Re: [TruthTalk] TT w/o a moderator

2006-03-28 Thread Judy Taylor



I've been pondering on the same thing; how will we 
overcome to the point where we will "judge angels"
if we can't control ourselves enough to be civil 
on an internet list? It's a good suggestion.Plus I 
still
haven't seen Christine's picture - 
judyt

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:12:42 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  DAVEH: Yikes.can I really be in agreement with 
  Kevin??? If you decide to go that route for awhile, DavidMwhy 
  not deep 6 the ad-hom rule. Who knowsmaybe TT can rise from the 
  ashes like a phoenix!!!Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  
David,

Since TT has been w/o a Moderator, it seems to have done just 
fine.
Why not just keep the list up w/o one?

Breaking up is just so hard to do.


  -- 
~~~
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] Goodbye

2006-03-27 Thread Judy Taylor




My it is awfully quiet this morning;I don't even see anything from 
Lance (the early bird)
Have been busy over the weekend so have not had much time tothink 
about goodbyes. 
Our son and DIL are building a house at the back of us - also we are 
involved daily with our 
daughter in TX who is presently in the midst of an 
ongoingcrisis.

I would like to thank all of you for sharing yourselves on the TT List. I 
think I have learned in 
some way from everyone, though possibly not in the ways you or I would have 
thought. For
me, TT has been a learning experience and I am thankful that DavidM rescued 
me from the
legalistic Homechurch List where we met. David you and your family 
have been a real
encouragement in the Lord. I took me a while to get to know each 
Listmember. My ideas
regarding Street Preaching have changed and I have enjoyed Kevin and Dean 
so much.
I am glad to know they are out there along with DM and Christine 
Miller. Just this morning 
I read 1 Kings 14:24 regarding the mess Judah was in after Solomon "and 
there were also 
sodomites in the land and they did according to all the 
abominations of the nations which 
the Lord cast out before the children of Israel" so theirs istruly a 
labor of love. Thank you Iz 
for sharing yourself, your pilgrimage, and your family with us. I wanted to 
share some photos 
but haven't had time to look for one to compete with JD and Gary 
:)

Lance, I have to say that I was often surprised that you hung in there - We 
never did agree
but I do appreciate the kind words you spoke on occasion; they tell me that 
you did not take
what I wrote personally which is good. I am not angry with any person 
per se and have found
everything interesting, even Dave Hanson's contributions in the historical 
or cultural sense
(see your inputLance :) but when I came to TT I was and am 
stillfrustrated by dead orthodoxy 
andtheologies or menbecause they are powerless and I so want to 
see Jesus on the scene. 

There are more than 500 families in the church we attend and so many 
hurting ppl that the 
new counseling pastor is swamped they are calling him all hours of the day 
and night and he 
doesn't have time for his family. The teaching pastor is just back 
from spending a week in 
London and yesterday he shared how on the flight over there was a rape on 
the TV's on either 
side of him and when his wife turned hers on there was an adulterous affair 
on it. He then told
ushow overwhelmed he was by Westminster Abbey where the Westminster 
Confession was 
put together and All Souls Church where John Stott whose writings have 
affected him so much 
pastored.. that's all well and good and I'm glad for him but on the way 
homeI told my husband 
that the effecthis sermon had on me was to make me want to go to 
London - but not for the 
same reasons. It did not make me hunger for more of Jesus.

I long for God's Word to be exalted with great plainness of speech so that 
we will see His results
with lives changed and health and peace among the people.

I pray you will all grow in grace and in the knowledge of Him and that we 
will have opportunity
to meet again.

God Bless You All
judyt in Suffolk VA


[TruthTalk] Saying Goodbye

2006-03-27 Thread Judy Taylor




Thank you for these thoughts David; you seem to have 
apprehended everyone's
specialness. I am, like Iz, already missing 
everyone even before the Lists
final demise - after all I did spend many a day with 
all of you and you will be
missed 

I'll need to get used to coffee without Lance 
now... Thanks Lance for the update 
re your Mom.

judyt


From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Continuing with my farewell impressions...

Although John Smithson is a rather emotional person with whom I have butted 
heads concerning over-generalizations and stereotypic expressions, I have 
appreciated John's keen interest in theology and philosophy. He has 
ventured into areas which others on TruthTalk would not. By doing so, 
John has opened up avenues of thought and reflection which would otherwise 
have been stagnant. John was never afraid of a good brawl and often 
moved topics on TruthTalk into fisticuffs. I appreciated such 
opportunities as a way to dig deeper into issues, furthering a 
reductionistic method of breaking down subjects into smaller parts for 
analysis. I will always have fond thoughts about his passion for 
issues that were usually on the periphery of my thinking.

Kevin Deegan has been a great contributor, always great with links and 
information about almost any issue. Kevin's breath of reading comes 
across loud and clear, but more than just being well read, he has expressed 
a passion for truth. He takes a hard line stance that is helpful to 
others willing to give a thorough study of a particular issue. While 
Kevin is quick to quip, he also exhibits a patience to keep ploughing along 
with difficult subjects. I think I will remember Kevin's patience more 
than the actual information he has posted. May God grant me the 
ability to stick with it like Kevin does, to present God's truth, despite 
what the detractors might offer. I also cannot sign off without 
mentioning my admiration for Kevin's sacrifice and diligence toward 
preaching the Word of God to those outside the churches of Jesus 
Christ. Such will always continue to inspire me.

Carroll Dean Moore will be best remembered for his no-nonsense seriousness 
with which he approaches life and the Word of God. I will remember 
Dean's passion and loyalty toward what he perceives to be the right 
path. When I think of Dean, I tend to remember the passage from 1 
Peter 5:8, "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a 
roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." Thank you 
Dean.

Ruben Israel Chavez will be remembered for his always uplifting preaching 
reports. I stand in awe of the sacrifice he makes as he travels around 
the country and the world, preaching the Truth of Christ to those who are 
unchurched. Ruben also has taken time to joust with us from time to 
time, and to explain his thinking about issues of importance. Ruben is 
a constant model of being a preacher of the Word and not just a 
student. Such will always be in my mind.

Charles Perry Locke has been a gentlemen among gentlemen. He is 
passionate about truth and at the same time well mannered and filled with 
common sense I appreciate Perry's sacrifice in helping moderate the list for 
a long time. In posts, he has perhaps been among the most patient. 
When I have been very dense in hearing him on a point, he would take the 
time to spell it out clearly until I got it. Many others would have 
simply made fun of me and gone on to other issues. Not Perry. I 
will always cherish his longsuffering and clear, logical mind.

Gary Ottoson... I will always remember him as Mr. Abbreviation. 
Gary's presence has raised the intellectual level a notch or two on 
TruthTalk. While many of his posts were difficult to decipher for some, and 
nearly impossible for the uneducated, he did at times come up with gems that 
provoked further discussion. Gary was a constant reminder to TruthTalk 
that poets have something to say among those who wish to talk about 
truth. Gary also has a steadfastness to him that has been 
inspirational.

Judy Taylor has been a rock for the unadulterated truth. Her 
adherence to Scripture without any contamination from the thoughts of men 
will always be in the back of my mind. In my tendency toward curiosity 
about many ideas and subjects, Judy has been that firm but gentle reminder 
of where my feet need to be firmly planted. Her strength of character 
and great love for God has been an inspiration for me, and will continue to 
be an inspiration to me for years to come. One cannot come into 
contact with such a person and not remember her when times of trials and 
persecution come because of the Word of God. Thank you Judy for being 
Judy. You are greatly loved.

Linda Shields, well, Linda is Izzy... a fiesty cat. I have learned to 
appreciate her passion and independence of spirit. In a day when many 
Christians are generally somewhat reticent to declare political 
affiliations, Linda would boldly pro

Re: [TruthTalk] I Hope I'm Not too Late...

2006-03-27 Thread Judy Taylor



Christine, I can't see the picture - Must be my Norton 
spam blocker or something, is there another
way you could send it? Have really enjoyed you. 
Thanks for beinga blessing to us on TT - judyt

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:45:37 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I just wanted to say one last time that it has been such a joy getting to 
  know you all. I praise God for your wisdom and passion. Here's a 
  picture of me grinning ear-to-ear with my mom on Broadway a couple of months 
  ago. My father babysat all of my sisters back home while we two girls painted 
  the town red! I love 
  you all. -Christine
  
  
  Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great 
  rates starting at 1¢/min.
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster

2006-03-26 Thread Judy Taylor



I think it's a "right back atcha" thing - for years I 
would go over there and hear much lamenting about
what Americans had bought; do you know an American 
Company now owns the all Australian
delicious spread called Vegemite?

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:45:33 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  I've just learned that 
  Australia is investing workers 
  retirement funds in US Real Estate
  
  They just bought the 
  New York Thruway. Does that mean I need a passport, now?From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Judy 
  TaylorThanks for this 
  Kevin
  


Proof of the pudding is always in 
the eating.

I've just learned that 
Australia is investing workers 
retirement funds in US Real Estate also

So Lance and his prophet don't have 
a whole lot of support from "down under" 
either



On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:20:31 -0800 (PST) Kevin 
Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  Lance says Canada will not suffer the same fate at the 
  USA. 
  
  
  
  
  Ah
  
  Ah
  
   AH 
  CHOO!
  
  
  
  excuse me
  
  
  
  348,000 New York jobs are supported by 
  Canada-U.S. trade 
  
  Total Canada–U.S. merchandise trade: $411 billion 
  
  
  Canada–U.S. trade supported 5.2 million 
  U.S. jobs 
  
  
  More people traveled between Canada and NY in 2004 than any other 
  U.S. state 
  
  
  14,500,000 vehicles crossed the Canada-U.S. border 
  at the four Niagara crossings last year, accounting for 34% of all traffic 
  that crossed into Ontario 
  
  
  
  
  ROTFL
  
  With this many US Jobs gone, could CanaDUH 
  rebound? 
  
  
  
  http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/coca_401.asp
  
  Seeing that a FULL 84% of CanaDUHs exports are US 
  
  
  Calculator 
  please
  
  That leaves 16%, can CanaDUH's economy survive on 
  16% of its present exports?
  
  Remember that the Total export/imports of 
  canada represents a FULL 2/3rds 
  of their GDP!
  
  SIZE does 
  matter!
  
  
  
  Thanks for the add'l example of mindless 
  parroting.
  
  Don't you just HATE 
  Ignorance?
  
  I guess it is better than letting it go to 
  waste.
  
  Lance Muir 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  

The 'prophet' (take note, 
David) said otherwise in November. Canada will not suffer the same fate at 
the USA. Size does matter but, 
it's not the only thing that 
matters.

  
  - Original Message 
  - 
  
      From: 
  Judy Taylor 
  
  
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  
  Sent: 
  March 25, 2006 08:03
  
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
  
  
  
  Don't worry 
  Lance, if the USA 
  implodes - Canada 
  and Europe will go with it - at 
  present when the
  
  US sneezes the 
  rest of the world catch a cold. Such envy and jealousy from the 
  North ... Goodness gracious!
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance 
  MuirMost on TT will live to 
  see the implosion of the USA. At 
  what point will you declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of 
  moving out of your old house and into a new 
  one.
  

  


From: ShieldsFamily 








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



As a teacher, he had come to dislike 
American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up 
to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room 
schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and 
poorly equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which 
came from England. Webster 
thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he 
began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the 
English Language. The work consisted of a speller 
(published in 1783), a grammar 
(published in 1784), and a reader 
(publishe

Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster

2006-03-26 Thread Judy Taylor



Thomas Merton and Joan Baez?? - O good gracious, you're 
sinking Gary, and fast.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 01:33:29 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 17:46:50 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Really up on social justice huh..?



whatever rings 
true

  "Sweet brother, if I do not sleep My eyes are flowers on 
  your tomb And if I cannot eat my bread My fasts shall live like 
  willows where you died If in the heat I find no water for my thirst 
  My thirst shall turn to springs for you, poor traveler 
  Come, in your labor find a resting place And in my 
  sorrows lay your head Brother, take my life and bread And buy 
  yourself a better bed Take my breath and take my death Buy 
  yourself a better rest beneath the bells of Gethsemani 
  When all the men of war are killed And flags have fallen 
  into dust Your cross and mine will tell men still He died on each 
  for both of us That we might become the brothers of God And learn 
  to know the Christ of burnt men 
  And the children are ringing the bells of Gethsemani 
  For in the wreckage of your April Christ lies slain He 
  weeps in the ruins of my spring The money of whose tears shall fall 
  Into your weak and friendless hand And buy you back to your own 
  land 
  The silence of whose tears shall fall Like bells upon 
  your alien tomb Hear them and come, they call you home And the 
  children are ringing the bells of Gethsemani 
  Yes, if they had been there They would have taken that 
  crown of thorns from his hair And stayed for a while in that place of 
  despair Ah, but what do I see, my brother is there And he's 
  ringing the bells of Gethsemani" 
  (Music by Joan Baez, Words by Thomas Merton) 
  © 1981 Gabriel Earl Music (ASCAP) 
  


[TruthTalk] Truth and Freedom (some food for thought)

2006-03-26 Thread Judy Taylor




Truth and freedom go hand in hand, but truth 
will produce freedom only as it is walked in. This ought to be self-evident. We 
can know something is true, but if we fail to walk in it, what good is it? Its 
value to us is worthless unless it is walked in.
Freedom and truth come to those who press on. 
Freedom, the kind of freedom that God is involved in bringing us into, comes 
progressively, not all at once. These are lessons from the Days of Unleavened 
Bread. It took the Israelites seven days to get to and across the Red Sea. It 
took them another forty years to get into their own land, into their 
inheritance, the Promised Land.
Their freedom was progressive. There was a 
time when it began, but if they had never continued on the way, they would never 
have had their own land, never have had their inheritance, never have been free. 

This is a large part of the object lesson: We 
have to continue. If we continue, then we will truly be a disciple. We will 
understand the truth, and the truth will make usfree. The truth of God 
shows us the real values of life because it shows us what we are to give our 
life to.


Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster

2006-03-26 Thread Judy Taylor



I didn't know about it - but it wouldn't bother 
Australians; they are not pleased with Paul Hogan ... mainly
because he got carried away with celebrity and left his 
wife and mother of his five children Noela to
marry the girl in his first movie. He lives in 
California most of the time now and is not the "unsophisticated"
steel rigger he once was.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 05:24:44 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  I think it's a "right back atcha" thing 
  
  Is that so? 
