don't make any effort to try and apprehend
a meaning; I figure if someone really wants to 
communicate they will use plainness of speech;
Gary is just doing his own thing, which is fine, 
especially since he has a cheering gallery, but he
certainly is not exalting Christ in it. If I wanted an 
English lesson I would go back to Paul D. Camp.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:02:44 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Why not form your own list, Judy. I would be interested in 
  seeing just how that would work. And you miss the point of G's 
  monologue, altogether -- IMO. Hint: it has to do with 
  thepossibility for a reply that leaves open the notion of true 
  exchange -- from G's perspective, maybe there is a 
  message to be gleaned from the very presence of syntax in this regard. 
  jd .
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
Then I suggest that those of you who are titillated 
by this kind of thing take G with you and
form your own List because this is not only rude it 
is divisive and sectarian - Oh thou discerner
of sects  DM does not do this. He 
works hard to try and communicate with others wherever
they are at -This is preferring one's 
brother/sister - in LOVE. An alien concept to some.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:26:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  It should be obvious why G does this. 
  It is to some of us. 
  
  jd
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







Hey Iz; you and your husband are in the 
medical field. What do they say about ppl
who like to dialogue with themselves 
all the time like this? I note none of these are 
questions
they are all answers. What was 
the question?

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:21:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  ..e.g., "Take a guard..Go, make the tomb as 
  secure as you know how" means thatPilate knew, 
  implictly,that he never could 'wash his hands' 
  ofJC (who was, quiteinterestingly, apprehending 
  him)
  
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:11:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
..the 
difference betw her  Pilate is that his language, implicitly, 
his notion of having 'apprehended'JC, is 
suspect

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:41:10 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..in 
  her psyche, the writer already knows the notion is 
  suspect
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:28:55 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
myth (note the quotes)

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:51:52 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  .. 
  apprehend Christ..
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc




That 'OK' Judy was a nuff said OK and, it was not 
an I agree with you OKOK?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 20, 2006 12:09
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, 
  Promises etc
  
  Why? I am OK with this one
  As for G's monologue, most of the time I bypass it, I 
  don't make any effort to try and apprehend
  a meaning; I figure if someone really wants to 
  communicate they will use plainness of speech;
  Gary is just doing his own thing, which is fine, 
  especially since he has a cheering gallery, but he
  certainly is not exalting Christ in it. If I wanted 
  an English lesson I would go back to Paul D. Camp.
  
  On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:02:44 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
Why not form your own list, Judy. I would be interested in 
seeing just how that would work. And you miss the point of G's 
monologue, altogether -- IMO. Hint: it has to do with 
thepossibility for a reply that leaves open the notion of true 
exchange -- from G's perspective, maybe there is a 
message to be gleaned from the very presence of syntax in this regard. 
jd .
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


  Then I suggest that those of you who are 
  titillated by this kind of thing take G with you and
  form your own List because this is not only rude 
  it is divisive and sectarian - Oh thou discerner
  of sects  DM does not do this. He 
  works hard to try and communicate with others wherever
  they are at -This is preferring one's 
  brother/sister - in LOVE. An alien concept to some.
  
  On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:26:30 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
It should be obvious why G does this. 
It is to some of us. 

jd

From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  
  

  

  Hey Iz; you and your husband are in 
  the medical field. What do they say about ppl
  who like to dialogue with themselves 
  all the time like this? I note none of these are 
  questions
  they are all answers. What was 
  the question?
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:21:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  

..e.g., "Take a guard..Go, make the tomb as 
secure as you know how" means thatPilate knew, 
implictly,that he never could 'wash his hands' 
ofJC (who was, quiteinterestingly, apprehending 
him)


On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:11:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..the 
  difference betw her  Pilate is that his language, implicitly, 
  his notion of having 'apprehended'JC, is 
  suspect
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:41:10 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
..in her psyche, the writer already 
knows the notion is suspect

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:28:55 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  myth (note the quotes)
  
  On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:51:52 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

.. 
apprehend Christ..
||

Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?


Romans 14 is not a discussion of how to treat the weak brother TO THE EXCLUSION OF DIVERSITY. The problem in Romans 14 is clearly that of diversity. The principle used to deal with doctrinal diversity is stated in 14:4 and is the only way unity within the fellowship can exist. Answer this question, Judy. At the end of the day, do the four brothers in Romans 14 speak and and say the same thing? If not, why is that picture not oneof manifest diversity? 

Secondly, with regard to Acts 15, at the end of the day, are the Jewish Christian practicing the very same things as is required of the Gentile Church in the letter from the Council ? If not, why is that not a picture of manifest diversity? 

jd


On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 15:30:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

You don't see it ianywhere in scripture??? 
Try reading Romans 14. 
Or look to the solutions offered in Acts 15. 
Unity in diversity is the very theme of those passages. jd

Only if you are intent on reading it into these passages JD
Romans 14 speaks of how to treat those weak in the faith; I don't see any "diversity" there; unity
is something they will grow into as they grow in faith, it is still the faith once delivered to the saints.
Acts 15 does not address "diversity" either, in fact the instruction is only about sin that would cause
them to stumble as they grown. Interesting that they didn't send them a book of rules. However, this
is not so they could "do their own thing" - Note: "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us" so
they are to be under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit. 

The goal is for all "to come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto 
a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph 4:13)

Re: [TruthTalk] Real Signs Wonders

God bless on this !! How many came to Christ at this event.

-- Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sometimes you just dont know the will of God, but at the end of the day one can connect the dots and your eyes are open. Sunday was the yearly Los Angeles marathon and we hit it a few locations. On a side note, you do not go to hell if you run the marathon, most of these people are normal, disciplined folks that eat and live right, nevertheless sinners that need Jesus Christ. At this event we do not fly anti-sodomite or God hates sin banners nor do we hold those abortion signs, just the basic Gospel as the (over 25,000) runners are exhorted to run the Christian race. We had a team at the start and finish, another team at the five mile mark and I stood (solo) at the one mile mark (on Figueroa and Martin Luther King). I took that &
gt; location because you could see the banner for blocks right in front of you before the runners make a right on MLK and location is paramount at an event like this. Well, as fate or GOD will have it two runners died and another had a heart attack during the run (see story below). Oh yeah, one last thing.my banner that I flew said PREPARE TO MEET THY GOD From the WATCHTOWER: Ruben Exuberance of L.A. Marathon Tempered by Runners' Deaths Two men suffer fatal heart attacks along the 26.2-mile route. Another who collapsed is hospitalized in critical condition. By Cynthia H. Cho and Sandy Banks, Times Staff Writers March 20, 2006 The weather was perfect, the field enthusiastic, the times respectable, but Los Angeles' annual street party masquerading as street race wa
s marred Sunday by the deaths of two runners and the collapse of an elderly man who was hospitalized in critical condition. Two retired law enforcement officers died after collapsing on the route. Det. Raul Reyna, 53, suffered a heart attack at mile 24 near Olympic Boulevard and Westmoreland Avenue , two miles short of the finish line. He died at Good Samaritan Hospital. The 28-year Los Angeles Police Department veteran had worked on the use of force investigation team at Parker Center, officials said. Retired Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy James Leone, 60, collapsed at mile 3, near Exposition Boulevard and Figueroa Street. "He just dropped keeled over and hit his face on the pavement," said David Lawson, who interrupted his own run to administer CPR to the fallen runner. "His face was covered with blood and his eyes were open, but we neve
r really got a pulse," said Lawson, a private pilot who volunteers part time on a ski patrol team. He and another runner, a physician, spent several minutes trying to revive Leone before paramedics arrived, said Lawson, who then resumed his run. Leone was pronounced dead upon arrival at California Hospital Medical Center. Sheriff's officials said Leone was participating in his 11th L.A. marathon. He was a 26-year member of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and had retired in July 2000. Lt. Fred Corral of the Los Angeles County's coroner's investigation division said Leone, who lived in St. George, Utah, had been under a doctor's care and may have suffered from cardiovascular disease. He was accompanied to the marathon by his wife and daughter. Marathon officials said this was the second time in the 21-year history of the race that there had been a fatality along the cours
e. The only other known death during the Los Angeles Marathon came in 1990, when a 59-year-old Altadena man under a doctor's care for hypertension suffered a fatal heart attack while running in the fifth annual race. William McKinney, who had trained for the contest under a physician's care, suffered heart failure at the 21-mile mark near Crenshaw and Pico boulevards. Just nine blocks into the race Sunday, a third runner, believed to be in his 70s, suffered a heart attack near the intersection of Figueroa and 15th streets. The man, whose name was not released, was taken by paramedics to California Hospital Medical Center, where he was in critical but stable condition Sunday night. The tragedies unfolded unnoticed by most runners. More than 25,000 competed in the marathon, and 20,000 participated in the wheelchair race, bicycle run or companion 5-kilometer race. Open to all comers, the marathon has no qualifying requirements. Race purists were captivated by the to-the-wire competition between elite men and women runners for a $100,000 bonus given to whoever crossed the finish line first. Russian Lidiya Grigoryeva won that distinction though her time was 17 minutes slower than the men's winner, Benson Cherono of Kenya, because women were given a head start intended to equalize their chances in the novel challenge competition. Thousands of other runners considered themselves winners just because they