  Well, how do you like the fact that some American Company bought the 
  rights to all those Paul Hogan movies?Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

I think it's a "right back atcha" thing - for years 
I would go over there and hear much lamenting about
what Americans had bought; do you know an American 
Company now owns the all Australian
delicious spread called Vegemite?

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:45:33 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  I've just learned that 
  Australia is investing workers 
  retirement funds in US Real Estate
  
  They just bought 
  the New York Thruway. Does that mean I need a passport, now?From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy 
  TaylorThanks for this 
  Kevin
  


Proof of the 
pudding is always in the eating.

I've just learned 
that Australia is investing 
workers retirement funds in US Real Estate 
also

So Lance and his 
prophet don't have a whole lot of support from "down under" 
either



On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:20:31 -0800 (PST) Kevin 
Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  Lance says 
  Canada will not 
  suffer the same fate at the USA. 
  
  
  
  
  Ah
  
  Ah
  
   AH 
  CHOO!
  
  
  
  excuse me
  
  
  
  348,000 New York jobs are supported by 
  Canada-U.S. trade 
  
  Total Canada–U.S. merchandise trade: $411 
  billion 
  
  Canada–U.S. trade supported 5.2 million 
  U.S. jobs 
  
  
  More people traveled between 
  Canada and NY in 
  2004 than any other U.S. state 
  
  
  14,500,000 vehicles crossed the Canada-U.S. 
  border at the four Niagara crossings last year, accounting for 34% of 
  all traffic that crossed into Ontario 
  
  
  
  
  ROTFL
  
  With this many US Jobs gone, could CanaDUH 
  rebound? 
  
  
  
  http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/coca_401.asp
  
  Seeing that a FULL 84% of CanaDUHs exports are 
  US 
  
  Calculator 
  please
  
  That leaves 16%, can CanaDUH's economy survive 
  on 16% of its present exports?
  
  Remember that the Total export/imports of 
  canada represents a FULL 
  2/3rds of their GDP!
  
  SIZE does 
  matter!
  
  
  
  Thanks for the add'l example of 
  mindless parroting.
  
  Don't you just HATE 
  Ignorance?
  
  I guess it is better than letting 
  it go to waste.
  
  Lance Muir 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  

The 'prophet' (take 
note, David) said otherwise in November. Canada will not suffer the same fate 
at the USA. Size does matter 
but, it's not the only thing that 
matters.

  
  - Original Message 
  ----- 
  
  From: Judy Taylor 
  
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  
  Sent: March 25, 2006 
  08:03
  
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah 
  Webster
  
  
  
  Don't worry 
  Lance, if the USA implodes - Canada and Europe will go with it - at present when 
  the
  
  US sneezes 
  the rest of the world catch a cold. Such envy and jealousy 
  from the North ... Goodness 
  gracious!
  
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance 
  MuirMost on TT will live 
  

Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster

2006-03-26 Thread Judy Taylor



Your buddy JD, the one who sent you the baseball bat; 
apparently he was lucid
enough to accomplish that; the rest of the time he is 
obsessed by dualism.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:28:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Who is Gary Olson?
  
  From: 
"ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








LOL! So true 
as to be hilarious. iz





From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Judy 
Taylor

What was dualistic about that 
comment Gary Olson? It is world affairs that's 
all...

You are truly weird, strange, weird 
... Why 
do you truncate what ppl write and insert your 


own comments - ultimately making it 
appear the person said something they did 
not.

Oh I understand - you do the same 
with God's Words. O' the shame of 
it.



On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:33:31 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  more 
  evidenceof jt's implicit 
  dualism
  
  
  
  On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:49:07 -0500 Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

[while 
eschatological] Proof of the pudding is always in the 
eating...[is'nt] Australia..investing workers 
retirement funds in[biblically 
questionable] Real Estate also[?]
  
  
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Truth and Freedom (some food for thought)

2006-03-26 Thread Judy Taylor



Of course they did - the two that made it that is 
(Joshua and Caleb) since they didn't return with an (evil) carnal 
report
along withall of the following generation who 
beganwith a fresh copy book.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:39:33 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Good post -- as far as it goes. What you leave 
  out is this: they never fully arrived !!! God remained 
  patient. Kinda like it is right now. 
  
  jd
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Truth and freedom go hand in hand, but 
truth will produce freedom only as it is walked in. This ought to be 
self-evident. We can know something is true, but if we fail to walk in it, 
what good is it? Its value to us is worthless unless it is walked 
in.
Freedom and truth come to those who press 
on. Freedom, the kind of freedom that God is involved in bringing us into, 
comes progressively, not all at once. These are lessons from the Days of 
Unleavened Bread. It took the Israelites seven days to get to and across the 
Red Sea. It took them another forty years to get into their own land, into 
their inheritance, the Promised Land.
Their freedom was progressive. There was a 
time when it began, but if they had never continued on the way, they would 
never have had their own land, never have had their inheritance, never have 
been free. 
This is a large part of the object lesson: 
We have to continue. If we continue, then we will truly be a disciple. We 
will understand the truth, and the truth will make usfree. The truth 
of God shows us the real values of life because it shows us what we are to 
give our life to.
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Izzy and Erin

2006-03-26 Thread Judy Taylor



Loved all of your photos Iz,
Beautifulfamily, lovely pets, gracious 
home. How about all those garages; I know that comes in 
handy.

  
  

From: ShieldsFamily 


To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 


Sent: March 
26, 2006 08:44

Subject: 
[TruthTalk] Izzy and Erin


With my beautiful stepdaughter, Erin, this week. 
Izzy
I sent 
these photos using Adobe(R) Photoshop(R) Elements 4.0. Find out more: http://www.adobe.com/photoshopelementswin
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster

2006-03-26 Thread Judy Taylor



I can empathize with you Lance, it was not that long 
ago for me. I do hope and pray she will
pull through so you can share some more days with 
her. Any official prognosis yet? jt

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 09:14:08 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I spent some time at my mother's bedside reading, 
  praying and talking. She has not opened her eyes.
  
  thanks Iz,
  
  Lance
  
From: ShieldsFamily 


Amen, Lance! Hoping 
all is well with you, izzy





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 8:06 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah 
Webster


Or, take your Bible and point to 
Him while saying 'HE IS THE WORD'.

  
  - Original Message - 
  
  
  From: ShieldsFamily 
  
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  
  Sent: March 
  26, 2006 08:33
  
  Subject: RE: 
  [TruthTalk] Noah Webster
  
  
  I love Crocodile 
  Dundee because he says, with a glint in his eye, “Now THIS is a 
  knife!” Life up your Bible and say, “Now THIS is the Word!” It cuts 
  to the quick and separates the men from the boys! J 
  iz
  
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 7:25 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah 
  Webster
  
  
  I think it's a "right back atcha" 
  thing 
  
  
  
  Is that so? 
  
  Well, how do you like the fact that some American 
  Company bought the rights to all those Paul Hogan 
  movies?Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  

I think it's a 
"right back atcha" thing - for years I would go over there and hear much 
lamenting about

what Americans had 
bought; do you know an American Company now owns the all 
Australian

delicious spread 
called Vegemite?



On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:45:33 -0800 (PST) Kevin 
Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  I've just learned 
  that Australia 
  is investing workers retirement funds in US Real 
  Estate
  
  
  
  They just bought the New York Thruway. Does 
  that mean I need a passport, now?From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy 
  TaylorThanks for this Kevin
  



Proof of the 
pudding is always in the 
eating.


I've just 
learned that Australia 
is investing workers retirement funds in US Real Estate 
also


So Lance and 
his prophet don't have a whole lot of support from "down under" 
either





On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:20:31 -0800 (PST) 
Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  
  Lance says 
  Canada will not 
  suffer the same fate at the USA. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Ah
  
  
  Ah
  
  
   AH 
  CHOO!
  
  
  
  
  
  excuse 
  me
  
  
  
  
  
  348,000 New 
  York jobs are 
  supported by Canada-U.S. trade 
  
  
  
  Total Canada–U.S. merchandise trade: $411 
  billion 
  
  
  Canada–U.S. trade supported 5.2 million 
  U.S. 
  jobs 
  
  
  More people traveled between 
  Canada and NY 
  in 2004 than any other U.S. 
  state 
  
  
  14,500,000 vehicles crossed the 
  Canada-U.S. border at the four Niagara crossings last year, 
  accounting for 34% of all traffic that crossed into Ontario 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  ROTFL
  
  
  With this many US Jobs gone, could CanaDUH 
  rebound? 
  
  
  
  
  
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Of course it is; JC is the Word of God isn't 
He?
Everytime God speaks - He speaks Truth - and every time 
it is God the Word - JC
Let God be true and every man a liar

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:10:15 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  then Truth ain't 
  JC
  
  put yet another 
  way, the notionmouthedisbeyond falseness, it is implicitly 
  untrue as is a lie,M'am
  
  
  On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:05:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  

As..we turn Genesis into a statement...
jt: 
..it's 'a statement of TRUTH'
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



More accurately - the lack of understanding is just 
plain obdurance in those too full
of themselves and their own opinions to yeild to the 
source of understanding all Truth.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 22:00:03 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..also,perceptively: 
   "The Lack of 
  understanding is just laziness of thought and lack of effort."
  
  On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 21:23:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
bullseye; v 
understandable, Bro!

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:30:28 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Fits the legal definition of LibelJudy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  

||
..you are out there Lance, possiblyin the 
next orbit to Gary.

  


Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor
  
Interpretation/interpolation/speculation re:Genesis leads one to that 
which one has just witnessed over the last week or so.

- Original Message - 

  From: 
  David 
  Miller 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 23, 2006 17:01
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  
  I don't know why you are getting so emotional over this.
  
  I think that when God spoke, in many situations, it took some time 
  for what he said to take place. For example, if he spoke for the 
  land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say 
  it, but hours for the land and water to do what he said.He 
  also may have been involved in other ways that we don't understand right 
  now. Do you see it differently? It does not have anything to 
  do with resting for the next day.
  
  David Miller
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 4:36 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism

David !! Honestly, this is one of the sorriest posts 
you have ever written. First, an atheist mocks God and I am no 
atheist. 

Secondly, the reason you are confused with what I said (144 hours 
of time to speak the words of creation that took only 26 seconds to 
actually speak) is rather simple -- you have somehow lost 
the context of my statement. My comments go the the notion that 
"day" is not a 24 hour period. To say that it is 
metaphorical doesnot mean that God did not create the 
world and even in the sequence depicted -- at least not to 
me. Such an admission , on my part, does not mean that I 
believe the Genesis account to be "scientific" as we understand that 
term , today. Look -- do you really believe that 
God worked so hard in His creation activity that he needed a 24 hour 
period of time to rest up !!!?? And "rest up " for 
what? Com'on David, this is impossible. 

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Are you mocking the concept that God created the world through 
  faith and speaking? What does how long it takes for him to speak 
  words have to do with how long it took for the world to come into 
  being? I don't understand your point.
  
  David Miller
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 
5:29 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism

So which fundamentalist version of creation do you 
support. That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 
year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" e.t. ? The 
version that says it took God 144 hours to speak words that 
canbe spoken in 24 seconds !!! I just 
did it in 24 big ones !! including a drink of 
water because my mouth was getting dry. 

Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies 
cannot agree on much of anything. Which version goes 
into the school system ??? We are still waiting??

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Don't you get it JT?
  TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!
  The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole 
church that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What 
does that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I 
  do. I know this -- 
  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed 
  upon by the whole church. 
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 


Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Big problem JD; the "biblical message" is something 
other than what you have been proffering on TT so far
So why not just admit that you counsel using your own 
theology and that the results belong to you also?. 

jt: How about a statement of 
TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? 

JD: That is exactly what I am saying. I 
counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my 
work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither 
is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the 
above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get what I 
have said.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:05:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  

  What do I believe about Genesis? 
  Did you read any of my posts? 
  Sciencehas no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our need 
  for community andan  innate 
  longing to live beyond what we see.As 
  soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of science, we lessen its 
  value to the human spirit. 
  
  How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by 
  the author of TRUTH then? That is exactly what I am saying. I counsel 
  others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my work. 
  That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it 
  a science book. But if you don't get what I am saying in the 
  above, just move on. It does not appear that you do get 
  what I have said.  
  
  What do I get from reading those first three chapters? 
  That God is in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in 
  control - but that He is IN FACT in control. He is 
  my creator. I am in His image. 
  
  He is your Creator but you are not in His image 
  unless you have been totally conformed to the image of 
  Christ already - in fact, not in theory 
  only. Your attitude to His Law would belie that. 
  Adam and Eve were not created with the 
  nature of Christ as their mainstay !! Just JudySpeak and 
  nothing more. 
  
  And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round 
  me. It tells me that I was created for others -- 
  my wife, my children and the world in which I live.
  
  The first three chapters of Genesis tells you all 
  of the above? Where?
  Take your Bible, open it to the first 
  pages of Genesis, lean over until your nose is nearly touching those pages 
  and BAM !!!, YOU WILL SEE IT. 
  
  
  It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. Work 
  is a curse because I must be responsible !!
  
  Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL of 
  your thoughts as well as your actions. No kidding. 
  
  I and my wife are one 
  becauseGodthought this to be the case from 
  the beginning. and REST 
  has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as 
  work. That's what I get out of this Genesis 
  account.Whilesome of you only see a debate 
  
  
  You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord would 
  like to be One spirit with you JD Done deal, Judge Judy . beginning many years 
  ago. 
  
  Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my case 
  an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer believes 
  in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be a witness , 
  using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO NOT, repeat, DO 
  NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not win, if your version 
  of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and you were 
  right again." He won't do it. But if you ignore 
  the challenge, and give biblical presentations that make sense to 
  the way he is living his life -- the objection vanishes into 
  thin air. Theory? Nope. It worked on both of 
  my older boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I 
  digress with some free advice. 
  
  The long and short of the lesson is this -- make the 
  Bible THE battle ground and you will lose the war 
  !!! Present the Bible as something that offers life in 
  the Spirit of God in the Christ of God and you have a winner. 
  
  
  jd
  
  
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Contingent Order

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Why? What do they do for you?
It's all about him, his thoughts, his opinions, the 
movies he sees, etc. etc.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:09:26 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  :-) I shall miss these pithy responses. jd
  
  From: 
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

After reading you, I'm inclined toward a 
YES!

  From: Kevin Deegan 
  Was it a BIG 
  Bang?Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  



When one seeks to apply the latter onto the 
former one is simply stymied. In failing to apprehend this one bangs 
one's head against the proverbial wall.
  
  
  Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone 
  Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you deal with 
reality at all. You weren't there were you?
All you have in your favor are flights of fancy that 
are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy.
Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - no 
explanation necessary. He was there!!!

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I 
  wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking about 
  what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about what is 
  written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the topic of 
  creation and this Genesis account. 
  
  The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you 
  cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. This 
  is the third post from you I have opened this morning with absolutely 
  nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative 
  chit-chat. jd
  
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
Says one from CA who has been permeated by the 
"fast food" fast everything generation
Remember "He that believeth shall not make haste" 
 So why does God have to be in a bighurry?
And why can't it be the way it is written? 
Because JD says it does not make sense to him?

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the 
  Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my passion. 
  Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on TT, both times 
  following one of your priceless comments . Twice in three 
  years (going back a ways .)?!! Not bad, I 
  think. 
  
  I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s)on this 
  subject. 
  
  There havebeen times, in past postings, that you have been even 
  brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those 
  times. Science and creation is not one of your strong 
  points -- at least not this time around. I suspect 
  that you are distracted with other things. 
  
  To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into 
  existence - I say. 
  
  But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say 
  exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living 
  near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if 
  he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less than a 
  minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what he 
  said.
  
  Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but 
  honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old land 
  masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. 
  N0sir-re. It took time for them to move into 
  place -- upwards of several hours 
  !! Com'on big D !! Just admit 
  that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point !! 
  
  
  Look -- if you give graduating high school 
  studentsyour kind of information and send to them to Humbolt 
  State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would 
  become atheists !! I have seen 
  thishappen many times. Our young people have 
  left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to evolution, or 
  whatever, and when they sit in front of an antongist, they are left 
  naked, poor and numb. 
  
  You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to my 
  boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you 
  this. I had been working on one line explanations for years before 
  my boys got to school. All ofthose one-liners 
  thoroughly defeated except for that one brief paragraph of thought I gave 
  in another post (the eternity of matter and motion aand the 
  philosophical advantage of going with the eternity of God 
  - thingy). I have talked about "postulated" truth in the 
  past -- that such is considered to be"truth" but 
  without the possibility of PROOF. I have mentioned that science is 
  as much addicted to "faith" as a Christian to his God . 
  all things I could communicate in minutes over the phone. And 
  guess what -- my boys called!!! These guys each won state 
  wrestling championships and I coached them (AND YES I AM MOST 
  DEFINITELY BRAGGING). In some venues , they completely 
  trusted me and with reason. Probably the most important long 
  distance phone call I will ever receive frommy boyswas THAT 
  call -- "Dad, this prof is killing us !! What do we 
  say?" 
  There was no doubt in their minds that The Reply would 
  work. I could have lost both boys the next day in class 
  !! You should have heard that next phone call  the next evening 
  !! Awesome. 
  
  How did I know it would work ? I went to several science 

Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



You JDhave rejectedsubstance 
unlessconformed to your liking and by then it is no longer substance but 
mixture.
So what would be the point??

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:33:51 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I rest my case !! And a fourth post (of 
  the morning) that is absolutely content free 
   talk about "substance abuse !!" that is what 
  goes on in your your posts. 
  
  jd
  
  -- 
Original message ------ From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Big problem JD; the "biblical message" is something 
other than what you have been proffering on TT so far
So why not just admit that you counsel using your 
own theology and that the results belong to you also?. 


jt: How about a 
statement of TRUTH communicated by the author of TRUTH then? 


JD: That is exactly what I am saying. 
I counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my 
work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual !! 
Neither is it a science book. But if you don't get what I am 
saying in the above, just move on. It does not appear that 
you do get what I have said.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:05:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  

  What do I believe about 
  Genesis? Did you read any of my posts? 
  Sciencehas no answers to our confusion, our bondage, our 
  need for community andan  innate 
  longing to live beyond what we 
  see.As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of 
  science, we lessen its value to the human spirit. 
  
  
  How about a statement of TRUTH communicated 
  by the author of TRUTH then? That is exactly what I am saying. I 
  counsel others as time permits. I use the biblical message in my 
  work. That does not mean the Bible is a counseling manual 
  !! Neither is it a science book. But if you don't 
  get what I am saying in the above, just move on. It 
  does not appear that you do get what I have said.  
  
  
  What do I get from reading those first three 
  chapters? That God is in control -- not that 
  He is SOMEHOW in control - but that He is IN FACT in 
  control. He is my creator. I am in His 
  image. 
  
  He is your Creator but you are not in His 
  image unless you have been totally conformed to the image of 
  
  Christ already - in fact, not in theory 
  only. Your attitude to His Law would belie that. 
  Adam and Eve were not created with 
  the nature of Christ as their mainstay !! Just JudySpeak 
  and nothing more. 
  
  And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and round 
  me. It tells me that I was created for others 
  -- my wife, my children and the world in which I 
  live.
  
  The first three chapters of Genesis tells you 
  all of the above? Where?
  Take your Bible, open it to the first 
  pages of Genesis, lean over until your nose is nearly touching those 
  pages and BAM !!!, YOU WILL SEE IT. 
  
  
  It tells me I am responsible for much of my actions. 
  Work is a curse because I must be responsible !!
  
  Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL 
  of your thoughts as well as your actions. 
  No kidding. 
  
  
  I and my wife are one 
  becauseGodthought this to be the case 
  from the beginning. and REST 
  has as much a place in the coming and goings of man as 
  work. That's what I get out of this Genesis 
  account.Whilesome of you only see a debate 
  
  
  You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord 
  would like to be One spirit with you JD Done deal, Judge Judy . beginning many 
  years ago. 
  
  Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in my 
  case an older son -- who comes home announcing that he no longer 
  believes in the bible??!! IGNORE that comment and continue to be 
  a witness , using, at times, the very book that he rejects. DO 
  NOT, repeat, DO NOT challenge him/her to a debate. You will not 
  win, if your version of :winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas 
  wrong, Dad, and you were right again." He won't do 
  it. But if you ignore the challenge, and give 
  biblical presentations that make sense to the way he is living his 
  life -- the objection vanishes into thin air. 
  Theory? Nope. It worked on both of my older 
  boys - the lawyer and the doctor. But I 

Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Not so; the statement of a man of God inspired by the 
Spirit of God
"For what if some did not believe? shall their 
unbelief make the faith of
God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be 
true, but every man a liar;
as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in 
thy sayings, and mightest
overcome when thou art judged"

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:32:50 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  myth (feminists' rhetoric) 
  
  
  
  
||

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  ..Let God be 
  true and every man a liar
-

..Funny 
how some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? 
iz
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



The old house was judged at the cross; if you want to 
hang on to it JD that's your demise
Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly 
also. Only the new men make it because
only they are fit for the Kingdom.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what does 
  not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is the real 
  analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. 
  
  jd
  
  From: 
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. 


  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian 
  Thought Police on the march
  
  
  Isn’t that the 
  truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized 
  that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started 
  to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house 
  needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What 
  an analogy of the difference between “religion” and being born again of 
  the Holy Spirit. izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian 
  Thought Police on the march
  
  
  There is no such thing as a 
  "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me 
  wonder
  
  about you and your SS 
  conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things 
  become new.
  
  
  
  On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

My critique of this would be 
similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on 
an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an 
immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the 
so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up 
a social improvement on that which opposes the 
foregoing.



Please, please tell me 
Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' 
would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all 
have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise 
and all).

  
  - Original Message 
  - 
  
  From: 
  Kevin Deegan 
  
  
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  
  Sent: 
  March 24, 2006 07:54
  
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the 
  march
  
  
  
  
  
  The Canadian 
  Guanatamo 
  
  Better be careful with your social context on 
  the INET Lance!
  
  Are you hating an identifiable 
  group?
  
  And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I 
  understand it as an attack on me  multiple groups of my friends. 
  ; )
  
  Do you have the telE for the 
  Tribunal?
  
  
  
  Justice in 
  Canaduh
  
  http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/
  
  passed his second year of incarceration 
  without charge
  
  Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine 
  his accusers or to know all the evidence against 
  him.
  
  Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are 
  Internet-related
  
  
  
  Canadian Human 
  Rights Commission "The truth 
  in some absolute sense really 
  plays no 
  role. Rather, it is the social 
  context in which the message is delivered 
  and heard which will determine the effect that the communication will 
  have on the listener. It is not the truth or 
  falsity per se that will evoke the emotion 
  but rather how it is 
  understood by the 
  recipient.”Kevin Deegan 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  

Don't look now 
but Canada is changing - 
Group Think

Gary North 
would be proud of you 
folks.

He tried to 
bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Then Willard will have to re evaluate - in this area 
anyway
God is not in the business of renovation. He does 
not put new wine in old wineskins. It's a new covenant
(Heb 8:8) for a new ppl in Christ (see 2 Cor 5:17; 2 
Pet 1:4; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10; Gal 6:15). The heavens
and earth will not be renovated either, they will also 
be made new (see (2 Pet 3:13, Rev 21:1). You believe
Willard if you want to - I prefer the higher 
authority.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:08:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas Willard. 
  
  
From: ShieldsFamily 


Isn’t that the 
truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we realized 
that the renovations would never be finished. As soon as you started 
to repair one thing it led to another and another. The whole house 
needed to be replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What 
an analogy of the difference between “religion” and being born again of the 
Holy Spirit. izzy





From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Judy 
Taylor

There is no such thing as a 
"renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes me 
wonder

about you and your SS 
conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - all things 
become new.



On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  My critique of this would be 
  similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an 
  uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral 
  one. Granted that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 
  'golden rule' or, by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social 
  improvement on that which opposes the 
  foregoing.
  
  
  
  Please, please tell me Kevin, 
  Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should 
  include all of the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass 
  backwards with that upon which you focus (signage wise and 
  all).
  

- Original Message - 


From: Kevin Deegan 


To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 


Sent: 
March 24, 2006 07:54

Subject: Re: 
[TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the 
march





The Canadian 
Guanatamo 

Better be careful with your social context on 
the INET Lance!

Are you hating an identifiable 
group?

And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I 
understand it as an attack on me  multiple groups of my friends. ; 
)

Do you have the telE for the 
Tribunal?



Justice in 
Canaduh

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/

passed his second year of incarceration without 
charge

Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his 
accusers or to know all the evidence against 
him.

Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are 
Internet-related



Canadian Human 
Rights Commission "The truth in 
some absolute sense really plays no 
role. Rather, it is the social 
context in which the message is delivered and 
heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have 
on the listener. It is not the truth or 
falsity per se that will evoke the emotion 
but rather how it is 
understood by the 
recipient.”Kevin Deegan 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  Don't look now 
  but Canada is changing - Group 
  Think
  
  Gary North would 
  be proud of you folks.
  
  He 
  tried to bring in New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have 
  actually suceeded!
  
  
  
  Robert 
  Martin,professor of constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario "Canada now is a 
  totalitarian theocracy. I see this as a country ruled today by what I 
  would describe as a secular state religion [of political correctness]. 
  Anything that is regarded as 
  heresy or blasphemy is 
  not tolerated."
  
  
  
  Be careful there have been 
  Inquisitions against professors who attack American Foriegn policy. 
  Hope you do not get turned in, for your 
  thoughts!
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Which is just continuingon doing what they are 
already doing but all but the most gullible
have enough sense to know there are no part monkey/part 
humans on this planet .

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 06:36:20 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  Solution: teach false 
  theories. 
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  
  What's scary is that you think the solution is to have 
  an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you 
  thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly 
  negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, 
  Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to 
  our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) 
  favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the 
  stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really 
  meaningless. 
  
-- Original message -- 
From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Scary to the max. 






From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism


Of course. But that is not really the issue. 




  -- Original message -- 
  From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  So IYO it is 
  better to have secular folk teaching untruth than truth. I 
  see. izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  
  
  It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) 
  so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular 
  world to be responsible -- I don't. 
  
  
  
  
  jd
  
  
  
-- Original message -- 
From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed 
something to be true  you would NOT want children to be taught 
about it. Can you see why some of  us aren't following your 
logic? iz   -Original Message-  From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir 
 Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM  To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism  
 IZ:No, I would not.- Original 
Message -  From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
OM> To:  Sent: March 25, 2006 
06:14  ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz 
-Original Message-   
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir 
  Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM   To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic 
hypothetical, Iz. .   - 
Original Message -   From: "ShieldsFamily" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: 
  Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
  That wasn't the question; 
I asked whether IF you believe it were true,   you 
  would want it taught in schools. You said NO. 
Pathetic, eh? iz -Original 
Message-   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
Of Lance Muir   Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
David you are like so right, man! 
familiaritycontempt...were those   the  
 words? Probably got it comin'.
 Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in 
schools (i.e.   creationism)
   - Original Mes sage -  
 From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
To:   Sent: March 24, 2006 
16:35   Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
Creationism   So 
you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's 
  left.   Pathetic IMO. izzy 

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



You don't know me JD, never have and never will ... not 
at this rate anyway
As a man believeth in his heart, so is he

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:39:15 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Judy, you are as carnal a spirited babe as I have ever known. So 
  get off your high horse. There is a difference between defending 
  sin and admitting to its presence. 
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

The old house was judged at the cross; if you want 
to hang on to it JD that's your demise
Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly 
also. Only the new men make it because
only they are fit for the Kingdom.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what 
  does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is 
  the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. 
  
  
  jd
  
  From: 
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas 
Willard. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian 
  Thought Police on the march
  
  
  Isn’t that 
  the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we 
  realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon 
  as you started to repair one thing it led to another and 
  another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after 
  another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference 
  between “religion” and being born again of the Holy Spirit. 
  izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy 
  TaylorSent: Friday, 
  March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian 
  Thought Police on the march
  
  
  There is no such 
  thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes 
  me wonder
  
  about you and 
  your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - 
  all things become new.
  
  
  
  On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance 
  Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

My critique of this 
would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an 
improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an 
improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern 
their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten 
commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which 
opposes the foregoing.



Please, please tell me 
Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' 
would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of 
y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus 
(signage wise and all).

  
  - Original Message 
  - 
  
  From: Kevin Deegan 
  
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 
  07:54
  
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Canadian Thought Police on the 
  march
  
  
  
  
  
  The Canadian 
  Guanatamo 
  
  Better be careful with your social context 
  on the INET Lance!
  
  Are you hating an identifiable 
  group?
  
  And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt 
  me, I understand it as an attack on me  multiple groups of my 
  friends. ; )
  
  Do you have the telE for the 
  Tribunal?