Re: [TruthTalk] Can 'an heretick' have her name written in the Lamb's Book of Life?


Are the carnal "babes in Christ" saved?

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Only in your "book" Lance; the Lamb's Book contains those who are His disciples
and hereticks do not qualify. They have a different root along with different fruit in
their lives.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:26:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Of course!

Lance

RE: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM









To avoid WHAT? That nice, positive place?
iz











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 12:30
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM





DAVEH: The Lord has provided a way for us to
avoid it.

ShieldsFamily wrote: 



What is the positive message about hell? iz











Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of hell?


DAVEH: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to
be more positive in my approach.







-- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad









Im VERY serious. iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:10
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special
Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad







Honest questions, only, please. 











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]


I assume you refer to Rabbi Lapin? He is
the same as any lost person. But he is a visionary who realizes that the
Evangelical church is the best friend Israel ever had, and I believe he will
come to know Messiah Yeshua in his lifetime, as he has a true love of the Lord
inasmuch as he knows Him. Why do you single him out as an anti-Christ? Do you
hate all Jews, or just Rabbi Lapin? izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:43
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special
Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad







You can't answer my question so you try a distraction, instead. 





The man is an anti-Christ ... a political Jewish
leader who denies the Living Christ. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Funny all you focus on is the (in your
imagination) money, while in fact money has nothing to do with anything. iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006
11:52 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special
Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad







Your suspicion is misquided, of course.And what is wrong
with point # 2. Do you know of any orthodox Jews who do not deny the
Christ? And why does that not have any meaning to you? I
will give my money to the needy, thank you very much. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 I suspect that your last comment explains your lack of #1. iz 
 
 -Original Message- 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 10:05 AM 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 
 2006-Not All Authority is Bad 
 
 
 I understand two things about them. One is that they 
 are , indeed, in need of love and (#2) they deny the Living 
 Christ , His gospel , His holy Spirit and blaspheme the Faith 
 ne arly as often as they opportunity -- that is when they 
 are collecting monies from the far right. 
 
 jd 
 
 
 
 
 
 -- Original message -- 
 From: ShieldsFamily 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Only those who love them would understand. iz

  
  
  
  _ 
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:41 PM 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin:
Purim 
  2006-Not All Authority is Bad 
  
  
  
  I have no idea why TBN romances the non-Christian Jew. I watche d
much of 
 a 
  show the other night with Hagee. Amazing. 
  
  Pretty good article, however. 
  
  jd 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 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]
ry.org and 
 he will be subscribed.

RE: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?









Whats the difference between
someone who rejects Christ and someone who you accuse of having a different
Christ??? iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:11
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Is the
day in Genesis literal or figurative?







Ah, honest question, only, please.











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]


So which one of you does that make
anti-Christ? iz











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 10:18
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the
day in Genesis literal or figurative?







We shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday,
Judy. Right now, unity inspite of diversity is all we've
got. Because
you and I are not of the same Christ does not mean that unity
in diversity does not exist. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Agreed! I to hate all the isms and
all the ologies.





In fact I don't see why we can not lay
them aside so that we may recognize the faith





once delivered to the saints and
walk in Truth or reality. Jesus was not referring to any





Unity in diversity in John
17.He prayed they would be One as He and the Father are One





Is Unity in diversity how
you seethe Godhead or Trinity? JD











On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 05:33:59 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:







Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have) taken note
of those who so identify others as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus
reflective of a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the
truth.







From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]












It has occurred to me that legalism, although unattractive as it is, is
not my real complaint. Henceforth and forever more, I will be
opposed to sectarianism. The legal content of the sectarian is often
different -- but the sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless
of his/her stripes. They are the ones who oppose the unity concerns
expressed by Christ in John 17. There can be unity in
diversity. In sectarian circles, the only unity that exists is one
borne of thefearof reprisal. jd











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 









One other thought on the creation thread. I wrote my
remarks more because of Conor than for any other reason. My
comments can stand on their own, I believe. I do not believe in a
6000 year old earth nor do I beleive the bible teaches such - for
the reasons stated. Could the earth be only 6000 years old. I
suppose so, but only the sectarians beleive such, IMHO. Is
God the creator? Now that is the real question. I would
think we all agree on the answer to that question. 











End of the matter for me. And, so, the opportunity to delve
into the character of the opponent is side tracked.
Motivation be damned -- in a biblical sense , of course. 











jd


















From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 John wrote: 
  To your first question , no. 
 
 If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. 
 
 John wrote: 
  To your second question, either you 
  did not read my post or you have 
  decided to insult my presentation? 
 
 I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. 
 Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a 
 figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, 
 but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good 
 theology, in my opinion. 
 
 The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses

 the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but

 ; the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says,
First 
 Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days 
 are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling
with 
 the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it
as 
 being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and 
 morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly 
 extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative 
 chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants

 created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a
biologist's 
 perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious 
 explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation. 
 
 What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is 
 that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must
be 
 figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this 
 way. I have no trouble understanding

RE: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11









Oh, I guess God forgot how to do that
particular trick, eh? iz











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 2:14
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11





Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?

DAVEH: Only if the bush is still burning.

David Miller wrote: 

DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a literal impossibility is a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?David Miller- Original Message - From: Judy TaylorTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:45 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a science book per se.Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is called scienceAre you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and Physics?Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I think) ...KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality endless torment.a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fireDAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be extinguished, whereasmental torment can go on forever.So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who delivered what he hadpromised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. A God who wasable to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept them in the desert for 40yrsfeeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing out and their feet fromswelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe head to float on waterThe God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front of Jezebels' chariot andhad the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave.Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the feeble efforts of man explainHim?On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits you.Lance 





-- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

RE: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

So that has nothing at all to do with anything; typical sidestepping the
facts.  There ARE real scientists who believe as DM does about creation.
(duh.) iz

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 5:32 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

I understand that a lot of agreement exists between Benny Hinn and Kenneth 
Copeland. So?

- Original Message - 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 22:40
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

 The problem with you, Lance, is that you live an insular life; thinking 
 that
 others who don't agree with you don't get out enough. My husband is a
 medical doctor and research scientist who believes exactly as DM does, and
 he knows many others who believe as he does.  Stop being so narrow minded
 about what real scientists believe. izzy

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
 Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:21 AM
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

 I DID discuss it with you off the list but, you did not respond, David. 
 What

 we (most believers) have here is a failure to communicate with you (your
 sect). You cite Heb 11 as if it amounted to 'case closed'. When I wrote 
 you
 privately David, I mentioned Hobart Freeman. Please look at his legacy 
 and,
 take care. E. W. Kenyon's offspring are everywhere. Are you one of them?

 I also asked you whether you'd be interested in exposing yourself to some
 'real' believing scientists re: Genesis 1-3. Would you? Further David, 
 would

 you be interested in exposing yourself to some 'real' logicians (i.e.
 philosophers who employ logic without falling prey to rationalism).

 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: March 19, 2006 08:08
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

 Well, perhaps I should have kept that to myself, or shared privately with
 a
 few others, but then, wouldn't that have tended toward sectarianism?  At
 least my daughter is healed, Lance.  You should be rejoicing with me, not
 fearing dangerous sect or cult.  The difference between us on this matter
 has to do with an understanding of faith.  Please read Heb. 11, and also
 consider that I only speak of my personal belief and practice, which is
 not
 the same as insisting others do the same.  Lastly, you should consider
 discussing issues like this one with me, perhaps off the list, rather 
 than
 making erroneous judgments about me.

 David Miller

 - Original Message - 
 From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 8:00 AM
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

 I have read all of these passages numerous times. Yes, I do read the
 Bible.

 Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group.

 You posted a family anecdote on TT in the last week or so. What that
 reflected concerning 'your God' spoke volumes. If anyone should be
 fearful,
 David, I'd say 'look in the mirror.

 At least our concern seems mutual. :)
 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: March 19, 2006 07:46
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

 Lance wrote:
 David:On warning (wo)men re:'transgressing
 the commandments of God'.  Everyone
 (including you along with all of those within
 your sect, David) 'transgresses the commandments
 of God', David.

 You appear to be using the word sect here rather loosely.  I'm
 anti-sectarian, remember?  I do not believe that denominations are of
 God.
 It was Dean's tendency toward sectarianism that caused us difficulty
 recently.

 That aside, it is comments like this one about everyone transgressing 
 the
 commandments of God that cause me deep concern for your own eternal 
 fate.
 If you think that everyone transgresses the commandments of God, then
 that
 means that you transgress the commandments of God.  Such indicates that
 you
 are not be abiding in the doctrine of Christ.  Have you not read the
 following passages?

 Matthew 19:17
 (17) ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

 John 14:15
 (15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.

 John 15:10
 (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I
 have
 kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

 1 John 2:3-4
 (3) And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
 (4) He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a
 liar,
 and the truth is not in him.

 1 John 3:22
 (22) And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his
 commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

 1 John 3:24
 (24) And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in 
 him.
 And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the

RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad


Since you cannot possibly know if I hate anyone, your question is not a serious one.

jd

-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








Im VERY serious. iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:10 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad


Honest questions, only, please. 



-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
I assume you refer to Rabbi Lapin? He is the same as any lost person. But he is a visionary who realizes that the Evangelical church is the best friend Israel ever had, and I believe he will come to know Messiah Yeshua in his lifetime, as he has a true love of the Lord inasmuch as he knows Him. Why do you single him out as an anti-Christ? Do you hate all Jews, or just Rabbi Lapin? izzy





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:43 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad


You can't answer my question so you try a distraction, instead. 

The man is an anti-Christ ... a political Jewish leader who denies the Living Christ. 



jd



-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Funny all you focus on is the (in your imagination) money, while in fact money has nothing to do with anything. iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 11:52 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad


Your suspicion is misquided, of course.And what is wrong with point # 2. Do you know of any orthodox Jews who do not deny the Christ? And why does that not have any meaning to you? I will give my money to the needy, thank you very much. 



jd



-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  I suspect that your last comment explains your lack of #1. iz   -Original Message-  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 10:05 AM  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim  2006-Not Al
l Authority is BadI understand two things about "them." One is that they  are , indeed, in need of love and (#2) they deny the Living  Christ , His gospel , His holy Spirit and blaspheme the Faith  ne arly as often as they opportunity -- that is when they  are collecting monies from the far right.   jd   -- Original message --  From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Only those who love them would understand. iz _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:41 PM   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim   2006-Not All Authority is Bad I have no idea why TBN romances the non-Christian Jew. I watche d much of  a   show the other night with Hagee. Amazing. Pretty good article, however. jd --  "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  LeaveT
[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] ry.org and  he will be subscribed.

RE: [TruthTalk] torrance.









Oh, right you are! It was Hugh Knox. From Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow:



The next year Hamilton Published two more poems in the
paper, now recreating himself as a somber religious poet. The change in heart
can almost certainly be attributed to the advent in St.
 Croix of a Presbyterian minister named Hugh Knox. As a raffish
young man, he exhibited a lukewarm piety until a strange incident transformed
his life. One Saturday at a local tavern where he was a regular, Knox amused
his tupsy companions with a mocking imitation of a sermon delivered by his
patron, the Rev. John Rodgers. Afterward, Knox sat down, shaken by his own
impiety but also moved by the sermon that still reverberated in his mind. He
decided to study divinity at the College
of New Jersey (later Princeton) under
its president, Aaron Burr.Ordained by Burr in 1755, Knox decided to
propagate the gospel and was sent to Saba in the Dutch
 West Indies. He departed from a strict Calvinist belief in
predestination. Instead of a darkly punitive God, Knox favored a sunny,
fair-minded one. He also saw human nature as insatiably curious and reserved
his highest praise for minds that created schemes of system of truth.
Among his other gifts, the versatile Hugh Knox was a self-taught doctor and
apothecary and a part-time journalist who occasionally filled in for the editor
of the Royal Danish Gazette. It may have been at the newspaper office,
not at the church, that he first ran into Hamilton.



Hugh Knox played an enormous role in early
mentoring of Alexander Hamilton, and I think brought him to know Christ.
Izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 5:58
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] torrance.







Do not know who but perhaps you are thinking of Hugh Knox a not so
Calvinistic Presbyterian minister who believed in Free Will.











The first Missionaries to this area were the Moravians. A full half of
them perished before a year. 





The first two Moravian Missionaries tried to sell themselves into
slavery to reach the slaves there.











http://reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/rus_smith/NT.smith.colossians.1.1-13.html





On a perilous sea voyage from London to
the British colony of Georgia,
two young Anglican preachers found themselves trapped on a small ship in a big
storm. They, along with the rest of the passengers and the crew, feared for
their lives. There was only one exception to the panic on board  a band
of Moravians who spent the entire storm singing hymns and praising God. These
two Anglican preachers were so impressed by the faith of these Moravians that
they sought them out and spent time with them. When the two returned to London, they began to
worship with the Moravian community there. One night at a service on Aldersgate Street,
one of those young men experienced what he called a warming of the
heart. His name was John Wesley











An interesting look at the LOVE for Others they had.





http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/mevangel/leprosy.htm











Since Moravians existed before the reformation they
can not be considered POTESTants

ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:







Just wondering; does anyone know if this
John Knox is the same one who in the early 1700s apparently won
Alexander Hamilton to Christ when he was a teenager in the West Indies? izzy



















From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006
3:52 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.















Know was just a disciple of his Mother the REFORMED CATHOLIC Calvin









http://www.newgenevacenter.org/biography/knox2.htm









Knox began as a Catholic priest









Knox became a major supporter and disciple of Calvin's

Lance Muir
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:











Judy:Why indeed! Because he knew the works of Knox
thoroughly. He also knew the works of Calvin thoroughly as he was editor of the
22 volumes of Calvin's NT commentaries. Like all of redeemed humanity Judy,
some of what persons say is worthwhile.











- Original Message - 









From: Judy Taylor










To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org










Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org










Sent: March 18, 2006
09:00









Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance.



















Why does he clearlyquote from what
he does not hold to then Lance?









Wouldn't you call this being
doubleminded? His doctrine is Reformed Calvinistic - same
thing



















On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 08:56:21 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:











I LITERALLY cleaned my glasses, Judy. I took your
interpretation to heart and, you are wrong vis a vis TFT's take on 'election'.
I do see how you came to the conclusion you did, however. 