  
  
  
  Justice in 
  Canaduh
  
  http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/
  
  passed his second year of incarceration 
  without charge
  
  Zündel was denied the right to 
  cross-examine his accusers or to know all the evidence against 
  him.
  

Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Hatred? To me it sounds like good 
sense
My late father in law used to respond to the pundits 
who said the church was full of hypocrites the same way ie:
"I'd rather go to church with them than go to hell with 
them.."

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:43:12 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Do you still harbor that much hatred? 
  Sad!
  
From: ShieldsFamily 


Funny, my 
ex-husband referred to Christianity as “fantasyland”. I told him I’d 
rather live in “fantasyland” than in hell with him. Same to you and 
your belief system, I guess. iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance 
Muir

No wonder you favour 
homeschooling! Hello fantasyland. Did you build a bunker and stock it with 
survivalist gear? Is it coffee that you wake up to smell or the odour of 
decaying infrastructure?

  
  From: ShieldsFamily 
  
  
  
  
  
  More liberal 
  negativism and fear mongering. Wishing evil upon one’s neighbor. 
  This is nasty fruit that turns the stomach and repels the Holy Spirit. I’m 
  not denying that such may happen, but only Screwtape and Wormwood should 
  be cheering it on from the sidelines. iz
  
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirSent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:24 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah 
  Webster
  
  
  Most on TT will live to see 
  the implosion of the USA. At what point will you 
  declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old 
  house and into a new one.
  

- Original Message - 


From: ShieldsFamily 


To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 


Sent: 
March 25, 2006 07:13

Subject: 
[TruthTalk] Noah Webster


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

As a teacher, he had come to dislike 
American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up to 
seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room 
schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly 
equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. 
Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he 
began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English 
Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar 
(published in 1784), and a reader 
(published in 1785). His goal was to 
provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training 
children.
The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute 
of the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and 
again in 1829 
to The Elementary Spelling 
Book. Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because 
of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book 
taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most 
popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a 
million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per copy 
was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin used 
Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to 
read.

Noah was generally known to be Christian. It is 
reported that Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary contains the 
greatest number of Biblical definitions given 
in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without 
the Bible."

  "In my view, the Christian religion is the 
  most important and one of the first things in which all children, 
  under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more 
  evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis 
  of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a 
  free people.” (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English 
  Language ) 
Besides his dictionary, Webster also released 
his own translation of the Bible in 1833. In doing the 
translation, Webster used the King James 
Version as a base. He consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with 
various other versions and commentaries.


  


Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



And why is it present? Not enough power emanating 
from the cross to get rid of it yet?
The scripture Izzy posted this morning about the 
Kingdom suffering violence and the violent taking
it by force is all about sin JD. If you don't 
hate it as much as God does in your life and the lives of
others you will never press in; the word is #971 Blazo 
- means to overpower, compel, press in with
energy.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:39:15 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to its 
  presence. 
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

The old house was judged at the cross; if you want 
to hang on to it JD that's your demise
Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly 
also. Only the new men make it because
only they are fit for the Kingdom.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely what 
  does not happen in new birth. What you moved to avoid is 
  the real analogy. I am surprised that you think differently. 
  
  
  jd
  
  From: 
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas 
Willard. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 25, 2006 06:20
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Canadian 
  Thought Police on the march
  
  
  Isn’t that 
  the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, because we 
  realized that the renovations would never be finished. As soon 
  as you started to repair one thing it led to another and 
  another. The whole house needed to be replaced one thing after 
  another! So we built new. What an analogy of the difference 
  between “religion” and being born again of the Holy Spirit. 
  izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy 
  TaylorSent: Friday, 
  March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian 
  Thought Police on the march
  
  
  There is no such 
  thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding which makes 
  me wonder
  
  about you and 
  your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed away - 
  all things become new.
  
  
  
  On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance 
  Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

My critique of this 
would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an 
improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is an 
improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to govern 
their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten 
commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which 
opposes the foregoing.



Please, please tell me 
Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' 
would/should include all of the above? I do believe that some of 
y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you focus 
(signage wise and all).

  
  - Original Message 
  - 
  
  From: Kevin Deegan 
  
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 
  07:54
  
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Canadian Thought Police on the 
  march
  
  
  
  
  
  The Canadian 
  Guanatamo 
  
  Better be careful with your social context 
  on the INET Lance!
  
  Are you hating an identifiable 
  group?
  
  And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt 
  me, I understand it as an attack on me  multiple groups of my 
  friends. ; )
  
  Do you have the telE for the 
  Tribunal?
  
  
  
  Justice in 
  Canaduh
  
  http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/
  
  passed his second year of inc

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



If there are christian teachers in the system (and 
there are) who must teach theories of evolution that they
do not believe. What's wrong with teaching the 
other side also even if there are unbelievers teaching it
There are also unbelievers in different churches these 
days teaching all kinds of things. The student has
the responsibility to search it out for 
themselves.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:32:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an antagonistic 
  educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you thinking, of 
  course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly negates the 
  purpose of this compromise. In the real world, Linda, you 
  simply cannot construct a model in which this will work to our (the Christian 
  church -- whose address do we use , again ??) favor. In 
  fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the stateent on creationism 
  would be so watered down as to be really meaningless. 
  From: 
"ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








Scary to the max. 






From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism


Of course. But that is not really the issue. 




  -- Original message -- 
  From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  So IYO it is 
  better to have “secular” folk teaching untruth than truth. I 
  see…. izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  
  
  It's not what is taught (for me and in this case) 
  so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the secular 
  world to be responsible -- I don't. 
  
  
  
  
  jd
  
  
  
-- Original message -- 
From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed 
something to be true  you would NOT want children to be taught 
about it. Can you see why some of  us aren't following your 
logic? iz   -Original Message-  From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir 
 Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM  To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism  
 IZ:No, I would not.- Original 
Message -  From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
OM> To:  Sent: March 25, 2006 
06:14  ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
gt; Dodging the question, as usual. iz 
-Original Message-   
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir 
  Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM   To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic 
hypothetical, Iz. .   - 
Original Message -   From: "ShieldsFamily" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: 
  Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
  That wasn't the question; 
I asked whether IF you believe it were true,   you 
  would want it taught in schools. You said NO. 
Pathetic, eh? iz -Original 
Message-   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
Of Lance Muir   Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
David you are like so right, man! 
familiaritycontempt...were those   the  
 words? Probably got it comin'.
 Actually Lady Iz, I prefer that untruth NOT be taught in 
schools (i.e.   creationism)
   - Original Mes sage -  
 From: "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
To:   Sent: March 24, 2006 
16:35   Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
Creationism   So 
you prefer that untruth be taught in scho ols. That's all that's 
  left.   Pathetic IMO. izzy 
-Original Message- 
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Lance Muir   Sent: Friday, March 24, 

Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Don't worry Lance, if the USA implodes - Canada and 
Europe will go with it - at present when the
US sneezes the rest of the world catch a cold. 
Such envy and jealousy from the North ... Goodness gracious!



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
Behalf Of Lance MuirMost on TT will live to see the 
implosion of the USA. At what point will you declare 
bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old house and into a 
new one.

  


  
  From: ShieldsFamily 
  
  
  
  
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster
  
  As a teacher, he had come to dislike 
  American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, with up to seventy 
  children of all ages crammed into one-room 
  schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly 
  equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. 
  Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he 
  began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English 
  Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a grammar 
  (published in 1784), and a reader 
  (published in 1785). His goal was to 
  provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training 
  children.
  The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute of 
  the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, and 
  again in 1829 
  to The Elementary Spelling 
  Book. Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because 
  of its blue cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book 
  taught children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most 
  popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a 
  million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per copy 
  was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben 
  Franklin used Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to 
  read.
  
  Noah was generally known to be Christian. It is 
  reported that Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary contains the 
  greatest number of Biblical definitions given 
  in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the 
  Bible."
  
"In 
my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the 
first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be 
instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian 
religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the 
rights and privileges of a free people.” (Preface to the 1828 edition of 
Webster's American Dictionary of the 
English Language ) 
  Besides his dictionary, Webster also released his 
  own translation of the Bible in 1833. In doing the 
  translation, Webster used the King James 
  Version as a base. He consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with 
  various other versions and commentaries.
  
  
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God 
and the Word was God
Who spoke the worlds into existence?

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:26:16 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Well He (Jesus) was and He wasn't.
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you deal 
with reality at all. You weren't there were you?
All you have in your favor are flights of fancy 
that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy.
Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - no 
explanation necessary. He was there!!!

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I 
  wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking 
  about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about 
  what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the 
  topic of creation and this Genesis account. 
  
  The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you 
  cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. 
  This is the third post from you I have opened this morning with 
  absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative 
  chit-chat. jd
      
      From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
Says one from CA who has been permeated by the 
"fast food" fast everything generation
Remember "He that believeth shall not make 
haste"  So why does God have to be in a bighurry?
And why can't it be the way it is 
written? Because JD says it does not make sense to 
him?

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the 
  Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my 
  passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on 
  TT, both times following one of your priceless comments 
  . Twice in three years (going back a ways 
  .)?!! Not bad, I think. 
  
  I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s)on this 
  subject. 
  
  There havebeen times, in past postings, that you have been 
  even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those 
  times. Science and creation is not one of your strong 
  points -- at least not this time around. I 
  suspect that you are distracted with other things. 
  
  To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into 
  existence - I say. 
  
  But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say 
  exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living 
  near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, 
  if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less 
  than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what 
  he said.
  
  Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but 
  honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old 
  land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. 
  N0sir-re. It took time for them to move 
  into place -- upwards of several hours 
  !! Com'on big D !! Just 
  admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point 
  !! 
  
  Look -- if you give graduating high school 
  studentsyour kind of information and send to them to Humbolt 
  State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would 
  become atheists !! I have seen 
  thishappen many times. Our young people 
  have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to 
  evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an 
  antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. 
  
  You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to 
  my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you 
  this. I had been working on one line explanations for years 
  before my boys got to school. All ofthose 
  one-liners thoroughly defeated except for that one brief 
  paragraph of thought I gave in another post (the eternity of 
  matter and motion aand the philosophical advantage of going with 
  the eternity of God - thingy). I have talked 
  about "postulated" truth in the past -- that such is considered 
  to be"truth" but without the possibility of 
  PROOF. I have mentioned that science is as much addicted to 
  "faith" as a Christian to his God . all things I could 
  communicate in minutes over the phone. And guess 
  what -- my boys called!!! These guys each

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



You've got to be kidding; right now most of the church 
isn't doing it's job in the church let alone
out there in the world. I suppose you have noted 
the preacher's wife shooting her husband in the
back in TN and they are CofC. Wonder what 
underlies that tragedy.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:07:40 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Here's an idea -- maybe the church could actually do its job 
  !! 
  You know, instead of paying the local school district to do it. 
  jd
  
  From: 
"ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








Solution: teach 
false theories. 





From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:33 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism


What's scary is that you think the solution is to 
have an antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe 
-- you thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that 
thoroughly negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real 
world, Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this 
will work to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , 
again ??) favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to 
agree, the stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really 
meaningless. 

  -- Original message -- 
  From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Scary to the max. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 
  AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
  on Creationism
  
  
  Of course. But that is not really the issue. 
  
  
  
  
-- Original message -- 
From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So IYO it is 
better to have “secular” folk teaching untruth than truth. I 
see…. izzy





From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:46 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism


It's not what is taught (for me and in this 
case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want the 
secular world to be responsible -- I 
don't. 



jd



  -- Original message -- 
  From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed 
  something to be true  you would NOT want children to be taught 
  about it. Can you see why some of  us aren't following your 
  logic? iz   -Original Message-  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir 
   Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism  
   IZ:No, I would not.-  
  Original Message -  From: "ShieldsFamily" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM> To: 
   Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 
   ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
  gt; Dodging the question, as usual. 
  iz -Original Message-  
   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir 
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM   To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
  It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic 
  hypothetical, Iz. .   - 
  Original Message -   From: "ShieldsFamily" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: 
    Sent: March 24, 2006 17:16 
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
That wasn't the 
  question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true,  
   you   would want it taught in schools. You 
  said NO. Pathetic, eh? iz 
  -Original Message-   From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir 
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 3:49 PM  
   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
  David you are like so right, man! 
  

Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



I have a hard time taking these kinds of prophets 
seriously Lance.
I remember when Pat Robertson was predicting the demise 
of our monetary system in the early 1980's
I guess you could say your prophet is true and Pat is 
false. I'm not critical of PR however, he has missed it
many times but he is one of the only two men in the US that I have heard calling Islam what it 
is.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:09:29 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  The 'prophet' (take note, David) said otherwise 
  in November. Canada will not suffer the same fate at the USA. 
  Size does matter but, it's not the only thing 
  that matters.
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Don't worry Lance, if the USA implodes - Canada and 
Europe will go with it - at present when the
US sneezes the rest of the world catch a 
cold. Such envy and jealousy from the North ... Goodness 
gracious!



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance 
MuirMost on TT will live to see the 
implosion of the USA. At what point will you 
declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old 
house and into a new one.

  


  
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  
  
  
  
   
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster
  
  As a teacher, he had come 
  to dislike American elementary schools. They could be overcrowded, 
  with up to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room 
  schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly 
  equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from England. 
  Webster thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he 
  began writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English 
  Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 1783), a 
  grammar (published in 1784), and a reader 
  (published in 1785). His goal was to 
  provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training 
  children.
  The speller was originally entitled The First Part of the Grammatical Institute 
  of the English Language. The title was changed in 1786 to 
  The American Spelling 
  Book, and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. 
  Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because of its blue 
  cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book taught 
  children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most 
  popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a 
  million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per 
  copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin used 
  Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to 
  read.
  
  Noah was generally known 
  to be Christian. It is 
  reported that Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary contains the 
  greatest number of Biblical definitions 
  given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless 
  without the Bible."
  
"In my view, the Christian religion is the 
most important and one of the first things in which all children, 
under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more 
evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the 
basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges 
of a free people.” (Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster's 
American Dictionary of the 
English Language ) 
  Besides his dictionary, Webster also released 
  his own translation of the Bible in 1833. In doing the 
  translation, Webster used the King James 
  Version as a base. He consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with 
  various other versions and commentaries.