From: Judy Taylor




















Do you understand what you are reading
yourself Lance?

RE: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc









Strangely akin to schizophrenia, dont
you think? iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 7:16 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance,
TFT, Promises etc







Hey Iz; you
and your husband are in the medical field. What do they say about ppl





who like to
dialogue with themselves all the time like this? I note none of these are
questions





they are
all answers. What was the question?











On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:21:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:









..e.g., Take
a guard..Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how means
thatPilate knew, implictly,that he never could 'wash
his hands' ofJC (who was, quiteinterestingly, apprehending him)



















On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:11:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







..the
difference betw her  Pilate is that his language, implicitly, his notion
of having 'apprehended'JC, is suspect











On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:41:10 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







..in her psyche, the writer already knows the notion
is suspect











On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:28:55 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







myth (note the
quotes)











On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:51:52 -0600 ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





.. apprehend
Christ..

||

RE: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?









Unity in Diversity.

Fatness in Skinniness.

Ugliness in Beauty.

Dumbness in Intelligence.

Wisdom in Nonsense.

Jibberish in Eloquence.



iz













From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 7:24
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the
day in Genesis literal or figurative?







If your idea were so JD then Jesus would
have prayed make them unity in diversity just as we are ...





I see that nowhere in scripture.
Jesus said if someone had seen him they had seen the Father 





because he did only what he first saw
the Father do and he said only what he first heard from the 





Father. This is the kind of unity
he was praying about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what the





end times harlot church is
all about.











On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:













We shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday,
Judy. Right now, unity inspite of diversity is all we've
got. 





Because you and I are not of the same Christ does not mean that unity
in diversity does not exist.jd









From: Judy
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







Agreed! I to hate all the isms and all the ologies.





In fact I don't see why we can not lay them aside so that we may
recognize the faith





once delivered to the saints and walk in Truth or
reality. Jesus was not referring to any





Unity in diversity in John 17.He prayed they
would be One as He and the Father are One





Is Unity in diversity how you seethe Godhead
or Trinity? JD











On Sun, 19 Mar
2006 05:33:59 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:







Sectarianism!
Amen! Have you (of course you have) taken note of those who so identify others
as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective of a repristinated
gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the truth.







From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 











It has occurred to
me that legalism, although unattractive as it is, is not my real
complaint. Henceforth and forever more, I will be opposed to
sectarianism. The legal content of the sectarian is often different
-- but the sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless of his/her
stripes. They are the ones who oppose the unity concerns expressed
by Christ in John 17. There can be unity in
diversity. In sectarian circles, the only unity that exists is one
borne of thefearof reprisal. jd











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 









One other thought
on the creation thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor
than for any other reason. My comments can stand on their
own, I believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth nor do I
beleive the bible teaches such - for the reasons stated.
Could the earth be only 6000 years old. I suppose so, but only the
sectarians beleive such, IMHO. Is God the
creator? Now that is the real question. I would think
we all agree on the answer to that question. 











End of the matter
for me. And, so, the opportunity to delve into the character of the
opponent is side tracked. Motivation be damned --
in a biblical sense , of course. 











jd


















From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 John wrote: 
  To your first question , no. 
 
 If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. 
 
 John wrote: 
  To your second question, either you 
  did not read my post or you have 
  decided to insult my presentation? 
 
 I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. 
 Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a 
 figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, 
 but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good 
 theology, in my opinion. 
 
 The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses

 the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but

 ; the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says,
First 
 Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days 
 are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling
with 
 the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it
as 
 being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and 
 morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly 
 extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative 
 chronology that you hold onto. There is the added problem of having plants

 created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a
biologist's 
 perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not the most parsimonious 
 explanation. I remain skeptical of the figurative interpretation. 
 
 What bothers me about the approach many theologians take to Genesis 1 is 
 that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the meaning must
be 
 figurative, they just find ways to try and show why it could be read this 
 way. I have no

RE: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?









And this also is not a shot. But how
could you construe the end times harlot church as anything other than the RCC?
izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 7:30
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the
day in Genesis literal or figurative?







What follows is not a 'shot'...I repeat, THIS IS NOT A SHOT!
Re: 'end times 'harlot church' is that which I'd see as the mantra of David Miller's sect. I believe he's part of a sect
which, as they used to say, has hived off from the 'end times harlot church' so
as to recover the true (his) gospel.







- Original Message - 





From: Judy Taylor






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 20, 2006
08:23





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is
the day in Genesis literal or figurative?











If your idea were so JD then Jesus would
have prayed make them unity in diversity just as we are ...





I see that nowhere in scripture.
Jesus said if someone had seen him they had seen the Father 





because he did only what he first saw
the Father do and he said only what he first heard from the 





Father. This is the kind of unity
he was praying about JD. Unifying around rebellion is what the





end times harlot church is
all about.











On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:













We shall be one as He and the Father are one, someday,
Judy. Right now, unity inspite of diversity is all we've
got. 





Because you and I are not of the same Christ does not mean that unity
in diversity does not exist.jd









From: Judy
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







Agreed! I to hate all the isms and all the ologies.





In fact I don't see why we can not lay them aside so that we may
recognize the faith





once delivered to the saints and walk in Truth or
reality. Jesus was not referring to any





Unity in diversity in John 17.He prayed they
would be One as He and the Father are One





Is Unity in diversity how you seethe Godhead
or Trinity? JD











On Sun, 19 Mar
2006 05:33:59 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:







Sectarianism!
Amen! Have you (of course you have) taken note of those who so identify others
as sectarians while their group (sect) is thus reflective of a repristinated
gospel. They seem themselves as 'recovering' the truth.







From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 











It has occurred to
me that legalism, although unattractive as it is, is not my real complaint.
Henceforth and forever more, I will be opposed to sectarianism. The
legal content of the sectarian is often different -- but the
sectarian is the same kind of cat, regardless of his/her stripes.
They are the ones who oppose the unity concerns expressed by Christ in John
17. There can be unity in diversity. In sectarian
circles, the only unity that exists is one borne of thefearof
reprisal. jd











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 









One other thought
on the creation thread. I wrote my remarks more because of Conor
than for any other reason. My comments can stand on their
own, I believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth nor do I
beleive the bible teaches such - for the reasons stated.
Could the earth be only 6000 years old. I suppose so, but only the
sectarians beleive such, IMHO. Is God the
creator? Now that is the real question. I would think
we all agree on the answer to that question. 











End of the matter
for me. And, so, the opportunity to delve into the character of the
opponent is side tracked. Motivation be damned --
in a biblical sense , of course. 











jd


















From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

 John wrote: 
  To your first question , no. 
 
 If I get time, I will try and present some of it for you. 
 
 John wrote: 
  To your second question, either you 
  did not read my post or you have 
  decided to insult my presentation? 
 
 I read your post very carefully. I am not trying to insult you at all. 
 Most of your argument revolves around why we should consider using a 
 figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible scholars, 
 but the pressure for doing this seems to come from science not good 
 theology, in my opinion. 
 
 The strongest statement you make is where you point out that Gen. 2:4 uses

 the word day figuratively. This is easily understood to be figurative, but

 ; the uses of the word day prior to this are numbered. The text says,
First 
 Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist that numbered days 
 are figurative. It is the numbering of the day as well as its coupling
with 
 the evening and morning statements that makes it difficult to perceive it
as 
 being anything other than a specific time period measured by evening and 
 morning. You would have to argue that evening and morning were greatly 
 extended, or that they too are figurative, to maintain the figurative 
 chronology that you hold onto. There is the added

RE: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?









LOL! Try plague. iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:02
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the
day in Genesis literal or figurative?







I know what he has shared publicly which
is that he has a house Church and meets with believers





inhomes. He also ministers
publicly on college campuses and in the streets. Kind of like Paul in the 





book of Acts who taught in his home for
3 1/2yrs as well as on the streets. What is your problem Lance? 





You are all over DM like a
rash.

RE: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM









Oh, Jude, youre on a roll.:-)
izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:15
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM







What is the Word of Faith
approach Lance?











Just because there are a few nuts and
flakes out there will you throw all healing down the





drain with them? This is why the
church in general has so many sick ppl. Sin is not understood or dealt with





most of the time because we don't want
to offend anyone. If someone would just get up there and boldly





teach truth things might begin to
change. If people could just begin to recognize what it is and were
willing





to take responsibility, repenting and
renouncing it then we could get rid of it once and for all and they would





know enough to resist when it tries to
come back. But Oh well! We can't offend anyone, they might leave





and take their offering with them.
Got to have those big tithers to pay for the building fund while the ppl





perish. Peter rightly said
If the righteous scarcely be saved 

















On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:20:24 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:







Oh but I do rejoice with you, David. God does heal and, this
may be one of those healings. 





It was the 'word faith approach' that concerned us.







From: David Miller 











What this reminds me of is when the Pharisees complained about Jesus
healing on the Sabbath. My daughter is healed now, and she is happy, I'm
happy, my wife is happy, everybody is happy except for these 3 people who came
together and talked about how disturbing my post to TT was about it.











At this same time, Dean sent me a post complaining about my testimony
concerning childbearing, not using doctors and believing God for painless
childbirth. I don't know if I will ever understand how others cannot
simply rejoice with me when God is so good.











David Miller



















From: Judy Taylor












What truth do you refer toLance?





Are you calling him co-leader of a
sectarian group because he encourages his daughter





to believe God to speed healing of
herwrist and relieve the pain? or





Because there are many religious sects
on this TT list?











On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:13:20 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:







David could 'justify' this truth better than I, Judy.







From: Judy Taylor












On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 08:00:09 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Like it or not David, you are co-leader of a sectarian group.





Can you justify this announcement Lance
by giving us a list of





the various sects that comprise this
group? Mormon is obvious,





what are the others.

RE: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc









Do you all hear the same voices? iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 9:27
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance,
TFT, Promises etc







It should be obvious why G does this. 





It is to some of us. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



Hey Iz; you
and your husband are in the medical field. What do they say about ppl





who like to
dialogue with themselves all the time like this? I note none of these are
questions





they are
all answers. What was the question?











On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:21:08 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:









..e.g.,
Take a guard..Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how means
thatPilate knew, implictly,that he never could 'wash
his hands' ofJC (who was, quiteinterestingly, apprehending him)



















On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:11:47 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







..the
difference betw her  Pilate is that his language, implicitly, his notion
of having 'apprehended'JC, is suspect











On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:41:10 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







..in her psyche, the writer already knows the notion
is suspect











On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:28:55 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







myth (note the
quotes)











On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:51:52 -0600 ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:





.. apprehend
Christ..

||

RE: [TruthTalk] Who is God?









FYI, Lance thinks everyone who is truly
walking in Gods Kingdom belongs to a fringe sect. iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 7:43
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Who is
God?







Why would he call himself a Mormon or for
that matter identify with any 'ism in which he





did not believe Lance? I go to a
Reformed Church but I will not join and I do not identify myself





with or tell others that I am
Presbyterian. It is possible not to be affiliated with a sect Lance.





Just as it is possible to understand and
walk in Truth. HELLO?











On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:12:37 -0500 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:







1. You, Kevin, could tell him what his sect teaches.





2. It is just possible that that which he believes differs
from that which his sect teaches.





3. It is also possible, as it is with anyone, that he might
believe truly for the wrong reasons.





4. It is further possible that he, as it is with anyone,
that he might believe wrongly for the right reasons.











L







From: Kevin
Deegan 











Because you took opportunity again to avoid the question, AGAIN





One God or Three which is it?





Why is that so hard???

Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:







DAVEH: ??? Why do you say that, Kevin? Just because I don't
always respond quickly or as often as you do hardly means that I am not willing
to defend that which I believe to be true. Nor am I compelled to
respond to every post aimed at deriding that which I believe.sometimes I'm
quite content letting the poster muddle in his own puddle.

Kevin Deegan wrote: 

I understand your reluctance todefend the mormon faith!

Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: 



You are right about that!





I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you
tell me you really have one.





Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say you have
one.
That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too.






Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:





Do I know LDS theology as well as you
do?

DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin.
However, it is obvious that you don't understand it.

Kevin Deegan wrote: 



Do you agree with Lance DH?





Do I know LDS theology as well as you
do? 





Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 





I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!

Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:







As DH has acknowledged and, 'everyone here already knows',
you know the teachings of his sect as well or better than he does. Are you
attempting to teach or embarrass him?











ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough
Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman





- Original Message - 





From: Kevin
Deegan 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: March 19, 2006
07:00





Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Who is God?











As everyone here alread y knows, I believe God is a Trinity that is
exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 











Is this that difficult to answer?











Who do you,
believe to be God?





Father





Son





Holy Ghost







Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:





DAVEH: For a guy who knows so much about LDS theology,
Kevinrather than me answering this, why don't you tell me how you believe
about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

Kevin Deegan wrote: 



Maybe you can help me out here Dave H?











Who do you, believe to be God?











Father





Son





Holy Ghost





















-- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.









Yahoo! Travel
Find
great deals to the top 10 hottest destinations!

RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad









Do you always talk about people that you
love that way, jd? Spare me! iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:52
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special
Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad







Since you cannot possibly know if I hate anyone, your question is
not a serious one.











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Im VERY serious. iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:10
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special
Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad







Honest questions, only, please. 











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I assume you refer to Rabbi Lapin? He is
the same as any lost person. But he is a visionary who realizes that the
Evangelical church is the best friend Israel ever had, and I believe he will
come to know Messiah Yeshua in his lifetime, as he has a true love of the Lord
inasmuch as he knows Him. Why do you single him out as an anti-Christ? Do you
hate all Jews, or just Rabbi Lapin? izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:43
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special
Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad







You can't answer my question so you try a distraction, instead. 





The man is an anti-Christ ... a political Jewish
leader who denies the Living Christ. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Funny all you focus on is the (in your
imagination) money, while in fact money has nothing to do with anything. iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006
11:52 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special
Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad







Your suspicion is misquided, of course.And what is wrong
with point # 2. Do you know of any orthodox Jews who do not deny the
Christ? And why does that not have any meaning to you?
I will give my money to the needy, thank you very much. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 I suspect that your last comment explains your lack of #1. iz 
 
 -Original Message- 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 10:05 AM 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 
 2006-Not Al l Authority is Bad 
 
 
 I understand two things about them. One is that they 
 are , indeed, in need of love and (#2) they deny the Living 
 Christ , His gospel , His holy Spirit and blaspheme the Faith 
 ne arly as often as they opportunity -- that is when they 
 are collecting monies from the far right. 
 
 jd 
 
 
 
 
 
 -- Original message -- 
 From: ShieldsFamily 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Only those who love them would understand. iz

  
  
  
  _ 
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:41 PM 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin:
Purim 
  2006-Not All Authority is Bad 
  
  
  
  I have no idea why TBN romances the non-Christian Jew. I watche d
much of 
 a 
  show the other night with Hagee. Amazing. 
  
  Pretty good article, however. 
  
  jd 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 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 
 LeaveT
[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]
ry.org and 
 he will be subscribed.

RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad


Here is what I said, Linda.: "Do you know of any orthodox Jews who do not deny the Christ? And why does that not have any meaning to you? I will give my money to the needy, thank you very much. " There in not one hateful word in that comment -- not one. 


You can choose to continue to run your mouth or maybe, just maybe, you can stop with your dedicated effort to make me look as bad as possible and actually answer the above question. 

I am for US aid to Israel. I am not for spending one penny from church coffers. but go ahead and blast the RCC or those on this forum who are dedicated followers of Christ and kiss up to those who deny the Lord you claim to serve. 
I expect such conduct from you. 

jd




-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








Do you always talk about people that you love that way, jd? Spare me! iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:52 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad


Since you cannot possibly know if I hate anyone, your question is not a serious one.



jd



-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Im VERY serious. iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:10 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad


Honest questions, only, please. 