  
  
  
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Don't hold your breath waiting JD:
You have never been open to anything I would have to 
say - when TT goes down I will
know it is time tocall it a day.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:13:50 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Like I said, Judy, your spirit is as carnal as any. 
  
  When you get that "fixed," talk to me. You''ll still have my 
  e-mail. jd
  
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
And why is it present? Not enough power 
emanating from the cross to get rid of it yet?
The scripture Izzy posted this morning about the 
Kingdom suffering violence and the violent taking
it by force is all about sin JD. If you don't 
hate it as much as God does in your life and the lives of
others you will never press in; the word is #971 
Blazo - means to overpower, compel, press in with
energy.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:39:15 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   There is a difference between defending sin and admitting to 
  its presence. 
  
  From: 
    Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

The old house was judged at the cross; if you 
want to hang on to it JD that's your demise
Probably why you defend carnality so adamantly 
also. Only the new men make it because
only they are fit for the Kingdom.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely 
  what does not happen in new birth. What you moved to 
  avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you think 
  differently. 
  
  jd
  
  From: 
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas 
Willard. 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 25, 2006 
  06:20
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 
  Canadian Thought Police on the march
  
  
  Isn’t 
  that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, 
  because we realized that the renovations would never be 
  finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it led 
  to another and another. The whole house needed to be 
  replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What an 
  analogy of the difference between “religion” and being born again 
  of the Holy Spirit. izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy 
  TaylorSent: 
  Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Canadian Thought Police on the 
  march
  
  
  There is no 
  such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more misunderstanding 
  which makes me wonder
  
  about you and 
  your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has passed 
  away - all things become new.
  
  
  
  On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance 
  Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

My critique of this 
would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil society is an 
improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that a moral society is 
an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt to 
govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten 
commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that 
which opposes the foregoing.



Please, please tell 
me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the 
heart' would/should include all of the above? I do believe that 
some of y'all have things ass backwards with that upon which you 
focus (signage wise and all).

  
  - Original 
  Message - 
  
  From: Kevin Deegan 
  
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  
  Sent: March 24, 2006 
  07:54
  
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



All these so called paradigms need to be put to 
bed
Without the Spirit of God there is nothing happening 
but dead religion and who needs that
One of you is enough JD. God's Spirit anoints or 
empowers His Words only; your life may
make one curious for any number of reasons - but 
without Him you can do nothing. Oh! you
can influence your children but that is our 
responsibility asparents anyway

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:18:47 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Three kinds of evangelism present on this list. 
  
  1.. Drive-bye or protest evangelismKevin , Dean, David 
  (often but not always)
  
  2. Tower of power evangelism -- where the saint does 
  her best work at home and not in the real world.
  
  3. Mentor evangelism (Lance , Bill and others)
  
  We don't agree, Judy, because the paradigm for evangelism is not 
  the same.  you in your home and me in my world, where I live, 
  where people see me everyday. 
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

If there are christian teachers in the system (and 
there are) who must teach theories of evolution that they
do not believe. What's wrong with teaching 
the other side also even if there are unbelievers teaching it
There are also unbelievers in different churches 
these days teaching all kinds of things. The student has
the responsibility to search it out for 
themselves.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:32:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an 
  antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you 
  thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly 
  negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, 
  Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work 
  to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) 
  favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the 
  stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really 
  meaningless. 
  From: 
"ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








Scary to the 
max. 





From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism


Of course. But that is not really the 
issue. 



  -- Original message -- 
  From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  So IYO it is 
  better to have “secular” folk teaching untruth than truth. I 
  see…. izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 
  5:46 AMTo: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
  Williams on Creationism
  
  
  It's not what is taught (for me and in this 
  case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want 
  the secular world to be responsible -- I 
  don't. 
  
  
  
  jd
  
  
  
-- Original message 
-- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed 
something to be true  you would NOT want children to be 
taught about it. Can you see why some of  us aren't 
following your logic? iz   -Original 
Message-  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Lance Muir  Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM  
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
  IZ:No, I would not.
- Original Message -  From: "ShieldsFamily" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM> To: 
<TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 
 ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
gt; Dodging the question, as usual. 
iz -Original Message-  
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir 
  Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM   To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Why don't you go ahead and say it out loud 
JD
Judy has a Jezebel spirit - I've been around that kind 
of thinking before
and know from whence it comes. Also your 
particular area of expertise is not
spiritual discernment JD.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:27:19 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Shucks !!
  
  
  And, did you note that us "liberals" do not agree on 
  everything? One is not the puppet of the other. 
  For my money, you are the poster girl for "carnal Christian" if same 
  includes "rebellions" as an indicator. jd
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Don't hold your breath waiting JD:
You have never been open to anything I would have 
to say - when TT goes down I will
know it is time tocall it a day.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:13:50 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Like I said, Judy, your spirit is as carnal as any. 
  
  When you get that "fixed," talk to me. You''ll still have 
      my e-mail. jd
  
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
And why is it present? Not enough power 
emanating from the cross to get rid of it yet?
The scripture Izzy posted this morning about 
the Kingdom suffering violence and the violent taking
it by force is all about sin JD. If you 
don't hate it as much as God does in your life and the lives 
of
others you will never press in; the word is 
#971 Blazo - means to overpower, compel, press in with
energy.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:39:15 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

   There is a difference between defending sin and admitting 
  to its presence. 
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

The old house was judged at the cross; if 
you want to hang on to it JD that's your demise
Probably why you defend carnality so 
adamantly also. Only the new men make it because
only they are fit for the 
Kingdom.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:18:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Selling the old house and building the new house is precisely 
  what does not happen in new birth. What you 
  moved to avoid is the real analogy. I am surprised that you 
  think differently. 
  
  jd
  
  From: 
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







'Renovation of the Heart' by Dallas 
Willard. 

  - Original Message - 
  
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 25, 2006 
  06:20
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] 
  Canadian Thought Police on the march
  
  
  Isn’t 
  that the truth? We sold our 100 year old house, for one thing, 
  because we realized that the renovations would never be 
  finished. As soon as you started to repair one thing it 
  led to another and another. The whole house needed to be 
  replaced one thing after another! So we built new. What 
  an analogy of the difference between “religion” and being born 
  again of the Holy Spirit. izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy 
  TaylorSent: 
  Friday, March 24, 2006 6:05 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Canadian Thought Police on the 
  march
  
  
  There is 
  no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; more 
  misunderstanding which makes me 
  wonder
  
  about you 
  and your SS conversion. It is a new heart; the old has 
  passed away - all things become 
  new.
  
  
  
  On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 
  "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

My critique of 
this would be similar to your own. Granted that a civil 
society is an improvemen

Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



I follow Jesus' example - becauseHe was there. It 
was He who spoke the worlds into existence
If he accepted Moses and the Prophets without 
explanation and taught them the same way
Then this isgood enough for me. All it took 
for him to defeat the enemy was "It is written"



On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:25:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  If I can have no opinion about the creation because I wasn't there, then 
  you are excluded for the same reason. Certainly I wasn't there, 
  but I know how to read AND comprehend at the same time. That ability 
  came my way shortly after learning to walk upright. When will it happen 
  to you? jd
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you deal 
with reality at all. You weren't there were you?
All you have in your favor are flights of fancy 
that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy.
Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - no 
explanation necessary. He was there!!!

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I 
  wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking 
  about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is about 
  what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do with the 
  topic of creation and this Genesis account. 
  
  The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you 
  cannot. And you certainly have not debated the issue. 
  This is the third post from you I have opened this morning with 
  absolutely nothing in any of them work responding too. Just negative 
  chit-chat. jd
      
      From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
Says one from CA who has been permeated by the 
"fast food" fast everything generation
Remember "He that believeth shall not make 
haste"  So why does God have to be in a bighurry?
And why can't it be the way it is 
written? Because JD says it does not make sense to 
him?

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the 
  Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my 
  passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on 
  TT, both times following one of your priceless comments 
  . Twice in three years (going back a ways 
  .)?!! Not bad, I think. 
  
  I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s)on this 
  subject. 
  
  There havebeen times, in past postings, that you have been 
  even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of those 
  times. Science and creation is not one of your strong 
  points -- at least not this time around. I 
  suspect that you are distracted with other things. 
  
  To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things into 
  existence - I say. 
  
  But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, say 
  exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of you living 
  near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, 
  if he spoke for the land masses to divide from the water, it took less 
  than a minute to say it, but hours for the land and water to do what 
  he said.
  
  Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, but 
  honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those dumb old 
  land masses -- they couldn't just POP into place. 
  N0sir-re. It took time for them to move 
  into place -- upwards of several hours 
  !! Com'on big D !! Just 
  admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just might have a point 
  !! 
  
  Look -- if you give graduating high school 
  studentsyour kind of information and send to them to Humbolt 
  State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them would 
  become atheists !! I have seen 
  thishappen many times. Our young people 
  have left their individual churches thinking there is nothing to 
  evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in front of an 
  antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. 
  
  You might not be impressed with my explanations offered to 
  my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me tell you 
  this. I had been working on one line explanations for years 
  before my boys got to school. All ofthose 
  one-liners thoroughly defeated except for that one brief 
  paragraph of thought I gave in another post (the eternity of 
  matter and motion aand the philosophical advantage of going with 
  the eternity of 

Re: [TruthTalk] Divine Contingent Order

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor





ROFL :)

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 10:04:33 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: That's what it spells when one's nose hits the keyboard. 
:-)  -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Kevin  Deegan Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 8:31 
AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Divine  Contingent Order  This is 
one of JD's best techniques he learned it when he was Pres  of 
the D-bate Society.  I am afraid he does not get it so let's 
just move on!  Or maybe he fell asleep at the keyboard? 
Is there a doctor in the house to treat his narcolepsy?  --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  
z  
  -- Original message --   From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
  Why? What do they do for you?  It's all about 
him, his thoughts, his opinions, the movies he  sees,  etc. 
etc.On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:09:26 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:  
:-) I shall miss these pithy responses. jd  
  From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
  After reading you, I'm inclined toward a YES!  From: 
Kevin Deegan Was it a BIG Bang?  
  Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  When one seeks to apply the latter onto the former one is 
simply  stymied. In failing to apprehend this one bangs one's head 
 against  the proverbial wall.
  Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. 
Make PC-to-Phone Calls using  Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. 
  __ 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.  




Re: [TruthTalk] Dominion

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor
akes  seriously the law of God, and everyone 
else.”- From: Kevin 
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 23, 2006 17:52   
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   
 Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? 
Gary North king of y2k
  "if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this  
attribution  (extermination), the "native Americans" did." Pope Gary 
North  (comments  added) 
Pope Gary North "The long-term goal of Christians in politics  
should  be to  gain exclusive control over the 
franchise. Those who refuse to  submit...must  be denied 
citizenship". 
Reformed Baptist? LOL Baptist Reconstruction? 
LOLBaptist Kingdom builders? LOL  
  Baptist DominionISM? LOLBaptist Pope 
ROTFLRC Pope 
CalvinReformed Presbyterian   
 Bring in the kingdom Presbytery  JD
Replacement Theology "We are Jews" Presbytery, Romans, Reformed  
C's,  Mormons, Reformed, JD  Lance!   
 Apparently you are TOTALLY IGNORANT of 
Baptistshttp://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm 
   see # 4 The priesthood of the believer  #5 right of soul 
liberty  or  religious liberty# 
7 The Separation of Church and State 
   Try to get your baseless assertions straight:   
  Gary North Reformed Catholic - Presbytery   
 RJ Rushdoony Reformed Catholic - PresbyteryGary 
Demar -Reformed Catholic - presbytery 
   Kindy garten 101 - Who is who?
Baptist Roger Williams Holding a Bible  http://www.zbt.org/traditions/Roger_Williams_photo.htm 
   PROTESTant RC Zwingly - 
Holding Bible  SWORDhttp://www.antipas.org/books/protesters/prot_images/zwingli.jpg 
   For all you kiddies TEST 
QUESTION who has the sword?  
  Even some Presbyterian RC's admit they are just RC   
  http://reformedcatholicism.blogspot.com/ 
   Dominion is the Sole Realm 
of Popes, Protestants  Potentates!!! 
Again all the ammo you have is Psycho 
assertionISM!Name smearing and grossly 
misrepresenting peoples beliefs.These REFORMED 
Catholics are just like their PapaBaptists do not 
preach this baloney never have.Popes Protestants and 
Potentates have blood on their hands.Most times it 
was the blood of BaptistsYou defame their pure 
blood, shed by murderous RC'sAntipas was my faithful 
martyr, who was slain among you  
  RJ Rushdooney  
  http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/royal_race.htm 
   The Royal Race of the Redeemed?
Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
   Is KD a pseudonym for Gary North? Have you finally come out 
of  hiding  after  the Y2K fiasco? I do believe 
that were we to remove the hoods from  some on  TT we 
would see that which underlies the hatred that you spread  
throughout  the mid-east and, elsewhere.
- Original Message - From: Kevin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 23, 2006 07:50   
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   
 AGAIN you show your Short 
ComprehensionI am NOT a REFORMED CATHOLIC. 
   wrong slot Lance, better take it to your friends for a 
consensusWhat do 
you know of RJR?Not as much as you think, I 
suppose.He is NOT a Fundamentalist  
  Like Papa like son, bring out the stake   
 Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
   Spoken like a true studen of RJR.
- Original Message - From: Kevin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 22, 2006 21:05   
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism   
 Let's have them Teach Dominion Theology 
in school ; )[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   
  I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school 
systems  and you  are talking about religious 
people!!! Amazing  
  Maybe we should install a 
different creationist version for every  major  school 
system  I am sure we can find 
 enough  fundy  ideas to go around. That 
way , you would have to worry about  consensus and  no 
one will have the slightest idea what to believe. but you and  
Kev  will  be happy. CONSENSUS BE 
DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE  YOU 
FREE  !!   
 jd
-- 
Original message --   From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
  I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious ppl have 
manyand varied points of view about anything and 
everything and this  is  no
measure by which to gauge what is needful or true.   
 On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:  
  Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 
WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE 
CIRRICULUM -- HUH ???
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
  So?There isn't a single view of the 
whole church that is agreed uponby the whole church 
either. What does that prove? judyt  
  On Wed,

Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



The "mythmaker" has woken up again Iz
Look at the "partial truth" lies coming from his 
keyboard

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:29:49 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 04:32:50 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] edits:
  

  myth (the statement of a 
  man of God inspired by the Spirit of God employed asfeminists' 
  rhetoric) 
  
  
  
||

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 ..Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  ..Let God be 
  true and every man a liar
-

..Funny how 
some guys take a false assumption to the extreme, hey Judy? 
iz
  

  


Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor




ROFL :)

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:40:32 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: See the RED for real "substance" encoding  --- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  Make that 5 posts. 