-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
I assume you refer to Rabbi Lapin? He is the same as any lost person. But he is a visionary who realizes that the Evangelical church is the best friend Israel ever had, and I believe he will come to know Messiah Yeshua in his lifetime, as he has a true love of the Lord inasmuch as he knows Him. Why do you single him out as an anti-Christ? Do you hate all Jews, or just Rabbi Lapin? izzy





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:43 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad


You can't answer my question so you try a distraction, instead. 

The man is an anti-Christ ... a political Jewish leader who denies the Living Christ. 



jd



-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Funny all you focus on is the (in your imagination) money, while in fact money has nothing to do with anything. iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 11:52 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Dan
iel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad


Your suspicion is misquided, of course.And what is wrong with point # 2. Do you know of any orthodox Jews who do not deny the Christ? And why does that not have any meaning to you? I will give my money to the needy, thank you very much. 



jd



-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  I suspect that your last comment explains your lack of #1. iz   -Original Message-  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 10:05 AM  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim  2006-Not Al l Authority is BadI understand two things about "them." One is that they  are , indeed, in need of love and (#2) they deny the Living  Christ , His gospel , His holy Spirit and blaspheme the Faith  ne arly as often as they opportunity -- that is when they  are collecting monies from the far right.   jd   -- Original message --  From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  Only those who love them would understand. iz _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:41 PM   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim   2006-Not All Authority is Bad I have no idea why TBN romances the non-Christian Jew. I watche d much of  a   show the other night with Hagee. Amazing. Pretty good article, however. jd --  "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how  you ought to answer every man." (Colossi
ans 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org   If you do not want to receive posts from this list,

Re: [TruthTalk] Can 'an heretick' have her name written in the Lamb's Book of Life?


Bill Taylor, last time I heard, believes that all are saved to start with, salvation being something you loose. Kinda sounds like you and my dear brother are in full agreement on this one. Good to have you aboard. 

jd

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



My belief is that everyone's name was written in there before the foundation of the world but that
some have their names blotted out as time goes by; for reasons that are plainly evident in the 
Word of God; the "elect" being the remnant that when all has been said and done comprise the
Church of the Living God. This is why "overcoming" is important.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:44:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

So then Judy, were the impossible possible, (demonstrating that YOU ARE AN HERETICK) would that 
mean that your name is not included in that book?

From: Judy Taylor 

Only in your "book" Lance; the Lamb's Book contains those who are His disciples
and hereticks do not qualify. They have a different root along with different fruit in
their lives.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:26:40 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Of course!

Lance

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic


I think David might say, It IS logical, all of it -- we just don't know all the facts as of yet." 

I would think all our discussion about logic as applied to the knowing of God suffers from this present time limitation, making necessary the self-revealing that TFT speaks of. Am I off course here? The fact that we don't have all the facts, makes the fact of knowing God by logic an illogical fact -- AT THIS TIME. True?

jd

-- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 




- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak 
To: 'Lance Muir' 
Sent: March 20, 2006 08:35
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic

The TFT quote is apropos. I am appreciating the way Victor uses the word 'logic' to mean something similar to what 'logos' means as used by TFT below; it is always the logic of something, that is, peculiar to something.It strikes me thatthe unqualified use of the word, i.e., as a sort of absolute standardto whichall truth must conform,is the same thing as rationalism.

What David calls the 'esoteric' sense of rationalism is just the normal sense. Interestingly, if he applies his own kind of logic, the distinction between reason as the source of truth andreason as the standard (or criterion) of truth is spurious, for if everything conforms to reason, then everything is ultimately discoverable by reason.

D


From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 7:17 AMTo: Debbie SawczakSubject: Fw: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 19, 2006 20:15
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic


David , in other posts of the day, I find you saying that yoou and Torrance are in agreement concerninglogic. I may ahve misunderstood your wording, but that was what you said according to my perspective. 

Below you say this: 

If you define "rationalist" in the more esoteric sense of the idea that reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a rationalist. By this definition, I am not a rationalist either. However, I do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational. He also does not lie or employ deception to mislead others. The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and action. -- DM

Torrance might give caution with these words: 

".. we should seek to understand Christ, not by way of observational deductions from his appearances, but in the light of what he is in himself in his internal relations with God, that is, in terms of his intrinsic significance disclosed through his self-witness and self-communication to us in word and deed and reflected through the evangelical tradition of the Gospel in the medium which he created for this purpose in the apostolic foundation of the Church .. When we adopt this kind of approach, whether in natural science or in theology, we find that progress in understanding is necessarily circular. We develop a form of inquiry in which we allow some field of reality to disclose itself to us in the complex of its internal relations or its latent structure, and thus seek to understand it in the light of its own intrinsic intelligibility or logos ..Thus we seek to understand something, not by schematising it to an external or alien framework of thought, but by operating wit
 h a framework of thought appropriate to it" ---The Mediation of Christ pp 4,5








--No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 3/17/2006
--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 3/17/2006

Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic

2006-03-20 Thread David Miller

I haven't much time today, but I really must applaud you here, John.  You 
are right on with the not having all the facts part.  That is exactly how 
I was planning to address Debbie's comment.  I'm thrilled somebody actually 
has some insight into the way I think on this issue.  Thank you, John.  It 
is nice to be heard by you.

Debbie wrote:
 if everything conforms to reason,
 then everything is ultimately discoverable
 by reason.

The unspoken assumption in Debbie's comment here is that all facts are 
known.  If we had all the facts, then yes, it naturally follows that 
everything would be discoverable by reason.  The problem is that we don't 
have all the facts, so our research progresses along like jumping from one 
stone to another across a brook.  The stones, however, are not uniformly 
distributed.  Some are closer while others are farther away.  And some are 
missing altogether.  This is the way in which revelation helps out.  It 
transports us to conclusions which are unobtainable by reason alone. 
Looking back and seeing where the missing stones would have been, we find 
that logic still works even though it did not carry us to where we are at 
directly.

Your very last statement is the only thing where I have some disagreement. 
I just don't think your word illogical is appropriate.  What we might say 
is that when we don't have all the facts, then knowing God by logic alone is 
not possible.

David Miller

p.s.  I was very disappointed to see Debbie and Lance mingle the word 
gnosticism with words like dualism, reductionism, and rationalism.  This 
is very telling to me about the bias and prejudice in theological circles 
these days.  I truly did not think it was that bad.


- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 6:03 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic


I think David might say,  It IS logical, all of it  --  we just don't know 
all the facts as of yet.

I would think   all our discussion about logic as applied to the knowing of 
God suffers from this present time limitation,  making necessary the 
self-revealing that TFT speaks of.   Am I off course here?  The fact that we 
don't have all the facts, makes the fact of knowing God by logic an 
illogical fact  --  AT THIS TIME.  True?

jd

-- Original message -- 
From: Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]


- Original Message - 
From: Debbie Sawczak
To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: March 20, 2006 08:35
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic


The TFT quote is apropos. I am appreciating the way Victor uses the word 
'logic' to mean something similar to what 'logos' means as used by TFT 
below; it is always the logic of something, that is, peculiar to something. 
It strikes me that the unqualified use of the word, i.e., as a sort of 
absolute standard to which all truth must conform, is the same thing as 
rationalism.

What David calls the 'esoteric' sense of rationalism is just the normal 
sense. Interestingly, if he applies his own kind of logic, the distinction 
between reason as the source of truth and reason as the standard (or 
criterion) of truth is spurious, for if everything conforms to reason, then 
everything is ultimately discoverable by reason.

D




From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 7:17 AM
To: Debbie Sawczak
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic




- Original Message - 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: March 19, 2006 20:15
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] torrance and logic



David , in other posts of the day,  I find you saying that yoou and Torrance 
are in agreement concerninglogic.I may ahve misunderstood your wording, 
but that was what you said according to my perspective.

Below you say this:

If you define rationalist in the more esoteric sense of the idea that
reason is the source of truth, then I do not believe the Holy Spirit is a
rationalist.  By this definition, I am not a rationalist either.  However, I
do believe that the Holy Spirit is rational.  He also does not lie or employ
deception to mislead others.  The Holy Spirit uses rational thought to speak
to us, and he expects us to include rationality as a basis of belief and
action. -- DM

Torrance might give caution with these words:

.. we should seek to understand Christ, not by way of 
observational deductions from his appearances, but in the light of what he 
is in himself in his internal relations with God, that is, in terms of his 
intrinsic significance disclosed through his self-witness and 
self-communication to us in word and deed and reflected through the 
evangelical tradition of the Gospel in the medium which he created for this 
purpose in the apostolic foundation of the Church  ..  When we adopt 
this kind of approach, whether in natural science or in theology, we find

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?





DAVEH: ?!?!?!?! I had to read that about 3 times to even understand
your question, Lance! 

 As I see it, there is a vast difference between understanding
something, and believing it to be true. Let's assume that baptizing
infants is a correct doctrine. If I understand why those denominations
baptize babies, but do not have a witness of the Holy Spirit that it is
true, then I might be inclined to think it is in erroreven if I am
wrong in that belief while at the same time understanding it. 

 The flip side of that is one can have little or no understanding of
the truth of something, yet one know that it is true if the HS has
witnessed that it is true.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  
  
  
  DH:IFF that position you claim to
understand is, in reality, true THEN you don't actually understand it,
do you?
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave
Hansen 
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 20, 2006 10:08
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


We're saying 'if you really
understood then, you'd agree with me/us'.

DAVEH: I don't see it that way at all, Lance. One can understand
something and still disagree. For instance, I understand why some
denominations baptize infants. That does not mean that I agree with
them.rather it just means I can understand their rationale for
doing so. 

 As I see it, some people read something related to LDS theology and
then assume it means something entirely different than what LDS people
understand it to mean. Usually that is because the person either has
an agenda, and reads into the words the meaning that fits that
agenda...or, the person takes the words out of context and/or fails
to consider related clarifying information ...or, the person fails
to consider the source of the information and assumes the information
has more relevance than reality dictates.

Lance Muir wrote:

  
  Sadly Dave, this is the retort
that many/most make in the face of disagreement. We're saying 'if
you really understood then, you'd agree with me/us'.
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Dave

To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent:
March 19, 2006 17:16
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?


Do I know LDS theology as well as you do?

DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it
is obvious that you don't understand it.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Do you agree with Lance DH?
  Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
  Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
  I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!

Re: [TruthTalk] Can 'an heretick' have her name written in the Lamb's Book of Life?





Bill Taylor, last time I heard, believes that all are saved to start with, salvation being something you lose. Kinda sounds like you and my dear brother are in full agreement on this one. Good to have you aboard. 

jd

-- Original message -- From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



My belief is that everyone's name was written in there before the foundation of the world but that
some have their names blotted out as time goes by; for reasons that are plainly evident in the 
Word of God; the "elect" being the remnant that when all has been said and done comprise the
Church of the Living God. This is why "overcoming" is important.

RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad









Jd, there are not yet many Jews who know
their Messiah, as you know. Soon there will be. What bewilders me is why you
rarely miss a chance to take a shot at Jews, yet not the mormons or the RCC who
are true apostates. They claim to serve Jesus and yet are anti-Christs
preaching a different Jesus and a different gospel. The Jews at least are
honest about their stance on Jesus. I have a special place in my heart for
Jews because my Savior is a Jew, because the Father says they are His chosen
people, and because one day Jesus will again restore Israel into His kingdom. Why doesnt
that have any meaning for you? izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 4:23
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special
Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad







Here is what I said, Linda.: Do you know of any orthodox Jews who do not deny the
Christ? And why does that not have any meaning to you?
I will give my money to the needy, thank you very much.  There
in not one hateful word in that comment -- not one. 











You can choose to continue to run your mouth or maybe, just
maybe, you can stop with your dedicated effort to make me look as bad as
possible and actually answer the above question. 











I am for US aid to Israel.
I am not for spending one penny from church coffers. but go ahead and
blast the RCC or those on this forum who are dedicated followers of Christ and
kiss up to those who deny the Lord you claim to serve. 





I expect such conduct from you. 











jd





























-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Do you always talk about people that you
love that way, jd? Spare me! iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:52
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special
Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad







Since you cannot possibly know if I hate anyone, your question is
not a serious one.











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Im VERY serious. iz











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 1:10
AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special
Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad







Honest questions, only, please. 











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]


I assume you refer to Rabbi Lapin? He is
the same as any lost person. But he is a visionary who realizes that the
Evangelical church is the best friend Israel ever had, and I believe he will
come to know Messiah Yeshua in his lifetime, as he has a true love of the Lord
inasmuch as he knows Him. Why do you single him out as an anti-Christ? Do you
hate all Jews, or just Rabbi Lapin? izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 9:43
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special
Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad







You can't answer my question so you try a distraction, instead. 





The man is an anti-Christ ... a political Jewish
leader who denies the Living Christ. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Funny all you focus on is the (in your
imagination) money, while in fact money has nothing to do with anything. iz











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006
11:52 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special
Message from Rabbi Dan iel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad







Your suspicion is misquided, of course.And what is wrong
with point # 2. Do you know of any orthodox Jews who do not deny the
Christ? And why does that not have any meaning to you?
I will give my money to the needy, thank you very much. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 I suspect that your last comment explains your lack of #1. iz 
 
 -Original Message- 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 10:05 AM 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 
 2006-Not Al l Authority is Bad 
 
 
 I understand two things about them. One is that they

RE: [TruthTalk] Can 'an heretick' have her name written in the Lamb's Book of Life?









Id be interested in hearing where
their paths diverge. izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 8:40
PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Can 'an
heretick' have her name written in the Lamb's Book of Life?





















Bill Taylor, last time I heard, believes that all are saved to
start with, salvation being something you lose. Kinda
sounds like you and my dear brother are in full agreement on this one.
Good to have you aboard. 











jd











-- Original message -- 
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 



My belief is that everyone's name was
written in there before the foundation of the world but that





some have their names blotted out as
time goes by; for reasons that are plainly evident in the 





Word of God; the elect being
the remnant that when all has been said and done comprise the





Church of the Living God. This is
why overcoming is important.

[TruthTalk] Carl Baugh

DAVEH:   Note to DavidM and other TTers.  For the first time, I just 
watched a half hour of Carl Baugh's TBN (Thursday nights) program about 
science and the Bible.  How do you folks perceive him?



--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.


--
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] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad


First , I am not a dispensationalist -- never have been and very likely never will be. It is an American theological invention. a man named Darby being its first major proponent, and Scolfield along with Dallas Theological Seminary being the back bone of its critical acclaim.

Secondly, an unregenerated Jew is no different than an unregenerated Floridian. 
I give no honor to any race of people for the simple reason that such was never the intention of God -- never. Jews get no credit from me for the Messiah -- they rejected Him then, killed him, came into the church thinking that the Church was to play a role in establishing them as the Kingdom of God upon this earth -and left the church almost to the man in the years following the fall of their holy city. There is more blasphemy on Jewish sites than perhaps the sites of any other world religion. 

That God is going to reestablish the Jewish people outside the blessings of the Church of Jesus Christ is simply not a biblical conclusion. 

And the main point , for me, that you skim over, is the fact that I do not hate the Jew. Israel was created by agreements of the young United Nations. Their new land was nothing like what it is today. And the hatred of Palestinians goes beyond that which is reasonable or even human, at times. The surrounding Muslim/Arab world's determination to destroy Isreal without the possibility of compromise is disgustingly stupid to me Where, at one time, I had some regard for the Muslim religion , today, I have none. I think it is violent at its core, a faith built upon a hatred for all who are not Muslim.