-- Original message --   From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
You JD have rejected substance unless conformed to 
your liking and  by  then it is no longer substance but 
mixture.  So what would be the point??On 
Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:33:51 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:  
I rest my case !! And a fourth post (of the morning) that is  
absolutely content free  talk about 
"substance  abuse  !!" that is what goes on in your 
your posts. jd
-- Original message ------   From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Big problem JD; the "biblical message" is something 
other than  what  you have been proffering on TT so 
far  So why not just admit that you counsel using your own theology 
and  that the results belong to you also?.   
  jt: How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the author 
of  TRUTH then? JD: That is 
exactly what I am saying. I counsel others as time  
permits. I use the biblical message in my work. That does not 
 mean  the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is 
it a science book.But if you don't get what I am 
saying in the above, just move on.It does 
not appear that you do get what I have said.
 On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:05:59 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:  
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 What do I believe about Genesis? Did you read any of my 
posts?Science has no answers to our 
confusion, our bondage, our need for  community and 
an innate longing to live beyond what we 
 see.   As soon as we turn Genesis into a statement of 
science, we lessen  its value to the human spirit. 
How about a statement of TRUTH communicated by the 
author of TRUTH  then? That is exactly what I am 
saying. I counsel others as  time  permits. I 
use the biblical message in my work. That does not  mean 
 the Bible is a counseling manual !! Neither is it a science book. 
   But if you don't get what I am saying in the 
above, just move on.It does not appear that 
you do get what I have said. What 
do I get from reading those first three chapters? That God  
is  in control -- not that He is SOMEHOW in 
control - but that He  is  IN FACT in 
control. He is my creator. I am in His 
image. He is your Creator but you are 
not in His image unless you have  been  totally conformed to 
the image of   Christ already - in fact, not in theory only. 
Your attitude to  His  Law would belie that. 
Adam and Eve were not created with the  nature  of Christ as 
their mainstay !! Just JudySpeak and nothing more.  
And even when I fall, He continues to hover over and 
round me.  It  tells me that I was created for 
others -- my wife, my children  and  the world 
in which I live. The first three chapters of Genesis 
tells you all of the above?   Where?  Take your Bible, 
open it to the first pages of Genesis, lean over  until your nose is 
nearly touching those pages and BAM !!!, YOU  WILL  
SEE IT. It tells me I am 
responsible for much of my actions. Work is a  curse 
because I must be responsible !! 
Newsflash!! You are responsible for ALL of your thoughts as well  
as  your actions. No kidding.   
  I and my wife are one because God thought 
this to be the case  from the beginning. and 
REST has as much a place in the  
coming and goings of man as work. That's what I get out of 
this  Genesis account. While some of you only see a debate 
 You and your wife are one flesh; the Lord would 
like to be One  spirit  with you JD Done deal, Judge 
Judy . beginning many years  ago.
   Do you know the best way of dealing with a child - in 
my case an  older son -- who comes home announcing that he no 
longer believes  in  the bible??!! IGNORE that comment 
and continue to be a witness ,  using, at times, the very book that 
he rejects. DO NOT, repeat,  DO  NOT challenge him/her 
to a debate. You will not win, if your  version  of 
:winning" is to bring that child to say "Iwas wrong, Dad, and  
you  were right again." He won't do it. But 
if you ignore the  challenge, and give biblical presentations 
that make sense to the  way he is living his life -- the 
objection vanishes into thin  air.   Theory? 
Nope. It worked on both of my older boys - the  
lawyer  and the doctor. But I digress with some free 
advice. The long and short of the lesson is 
this -- make the Bible THE  battle ground and you will 
lose the war !!! Present the Bible  as 
 something that offers life in the Spirit of God in the Christ of  
God  and you have a winner. 
  jd   
__ Do You 
Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection 
around  http://mail.yahoo.com 
 -- "Let your speech be always with grac

Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism paradigms

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor





What's that Kevin "delusory evangelism" or one of the 
three below??

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:25:50 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: For enquiring minds: JD chose plan B  
ZER0 Evangelism  --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  We have at leat three general patterns 
represented here on TT:   1. Drive-by or protest 
evangelism.   2. Ivory tower evangelism.  
3. Mentor evangelism.   I have made my 
choice.  Enough said.   jd  
 __ 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] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Yeah right Lance; your world will cease to exist for 
you
There is however, such an animal as objective Truth 
which will endure forever ie:
"All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is 
as the flower of the field; The grass withereth, the
flower fadeth; because the spirit of the Lord bloweth 
upon it; surely the people is grass. The grass
withereth, the flower fadeth; BUT THE WORD OF OUR GOD 
SHALL STAND FOREVER."


On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:12:50 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Sometimes I think that I did but, those are not 
  my good days, Judy.I do know that the world will cease to exist when I cease 
  to exist.
  
    From: Judy Taylor 

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with 
God and the Word was God
Who spoke the worlds into existence?

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:26:16 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Well He (Jesus) was and He 
  wasn't.
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you 
deal with reality at all. You weren't there were you?
All you have in your favor are flights of fancy 
that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy.
Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - 
no explanation necessary. He was there!!!

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I 
  wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking 
  about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is 
  about what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do 
  with the topic of creation and this Genesis account. 

  
  The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you 
  cannot. And you certainly have not debated the 
  issue. This is the third post from you I have opened this 
  morning with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding 
  too. Just negative chit-chat. jd
  
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
Says one from CA who has been permeated by 
the "fast food" fast everything generation
Remember "He that believeth shall not make 
haste"  So why does God have to be in a 
bighurry?
And why can't it be the way it is 
written? Because JD says it does not make sense to 
him?

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the 
  Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my 
  passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on 
  TT, both times following one of your priceless comments 
  . Twice in three years (going back a ways 
  .)?!! Not bad, I think. 
  
  I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s)on this 
  subject. 
  
  There havebeen times, in past postings, that you have 
  been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of 
  those times. Science and creation is not one of your 
  strong points -- at least not this time 
  around. I suspect that you are distracted with other 
  things. 
  
  To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things 
  into existence - I say. 
  
  But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, 
  say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of 
  you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to 
  divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but 
  hours for the land and water to do what he said.
  
  Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, 
  but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those 
  dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into 
  place. N0sir-re. It took time 
  for them to move into place -- upwards of several 
  hours !! Com'on big D 
  !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just 
  might have a point !! 
  
  Look -- if you give graduating high school 
  studentsyour kind of information and send to them to Humbolt 
  State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them 
  would become atheists !! I have seen 
  thishappen many times. Our young 
  people have left their individual churches thinking there is 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Shouldn't have to teach 'conclusions' 1 Cor 3:6 tells 
us that one scatters and another waters
but only God can give the increase ... so what's wrong 
with scattering a few seeds out there in
the Public School System. by giving Truth equal time 
with all the theories and watch them fall
just like Dagon.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:10:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  You, Judy, could teach researching. However, you 
  could not teach 'conclusions'!
  
From: Judy Taylor 

If there are christian teachers in the system (and 
there are) who must teach theories of evolution that they
do not believe. What's wrong with teaching 
the other side also even if there are unbelievers teaching it
There are also unbelievers in different churches 
these days teaching all kinds of things. The student has
the responsibility to search it out for 
themselves.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:32:49 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  What's scary is that you think the solution is to have an 
  antagonistic educator "teach" what he does not believe -- you 
  thinking, of course, that he will do so without commentary that thoroughly 
  negates the purpose of this compromise. In the real world, 
  Linda, you simply cannot construct a model in which this will work 
  to our (the Christian church -- whose address do we use , again ??) 
  favor. In fact, to get all the warring factions to agree, the 
  stateent on creationism would be so watered down as to be really 
  meaningless. 
  From: 
"ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 








Scary to the 
max. 





From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 6:14 
AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
Williams on Creationism


Of course. But that is not really the 
issue. 



  -- Original message -- 
  From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  So IYO it is 
  better to have “secular” folk teaching untruth than truth. I 
  see…. izzy
  
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 
  5:46 AMTo: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: 
  Williams on Creationism
  
  
  It's not what is taught (for me and in this 
  case) so much as it is WHO TEACHES THEM. You want 
  the secular world to be responsible -- I 
  don't. 
  
  
  
  jd
  
  
  
-- Original message 
-- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 So, here we are, back to the fact that IF you believed 
something to be true  you would NOT want children to be 
taught about it. Can you see why some of  us aren't 
following your logic? iz   -Original 
Message-  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Lance Muir  Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 5:28 AM  
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
  IZ:No, I would not.
- Original Message -  From: "ShieldsFamily" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] OM> To: 
<TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG> Sent: March 25, 2006 06:14 
 ; Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
gt; Dodging the question, as usual. 
iz -Original Message-  
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir 
  Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 4:54 PM   To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism 
It ain't true. It's a hyperbolic 
hypothetical, Iz. .   - 
Original Message -   From: "ShieldsFamily" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  To: 
<TRUTHTALK@MAIL.INNGLORY.ORG>  Sent: March 24, 2006 
17:16   Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
Creationism   That 
wasn't the question; I asked whether IF you believe it were true, 
  you   would want it taught in 
schools. You said NO. Path

Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson goes on and on and on and on and on

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Doubleminded ... A doubleminded man is unstable in all 
his ways (James 1:8)

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:22:03 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  God did !! In 26 seconds OR LESS... 
  or maybe 13.5 million. 
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with 
God and the Word was God
Who spoke the worlds into existence?

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:26:16 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Well He (Jesus) was and He 
  wasn't.
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

Neither can you "debate" it, that is, if you 
deal with reality at all. You weren't there were you?
All you have in your favor are flights of fancy 
that are no different than anyone else's flights of fancy.
Jesus quoted from Genesis and He quoted as is - 
no explanation necessary. He was there!!!

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:30:28 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Why can't it be the way it is written? Well - I 
  wouldn't know the answer to that, Judy. I am talking 
  about what is written. 26 seconds versus 144 hours is 
  about what is written. Your little proof text has nothing to do 
  with the topic of creation and this Genesis account. 

  
  The reason why you chose not to debate the issue is because you 
  cannot. And you certainly have not debated the 
  issue. This is the third post from you I have opened this 
  morning with absolutely nothing in any of them work responding 
  too. Just negative chit-chat. jd
      
      From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
Says one from CA who has been permeated by 
the "fast food" fast everything generation
Remember "He that believeth shall not make 
haste"  So why does God have to be in a 
bighurry?
And why can't it be the way it is 
written? Because JD says it does not make sense to 
him?

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 02:33:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  David, allow me this moment to reveal just a tad about the 
  Smithmeister. Bulldogery is that which speaks of my 
  passion. Indeed, I have gotten angry twice, here on 
  TT, both times following one of your priceless comments 
  . Twice in three years (going back a ways 
  .)?!! Not bad, I think. 
  
  I am certainly NOT emotional in my response(s)on this 
  subject. 
  
  There havebeen times, in past postings, that you have 
  been even brilliant in your defense. This is not one of 
  those times. Science and creation is not one of your 
  strong points -- at least not this time 
  around. I suspect that you are distracted with other 
  things. 
  
  To wit: God takes 26 seconds to speak all things 
  into existence - I say. 
  
  But you, wanting to present the act of creation as longer, 
  say exactly 144 hours (6 days times 24 hours for those of 
  you living near the Ozarks) retort with this -- For example, if he spoke for the land masses to 
  divide from the water, it took less than a minute to say it, but 
  hours for the land and water to do what he said.
  
  Maybe that doesn't sound funny to you, 
  but honestly, it is a riot over here in my office. "Those 
  dumb old land masses -- they couldn't just POP into 
  place. N0sir-re. It took time 
  for them to move into place -- upwards of several 
  hours !! Com'on big D 
  !! Just admit that the non-literal 24 hour crowd just 
  might have a point !! 
  
  Look -- if you give graduating high school 
  studentsyour kind of information and send to them to Humbolt 
  State - why, within minutes, the whole bunch of them 
  would become atheists !! I have seen 
  thishappen many times. Our young 
  people have left their individual churches thinking there is 
  nothing to evolution, or whatever, and when they sit in 
  front of an antongist, they are left naked, poor and numb. 
  
  
  You might not be impressed with my explanations offered 
  to my boys at U of Cal at Davies -- but let me 
  tell you this. I had been working on one line explanations 
  for years before my boys got to 

Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Thanks for this Kevin
Proof of the pudding is always in the 
eating.
I've just learned that Australia is investing workers 
retirement funds in US Real Estate also
So Lance and his prophet don't have a whole lot of 
support from "down under" either

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:20:31 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Lance says Canada will not suffer the 
  same fate at the USA. 
  
  Ah
  Ah
   AH CHOO!
  
  excuse me
  
  348,000 New York jobs are supported by Canada-U.S. trade 
  Total Canada–U.S. merchandise trade: $411 billion 
  Canada–U.S. trade supported 5.2 million U.S. jobs 
  More people traveled between Canada and NY in 2004 than any other U.S. 
  state 
  14,500,000 vehicles crossed the Canada-U.S. border at the four Niagara 
  crossings last year, accounting for 34% of all traffic that crossed into 
  Ontario 
  
  ROTFL
  With this many US Jobs gone, could CanaDUH rebound? 
  
  http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/coca_401.asp
  Seeing that a FULL 84% of CanaDUHs exports are US 
  Calculator please
  That leaves 16%, can CanaDUH's economy survive on 16% of its present 
  exports?
  Remember that the Total export/imports of canada represents a FULL 2/3rds 
  of their GDP!
  SIZE does matter!
  
  Thanks for the add'l example of mindless 
parroting.
  Don't you just HATE Ignorance?
  I guess it is better than letting it go to waste.
  Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  







The 'prophet' (take note, David) said otherwise 
in November. Canada will not suffer the same fate at the USA. Size does 
matter but, it's not the only thing that matters.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: March 25, 2006 08:03
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Noah 
  Webster
  
  Don't worry Lance, if the USA implodes - Canada 
  and Europe will go with it - at present when the
  US sneezes the rest of the world catch a 
  cold. Such envy and jealousy from the North ... Goodness 
  gracious!
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance 
  MuirMost on TT will live to see 
  the implosion of the USA. At what point will you 
  declare bankruptcy. You don't have the option of moving out of your old 
  house and into a new one.
  

  
  

From: 
ShieldsFamily 




 

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

As a teacher, he had 
come to dislike American elementary schools. They could be 
overcrowded, with up to seventy children of all ages crammed into one-room 
schoolhouses, poorly staffed with untrained teachers, and poorly 
equipped with no desks and unsatisfactory textbooks which came from 
England. Webster 
thought that Americans should learn from American books, so he began 
writing a three volume compendium, A Grammatical Institute of the English 
Language. The work consisted of a speller (published in 
1783), a 
grammar (published in 1784), and a reader 
(published in 1785). His goal was to 
provide a uniquely American, Christ-centered approach to training 
children.
The speller was originally entitled 
The First Part of the 
Grammatical Institute of the English Language. The title 
was changed in 1786 to The American Spelling Book, 
and again in 1829 to The Elementary Spelling Book. 
Most people called it the "Blue-Backed Speller" because of its blue 
cover, and for the next one hundred years, Webster's book taught 
children how to read, spell, and pronounce words. It was the most 
popular American book of its time; by 1861, it was selling a 
million copies per year, and its royalty of less than one cent per 
copy was enough to sustain Webster in his other endeavors. Even Ben Franklin 
used Webster's book to teach his granddaughter how to 
read.

Noah was generally 
known to be Christian. It is 
reported that Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary contains the 
greatest number of Biblical definitions 
given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless 
without the Bible."

  "In my view, the Christian religion is the 
  most important and one of the first things in which all children, 
  under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more 
  evident to my mind th

Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



What was dualistic about that comment Gary Olson? It is 
world affairs that's all...
You are truly weird, strange, weird ... 
Why do you truncate what ppl write and insert your 

own comments - ultimately 
making it appear the person said something they did not.
Oh I understand - you do the same with God's Words. O' the shame of it.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 13:33:31 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  more 
  evidenceof jt's implicit dualism
  
  On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:49:07 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
[while eschatological] Proof of the pudding is 
always in the eating...[is'nt] Australia..investing workers 
retirement funds in[biblically questionable] Real Estate also[?]
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Noah Webster

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Really up on social justice huh Gary Olson; and 
allowing Dylan to do a lot of
thinking for you??.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 15:04:35 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 16:04:08 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
What was..that..Gary Olson? 
||

"Oh my name it is nothin'My age it 
means lessThe country I come fromIs called the MidwestI's taught 
and brought up thereThe laws to abideAnd that land that I live 
inHas God on its side.

Oh the history books tell itThey 
tell it so wellThe cavalries chargedThe Indians fellThe 
cavalries chargedThe Indians diedOh the country was youngWith 
God on its side..
But now we got weaponsOf the 
chemical dust If fire them we're forced toThen fire them we 
mustOne push of the buttonAnd a shot the world wideAnd you never 
ask questionsWhen God's on your side.

In a many dark hourI've been 
thinkin' about thisThat Jesus ChristWas betrayed by a kissBut I 
can't think for youYou'll have to decideWhether Judas 
IscariotHad God on his side.."
B Dytlan :: Copyright © 
1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider 
Music




  


Re: [TruthTalk] four of the five smithsons

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor



Nice looking kids, they must take after their Mom 
:)
Where are you JD?

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:03:13 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  


Re: [TruthTalk] correction - wife Kathy and grandbaby delaney

2006-03-25 Thread Judy Taylor




Definitely cute JD
But where are you in all this and which girl in the 
group is Julie?


On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 00:05:06 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Re: [TruthTalk] Creationism

2006-03-24 Thread Judy Taylor
- 
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  
  Sent: 
  Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:29 PM
  
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on 
  Creationism
  
  
  
  So which fundamentalist version of 
  creation do you support. That A  E were spirit 
  people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 or an "unknown" 
  e.t. ? The version that says it took God 144 hours 
  to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds 
  !!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! 
  including a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. 
  
  
  
  
  Consensus has NOTHING to do with 
  !! Rad Fundies cannot agree on much of 
  anything. Which version goes into the school system 
  ??? We are still waiting??
  
  
  
  jd
  
  
  
-- Original message 
-- From: Kevin Deegan 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Don't you get it 
JT?

TRUTH is found in 
CONSENSUS!
        
The opinions of Men are the 
key.Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

  
  So?
  
  There isn't a 
  single fiew of the whole church that is agreed 
  upon
  
  by the whole 
  church either. What does that prove? 
  judyt
  
  
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns 
I do. I know this -- 


there isn't a single view of creationism 
that is agreed upon by the whole church. 




jd







  -- Original message 
  -- From: "David 
  Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
  John 
  wrote:
  
   The world in which we live would 
  reject 
  
   any mention of God in the 
  evolutionary process, 

  
   IMO. But 
  creationism in the schools? Could 
  
  
   that not be considered the 
  beginnings of a fanatical 
  
   fundamentalist take-over of the 
  culture? 
  
  ROTFLOL. I sure hope 
  youwere being facetious on 
  purpose.
  
  
  
  John 
  wrote:
  
   But to allow a mere 
  statement that suggests God 

  
   is somehow in control as the 
  Creator(?) If this 
  
  
   could be presented into the 
  secular system of 
  
   education without it being 
  coopted by the fundies 
  
  
   -- go for it. 
  But I doubt that it can. What a shame 
  
  
   that radical fundamentalism 
  within Christiandom forces 
  
   the Body to dismiss a perfectly 
  wonderful opportunity 
  
   to introduce the Creator to 
  others. 
  
  In case you did not notice,the 
  fundamentalists are notcausing the acknowledgement of 
  our Creator to be forbidden inschools. It is the 
  liberal loonies like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who 
  are doing this.
  
  
  
  David 
  Miller
  
  






Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make 
PC-to-Phone Calls to the US 
(and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. 
  
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

2006-03-24 Thread Judy Taylor



But then you don't really know that upon which we focus 
do you Lance?
I for one do not take on responsibility for every 
decision made by the US Gov't, Congress, Senate, and GWB
and I have released ourchildren to run their own 
lives.I've discovered a funny thing Lance; you know the only
one I can influence in a way that changes things is 
"me" How about that now ... 

Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  

My critique of this would be similar to your 
own. Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. 
Granted that a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted 
that some attempt to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, 
by the ten commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that 
which opposes the foregoing.

Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and 
Iz that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of 
the above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with 
that upon which you focus (signage wise and all).

  From: Kevin Deegan 
  
  The Canadian Guanatamo 
  Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance!
  Are you hating an identifiable group?
  And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an 
  attack on me  multiple groups of my friends. ; )
  Do you have the telE for the Tribunal?
  
  Justice in Canaduh
  http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/
  passed his second year of incarceration without charge
  Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know 
  all the evidence against him.
  Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related
  
  Canadian Human Rights Commission 
  "The truth in some 
  absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the 
  social context in which the message is delivered and 
  heard which will determine the effect that the communication will have on 
  the listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that 
  will evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by 
  the recipient.”Kevin Deegan 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
Don't look now but 
Canada is changing - Group Think
Gary North would be 
proud of you folks.
He tried to bring in 
New Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually 
suceeded!

Robert Martin,professor of 
constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario 
"Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this 
as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state 
religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded 
as heresy or blasphemy is not 
tolerated."

Be careful there have been Inquisitions against 
professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get 
turned in, for your thoughts!

You Can’t Say That”Canadian thought police on the 
march.
By David E. Bernstein 

I've had 
the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my 
new book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. 
At the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked 
whether I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the 
United States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of 
my response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch 
out, we're next."
The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly 
minor and
understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme 
court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school 
teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his 
public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his 
superiors to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully 
promoting hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty 
of up to two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, 
was a "reasonable" restriction on _expression_, and it therefore passed 
constitutional muster.
Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are 
unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual 
content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of 
sexual activity — including material that the First Amendment would 
protect in the United States — was deprived of constitutional protection 
to protect women from discrimination. 
Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of _expression_ often feel 

Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian Thought Police on the march

2006-03-24 Thread Judy Taylor



There is no such thing as a "renovated" heart Lance; 
more misunderstanding which makes me wonder
about you and your SS conversion. It is a new 
heart; the old has passed away - all things become new.

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:06:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  My critique of this would be similar to your own. 
  Granted that a civil society is an improvement on an uncivil one. Granted that 
  a moral society is an improvement on an immoral one. Granted that some attempt 
  to govern their lives by the so-called 'golden rule' or, by the ten 
  commandments. These also offer up a social improvement on that which opposes 
  the foregoing.
  
  Please, please tell me Kevin, Judy, David and Iz 
  that the genuine 'renovation of the heart' would/should include all of the 
  above? I do believe that some of y'all have things ass backwards with that 
  upon which you focus (signage wise and all).
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 24, 2006 07:54
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Canadian 
Thought Police on the march


The Canadian Guanatamo 
Better be careful with your social context on the INET Lance!
Are you hating an identifiable group?
And your comments on "FUNDIES" have hurt me, I understand it as an 
attack on me  multiple groups of my friends. ; )
Do you have the telE for the Tribunal?

Justice in Canaduh
http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/petersen02272005/
passed his second year of incarceration without charge
Zündel was denied the right to cross-examine his accusers or to know 
all the evidence against him.
Zündel stated that all his alleged crimes are Internet-related

Canadian Human Rights Commission 
"The truth in some 
absolute sense really plays no role. Rather, it is the 
social context in which the message is delivered and heard 
which will determine the effect that the communication will have on the 
listener. It is not the truth or falsity per se that will 
evoke the emotion but rather how it is understood by the 
recipient.”Kevin Deegan 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  Don't look now but Canada 
  is changing - Group Think
  Gary North would be proud 
  of you folks.
  He tried to bring in New 
  Geneva and by the looks of it you folks have actually 
  suceeded!
  
  Robert Martin,professor of 
  constitutional law at the University of Western Ontario 
  "Canada now is a totalitarian theocracy. I see this 
  as a country ruled today by what I would describe as a secular state 
  religion [of political correctness]. Anything that is regarded as 
  heresy or blasphemy is not 
  tolerated."
  
  Be careful there have been Inquisitions against 
  professors who attack American Foriegn policy. Hope you do not get turned 
  in, for your thoughts!
  
  You Can’t Say That”Canadian thought police on the 
  march.
  By David E. Bernstein 
  
  I've had 
  the good fortune of spending this past month on the road promoting my new 
  book about how anti-discrimination laws are eroding civil liberties. At 
  the end of a recent talk about the book, an audience member asked whether 
  I believe that freedom of _expression_ is really at risk in the United 
  States from laws meant to aid women and minorities. The heart of my 
  response is, "Look at what's happening in Canada. If we don't watch out, 
  we're next."
  The decline of freedom of _expression_ in Canada began with seemingly 
  minor and
  understandable speech restrictions. In 1990, the Canadian supreme 
  court upheld the conviction of James Keegstra, a public-high-school 
  teacher, for propagating Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic views to his 
  public high-school students, despite repeated warnings from his superiors 
  to stop. Keegstra was convicted of the crime of "willfully promoting 
  hatred against an identifiable group," which carries a penalty of up to 
  two years in jail. Criminalizing hate speech, the court stated, was a 
  "reasonable" restriction on _expression_, and it therefore passed 
  constitutional muster.
  Two years later, the same court held that obscenity laws are 
  unconstitutional to the extent they criminalize material based on sexual 
  content alone. However, any "degrading or dehumanizing" depiction of 
  sexual activity — including material that the First Amendment would 
  protect in the United States — was deprived of constitutional protection 
  to protect women from discrimination. 
  Even the most zealous advocates of freedom of _expression_ often feel 
  uncomfortable defending the right to engage in Holocaust denial or to 
  propagate degrading pornography. But, not surprisingly, 

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

2006-03-23 Thread Judy Taylor



I don't believe so Lance. I do believe she has her own 
ideas - that she is faithful where
God has her and that she is weary of the constant 
carping and criticism that one must
endure on this list. When I came it wasn't like 
this but this is what it has become.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:00:50 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Or, she swims in a shallow pond, 
  Judy.
  
From: Judy Taylor 



I think she adjusts and adapts to 
theperceived depth of those she is addressing Lance


On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:12:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: You're soo deep, Iz.\ From: 
"ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Baloney.
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Lance  Even at this late date such a response 
is unworthy of you. Israel,  on some  occasions (see 
it's Lebanese incursion), OPPRESSES!
- Original Message -   From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: March 21, 2006 21:49  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A 
Special Message from Rabbi Daniel  Lapin: Purim  
2006-Not All Authority is BadBut 
Israel oppresses its enemies by EXISTING!!! (Poor sissies!)  
iz   -Original Message- 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Kevin  Deegan  Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 
2006 4:06 PM  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel 
 Lapin: Purim  2006-Not All Authority is Bad 
  Lance says Israel, many times oppressed and, often 
by believers,  has  adopted the role of 
oppressor.   ROTFL  That is 
Ludicrous on the face of it.  Where did you pick this 
whopper up?   Perhaps you need a Geography 
lesson!  http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html 
 Israel in RED , is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of  
California,  SURROUNDED by 22 hostile Arab/Islamic 
dictatorships with 640  TIMES her  size, 60 TIMES 
her population and ALL the oil. How dare Arab  
propagandists call Israel "expansionist!" And how dare anyone  
believe  them! How can Israel, which occupies one-sixth of 
one percent of  the  lands called Arab, be 
responsible for the political  dissatisfaction of  
22 Arab countries? How can the 13 million Jews in the world  
(almost 5  million fewer than they were in 1939!) be blamed 
for the problems  of  the 300 million Arabs, who 
have brotherly ties to 1.4 billion  Muslims  
worldwide?   I guess DAVID OPPRESSED GOLIATH 
too  Israel Oppressing the Arabs is like the UN call 
for disarmament  of  David before he meets 
Goliath!  LOL   
  --- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:   Lance chimes in: Just like you 
and I, Linda, John has gone on  the odd  'rant'. 
but, my goodness, JOHN IS IN NO WAY ANTI-SEMITIC!  Sadly, 
 Israel, many times oppressed and, often by believers, has 
 adopted the  role of oppressor.This is WHO WE 
ARE WHEN IN POWER.  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: March 21, 2006 12:11 
 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from 
Rabbi Daniel  Lapin:  Purim 2006-Not All 
Authority is Bad   
 There is little point in talking with someone who 
knows me  better  than I know me. 
Such arrogant surmising is the product of the  kind 
 of narrowness that I disregard.  
 jd  
 -- Original message 
--   From: 
"ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Jd, I never said 
the Jews will be restored Outside of the  church; 
 they will be become believers. You say you don't dislike 
Jews  more  than any other unbelievers. It 
is obvious to me that you do.  Your  
stereotypes and slurs are very revealing. Izzy 
   
 Romans 11 
 Israel Is Not Cast Away 
 1I say then, God has not 
(A)rejected His people, has He?  (B)May  it 
never be! For (C)I too am an Israelite, a descendant of  
Abraham,  of the tribe of Benjamin. 