But I have little regard for Judaism, as well. A very materialistic people, fully antagonistic to the Living Christ in terms of matters offaith and practice. Biblically speaking, Judaism reached full term in Jesus Christ. It is not asister religion. Where some consider the Old Testament as the history of the Jewish people, I really view it as the history of the Church.  God's chosen are to be found within the body of Christ. 

jd

-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








Jd, there are not yet many Jews who know their Messiah, as you know. Soon there will be. What bewilders me is why you rarely miss a chance to take a shot at Jews, yet not the mormons or the RCC who are true apostates. They claim to serve Jesus and yet are anti-Christs preaching a different Jesus and a different gospel. The Jews at least are honest about their stance on Jesus. I have a special place in my heart for Jews because my Savior is a Jew, because the Father says they are His chosen people, and because one day Jesus will again restore Israel into His kingdom. Why doesnt that have any meaning for you? izzy





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 4:23 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad


Here is what I said, Linda.: "Do you know of any orthodox Jews who do not deny the Christ? And why does that not have any meaning to you? I will give my money to the needy, thank you very much. " There in not one hateful word in that comment -- not one. 



You can choose to continue to run your mouth or maybe, just maybe, you can stop with your dedicated effort to make me look as bad as possible and actually answer the above question. 



I am for US aid to Israel. I am not for spending one penny from church coffers. but go ahead and blast the RCC or those on this forum who are dedicated followers of Christ and kiss up to those who deny the Lord you claim to serve. 


I expect such conduct from you. 



jd

Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11





DAVEH: Not at all, Izzy. It is simply an observation of illogic.

ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  

  
  
  
  
  Oh, I guess
God forgot how to do that
particular trick, eh? iz
  
  
  
  
  From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
  Sent: Monday, March
20, 2006 2:14
AM
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Physics,
Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
  
  
  Doesn't that teach us something about God's 
  abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?
  DAVEH: Only if the bush is
still burning.
  
  David Miller wrote: 
  DaveH, I agree with Judy here. The argument of a "literal impossibility" is 
  a little weak when we are talking about God. Moses did see a bush that was 
  burning but not consumed. Doesn't that teach us something about God's 
  abilities of creating an unquenchable fire?
  
  David Miller
  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Judy Taylor
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 8:45 AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11
  
  Why try to confuse Conor right off the bat Lance? Genesis is not a "science 
  book" per se.
  Although the writer of Genesis is also the God who created all that is 
  called "science"
  Are you asking Conor to interpret Genesis in the light of Astronomy and 
  Physics?
  
  Just this morning I read this interaction between DaveH and KevinD (I 
  think) ...
  
  KD: That is explained by the fire and brimstone imagery that is in reality 
  endless torment.
  a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire
  
  DAVEH: More imagery that is physically an impossibility. Fire can be 
  extinguished, whereas
  mental torment can go on forever.
  
  So tell me - What is a physical impossibility for God? The same God who 
  delivered what he had
  promised to Abraham and Sarah when they were 90 and 100yrs old respectively. 
  A God who was
  able to roll back the Red Sea until his people crossed and afterward kept 
  them in the desert for 40yrs
  feeding them with manna from heaven and keeping their clothes from wearing 
  out and their feet from
  swelling. The same God who stopped the sun for 24 hours and caused an axe 
  head to float on water
  The God who energized His prophet causing him to run for 25 miles in front 
  of Jezebels' chariot and
  had the ravens feed him while he rested and regrouped in a cave.
  
  Tell me - what would be too difficult for a God like this and how can the 
  feeble efforts of man explain
  Him?
  
  
  On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:57:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  Conor: Might we hear from you on this? Frame this in whatever fashion suits 
  you.
  
  Lance 
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM





To avoid
WHAT?

DAVEH: Contention perhaps, such as is commonly found here?


ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  


  
  
  
  To avoid
WHAT? That nice, positive place?
iz
  
  
  
  
  From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Dave Hansen
  Sent: Monday, March
20, 2006 12:30
AM
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  Subject: Re:
[TruthTalk] Hell BoM
  
  
  DAVEH: The Lord has provided
a way for us to
avoid it.
  
ShieldsFamily wrote: 
  
  What is the
positive message about hell? iz
  
  
  
  
  Do you ever warn people about the FIRE of 
  hell?
  
DAVEH: No, I don't do much preaching, and when I doI prefer to
be more positive in my approach.
  
  


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

DAVEH:   Another typo, Kevin?  Were you intending to send a subtle 
message to the Bishop


GRIDDLE me that, Matman!



Kevin Deegan wrote:


RIDDLE me that Batman!

 



--
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.


--
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] Who is God?





How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?

DAVEH: The same way Jesus said we could be one with them..

[Jn 17:21] That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and
I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe
that thou hast sent me.
[22] And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they
may be one, even as we are one:
[23] I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in
one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved
them, as thou hast loved me.

[26] And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that
the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

.I reckon when we have the same love for others as the Lord has
for us, we shall become perfect in our purposejust as they are,
Kevin.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  If you do not believe that God is expressesed as a Trinity
  How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?
  
  
  Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I
do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE gods but you tell
me you really have one.

DAVEH: I don't know if you read my posts, but fail to understand
them. Or Kevinperhaps you don't bother reading them at all, but
just skim them for the talking points. Do you not recall me saying
that I worship only one God?

Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you say
you have one.
That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too.

DAVEH: I'm not sure why it is difficult to understand, Kevin. Do you
not recall the Paul saying

[1Cor8:5] For t hough there be that are called gods, whether in
heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

.then Paul goes on to explain.

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom
are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things, and we by him.

that to us there is but one God, the Father

[Jn 4:23] But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true
worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the
Father seeketh such to worship him.

...and we are to worship the Father

the true worshippers shall worship the Father in
spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

...and if there is any question as to the meaning, he
goes on to say the Father seeketh such to worship him..
The Bible is pretty clear on this a nd makes it very simple to
understand. Once again, Kevin...this is what I believe. If you have a
problem understanding it, or comprehending itI don't know what else
to say.other than..Perhaps the Trinity Doctrine has muddled
your thinking.



Kevin Deegan wrote:

  You are right about that!
  I do have a hard time understanding how you have THREE
gods but you tell me you really have one.
  Take that back you have an INFINITE nuber of gods but you
say you have one.
That is hard to understand and hard to comprehend too.
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  Do
I know LDS theology as well as you do?

DAVEH: You certainly seem to know a lot about it, Kevin. However, it
is obvious that you don't understand it.

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Do you agree with Lance DH?
  Do I know LDS theology as well as you do? 
  Or is Lance putting words in your mouth? 
  I seem to remember you saying quite the opposite!
  
  Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  


As DH has acknowledged
and, 'everyone here already knows', you know the teachings of his sect
as well or better than he does. Are you attempting to teach or emba
rrass him?

ONCE AGAIN, I'd recommend
the book 'Joseph Smith - Rough Stone Rolling' Richard Lyman Bushman
- Original Message - 
  From:
  Kevin Deegan 
  To:
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
  
  Sent:
March 19, 2006 07:00
  Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?
  
  
  As everyone here already knows, I believe God is a
Trinity that is exactly why I was wondering how you would answer. 
  
  Is this that difficult to
answer?
  
  Who do you,
believe to be God?
  Father
  Son
  Holy Ghost
  
  
  Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
  DAVEH: For a guy who
knows so much about LDS theology, Kevinrather than me answering
this, why don't you tell me how you believe about the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  Maybe you can help me
out here Dave H?
  
  Who do you, believe
to be God?

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?





How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?

DAVEH: I forgot to ask, Kevin.Would you please explain it using
the Trinity?

Kevin Deegan wrote:

  If you do not believe that God is expressesed as a Trinity
  How do you get Father PLUS Son PLUS Holy Ghost EQUALS ONE?


-- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?