  2God (D)has 
not rejected His people whom He (E)foreknew  (F)Or do 
 you not know what the Scripture says in the passage about 
 Elijah, how  he pleads with God against 
Israel?  
 3"Lord, (G)THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR 
PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN  DOWN  YOUR ALTARS, AND 
I ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY  LIFE." 
  4But what is 
the divine response to him? "(H)I HAVE KEPT  for 
 Myself SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO 
BAAL."  
 5In the same way then, there has 
also come to be at the  present  time (I)a 
remnant according to God's gracious choice.  
 6But (J)if it is by grace, it is 
no longer on the basis of  works, otherwise grace is

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

2006-03-23 Thread Judy Taylor



I don't use "electronic concordances" Lance, sorry to 
disappoint you. Would it be a
big surprised to you to know that some have God's Word 
deep within - I mean in the heart?
You know His Words are life to those who find them and 
health to all their flesh. IMO it is
folly to waste much time on the various winds and fads 
that pass through along with your
"best layer-outers"

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:03:19 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Somone would post a perceptive email then, Iz 
  would say 'Bob's your uncle' while you would pull out your electronic 
  concordance so as to cite every contra verse you could locate.
  
From: Judy Taylor 

There you go again - as is your custom. You make 
these great outlandish accusations
and then when asked for evidence you shrink back 
and put it all off on someone else.
There has got to be a psychological term for ppl 
like you, I know what my husband
would say - something about bull dog mouth and 
humming bird tail 

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:03:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  I watched whilst the two of you shot down the 
  best of the 'layer-outers'. 
  Close mindedness is the operative _expression_. 
  Sad, sad, sad!
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

Your observations are delusions Lance; I have 
learned much during my time on TT
Just because you have no insight does not 
negate the reality. Nor does it let you off
the hook. If you have all of this insight 
that DavidM and myself lack then it is your
responsibility to lay it out. 
judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:39:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Judy:Short of intervention by the Spirit 
  of God, I deem it IMPOSSIBLE for you to be shown 
  anything on TT by anyone. I've observed 
  this over my entire stint on TT. Of course you'll disagree with this. 
  
      
From: Judy 
Taylor 

If this were so Lance it would behoove you 
who are in the "know" to lay it
out clearly and succinctly so that we might 
be corrected. So far I have not
seen anything but tongue in cheek comments 
that are often snide along with
Personal shots 
and put downs. So what is your problem??


From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:57 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the 
day in Genesis literal or figurative?


David:My interpretation of what you just said:

'Lance:Judy and I see this matter as it should be seen. We've 
tried so hardto get you to come around to see things our (God's) 
way. You do not see themour (God's) way so, you do not see at 
all!

Of course, David, I'm aware of the distinction you two make! 
I'm 'thick'but, not that 'thick".SOMETIMES and only SOMETIMES 
the two of you apprehendTHE TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE. SOMETIMES and 
only SOMETIMES that which is spokenof as being 'orthodox' and 
the teaching of Scripture overlap.

The two of you, David. often MISAPPREHEND the actual teaching 
of Scripture!!This is sometimes why the two of you are wrong vis 
a vis both Scripture'steaching and orthodoxy. The two of you, on 
some occasions, are presumptuousto the nth degree!!


- Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
March 22, 2006 08:43Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in 
Genesis literal or figurative?


 Lance, you have never been able to distinguish between 
Orthodoxy and the teaching of Scripture. Judy has been 
trying so hard to get you to see it. Martin Luther, if he 
was here, would be trying so hard to get you to see 
it. You just don't get it. Orthodoxy and the teaching 
of Scripture is not the same thing. We repent if we 
walk contrary to Scripture. We do not necessarily 
repent if we depart from Orthodoxy, nor do we call upon 
others to repent if they depart from Orthodoxy. The 
standard of Orthodoxy and the standard of the Bible 
are two different things. Why can't you see 
that? David Miller - 
Original Message -  From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-23 Thread Judy Taylor



What is the point in pursuing dead letters when one 
can
feast on a "living Word"

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:04:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Or, as on TT, theologically unknowing while 
  spiritually alive. This is much more the case.
  
    From: Judy Taylor 

So true, so true KD


On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:54:02 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  A man may be Theologically knowing while spiritually 
  DEAD.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  

Let me get this straight JD.
By Rad Fundies you are talking about people who 
believe Genesis as it is
written - Right??

PS What is wrong with the Carroll Dean's and 
the Pat Robertsons of this
world? You may have to eat those words one day 
because both are busy
about what they believe God has called them to 
do and who are you to
denigrate another man's servant. O thou Romans 
14 theological expert...

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:18:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  It is a shame we will not be able to finish this thread, I 
  suppose, but I must say something here 
  -- the conflict (speaking for myself) is not between 
  science and religion. It is between religion and 
  fundamentalism (radical fundamentalism, if you 
  will.) Knowing that the first step will not be last step 
  for Rad Fundies, I prefer to deal with the situation outside the 
  school setting. The church has done an excellent job 
  in this regard with the High School population -- but it 
  has forsaken the University campus' without a fight. Truth 
  will win out if compared to that which has no 
  bearings. The failure, here, is with the church and 
  its seeming inability to continue with the college age 
  population. It -- religion - simply does not 
  need to be in collegiate curriculum to win the fight for the hearts 
  and minds of the college age student. 
  
  The church has done a shameful job with the older student, just 
  as it does with the unwanted-infant population. If 
  the church could place 1.4 million newborns each year 
  -- abortion would be EASILY defeated. But , as 
  long as we think that after birth,it is all up to the 
  infant, well, the battle will rage. 
  
  In short -- the fundies (and not they alone) do 
  not want the kind of involvement that would make victory in either 
  venue almost undeniable. I do not want the Carroll Dean's and 
  Pat Robertsons of this world running anything of an evangelistic 
  nature.
  
  jd
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Lance wrote:   
If Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 
'sectarian loonie' , David.   I'm sectarian only in 
the sense that the holy and the profane ought to be  
separate. I am not sectarian within the group of those who have 
submitted  unto Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. 
  Lance wrote:   He is a brother in 
Christ who believes   differently than you on some 
matters.   Now, if that makes him what you say  
 then, that makes you what I say.   He is not a 
liberal loony for believing differently from me. The moniker 
 was offered because of his statement about how 
acknowledgement of our  Creator did not belong in schools. 
He made an irrational statement,  assuming tha t CNN 
reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ,  then 
I expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other 
 believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, 
then he will  continue to support the working of iniquity 
that seeks to remove the  acknowledgment of God our Creator 
from the schools. What he said was very  damaging to our 
society, to believers who want to acknowledge God the  
Creator in their study of origins. To think that science and the 
 acknowledgement of God are incompatible is expected from 
scientists but not  from theologians, and certainly not from 
the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland  Williams, Archbishop of 
Canterbury.   David Miller   
--  "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned 
with salt, that you may know how  you ought to answer every 

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

2006-03-23 Thread Judy Taylor



Exactly, you have set yourself up as a judge of ppl who 
knows nothing about what is
important and exhibitsinordinate affection for 
worldly foolishness and the wisdom
of Hollywood.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:12:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I offer up as evidence Kevin, Judy, David, Dean 
  and Iz.Say n'more, say n'more, a nod's as good as a 
  wink.
  
From: Kevin Deegan 

And we have been been here so long and you 
have offered 
WHAT EVIDENCE?

O I forgot Lances BASELESS ASSERTIONS qualify as 
Evidence.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
David:It's 
  because this is that which passes for evidence with such as yourself. 
  I've seen that for a long time.- Original Message - From: 
  "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  Sent: March 22, 2006 10:26Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 
  2006-Not All Authority is Bad Sadly, Lance, you do not 
  see that you are the one who offers only a "harumph." Kevin 
  presented actual evidence for consideration. David 
  Miller - Original Message -  From: "Lance 
  Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 
   Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:42 
  AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel 
  Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is Bad 
  David/Kevin: 'Good point'? As I said recently to David concerning 
  theology/science/logic; should you respond only with 'harumph' in the 
  face of mounting evidence then, you ought to be speaking only with 
  those who  hold your views on things. This is a 'cultish' 
  approach and, is inherently dangerous. 
  - Original Message -  From: "David Miller" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:  
  Sent: March 21, 2006 17:56 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special 
  Message from Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is 
  Bad ROTFLOL. Good point, 
  Kevin. David Miller - 
  Original Message -  From: "Kevin Deegan" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 
   Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 
  5:05 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi 
  Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is 
  Bad Lance says Israel, many times 
  oppressed and, often by believers, has adopted the role of 
  oppressor. ROTFL That is Ludicrous on 
  the face of it. Where did you pick this whopper 
  up? Perhaps you need a Geography 
  lesson! http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html 
  Israel in RED , is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of 
  California, SURROUNDED by 22 hostile Arab/Islamic 
  dictatorships with 640 TIMES her size, 60 TIMES her population 
  and ALL the oil. How dare Arab propagandists call Israel 
  "expansionist!" And how dare anyone believe them! How can 
  Israel, which occupies one-sixth of one percent of the lands 
  called Arab, be responsible for the political dissatisfaction 
  of 22 Arab countries? How can the 13 million Jews in the world 
  (almost 5 million fewer than they were in 1939!) be blamed for 
  the problems of the 300 million Arabs, who have brotherly ties 
  to 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide? I 
  guess DAVID OPPRESSED GOLIATH too Israel Oppressing 
  the Arabs is like the UN call for disarmament of David before 
  he meets Goliath! 
  LOL --- Lance Muir 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: Lance chimes in: 
  Just like you and I, Linda, John has gone on the odd 
  'rant'. but, my goodness, JOHN IS IN NO WAY ANTI-SEMITIC! 
  Sadly, Israel, many times oppressed and, often by 
  believers, has adopted the role of oppressor.This is WHO 
  WE ARE WHEN IN POWER. From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: March 21, 2006 
  12:11 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from 
  Rabbi Daniel Lapin: Purim 2006-Not All Authority is 
  Bad There is little point 
  in talking with someone who knows me better than I know 
  me. Such arrogant surmising is the product of the kind of 
  narrowness that I disregard. 
  jd -- Original message 
  --  From: "ShieldsFamily" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Jd, I never said 
  the Jews will be restored Outside of the church; they will 
  be become believers. You say you don't dislike Jews more 
  than any other unbelievers. It is obvious to me that you do. 
  Your stereotypes and slurs are very revealing. 
  Izzy 
  Romans 11 Israel Is Not Cast Away 1I say 
  then, God has not (A)rejected His people, has He? (B)May 
  it never be! For (C)I too am an Israelite, a descendant of 
  Abraham, of the tribe of 
  Benjamin. 2God (D)has not rejected His 
  

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

2006-03-23 Thread Judy Taylor




What is that supposed to mean?
It's no trouble to maketime for BSF or others who 
edify .. glorifying God with the fruit of
their lips.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:22:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  More time for BSF, Judy.
  
From: Judy Taylor 

I don't believe so Lance. I do believe she has her 
own ideas - that she is faithful where
God has her and that she is weary of the constant 
carping and criticism that one must
endure on this list. When I came it wasn't 
like this but this is what it has become.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:00:50 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Or, she swims in a shallow pond, 
  Judy.
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 



I think she adjusts and adapts to 
theperceived depth of those she is addressing Lance


On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:12:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: You're soo deep, Iz.\ From: 
"ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Baloney.
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Lance  Even at this late date such a 
response is unworthy of you. Israel,  on some  
occasions (see it's Lebanese incursion), OPPRESSES!  
  - Original Message -   From: 
"ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: March 21, 2006 21:49  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A 
Special Message from Rabbi Daniel  Lapin: Purim  
2006-Not All Authority is Bad
But Israel oppresses its enemies by EXISTING!!! (Poor sissies!)  
iz   -Original Message- 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Kevin  Deegan  Sent: Tuesday, March 
21, 2006 4:06 PM  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel 
 Lapin: Purim  2006-Not All Authority is 
Bad   Lance says Israel, many times 
oppressed and, often by believers,  has  adopted 
the role of oppressor.   ROTFL 
 That is Ludicrous on the face of it.  Where did 
you pick this whopper up?   Perhaps you 
need a Geography lesson!  http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html 
 Israel in RED , is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of 
 California,  SURROUNDED by 22 hostile 
Arab/Islamic dictatorships with 640  TIMES her  
size, 60 TIMES her population and ALL the oil. How dare 
Arab  propagandists call Israel "expansionist!" And how 
dare anyone  believe  them! How can Israel, 
which occupies one-sixth of one percent of  the  
lands called Arab, be responsible for the political  
dissatisfaction of  22 Arab countries? How can the 
13 million Jews in the world  (almost 5  million 
fewer than they were in 1939!) be blamed for the problems  
of  the 300 million Arabs, who have brotherly ties 
to 1.4 billion  Muslims  
worldwide?   I guess DAVID OPPRESSED 
GOLIATH too  Israel Oppressing the Arabs is like 
the UN call for disarmament  of  David before he 
meets Goliath!  LOL  
   --- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:   Lance chimes in: Just like 
you and I, Linda, John has gone on  the odd  
'rant'. but, my goodness, JOHN IS IN NO WAY ANTI-SEMITIC!  
Sadly,  Israel, many times oppressed and, often by 
believers, has  adopted the  role of 
oppressor.This is WHO WE ARE WHEN IN POWER. 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: March 21, 2006 12:11 
 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from 
Rabbi Daniel  Lapin:  Purim 2006-Not All 
Authority is Bad   
 There is little point in talking with someone 
who knows me  better  than I know 
me. Such arrogant surmising is the product of the  
kind  of narrowness that I disregard. 
  jd 
  -- 
Original message --  
 From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Jd, I never 
said the Jews will be restored Outside of the  church; 
 they will be become believers. You say you don't 
dislike Jews  more  than any other 
unbelievers. It is obvious to me that you do.  
Your  stereotypes and slurs are very 
revealing. Izzy   
  Romans 
11  Israel Is Not Cast 
Away  1I say then, God 
has not (A)rejected His people, has He?  (B)May 
 it never be! For (C)I too am an Israelite, a descendant of 
 Abraham,  of the tribe of Benjamin. 
  2God 
(D)has not rejecte

[TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-23 Thread Judy Taylor



Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? As 
has already been noted "Only when we prove
evolution do we need to concern ourselves with 
"harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that
this level of proof has not been achieved includes the 
long list of scientists and others who have abandoned
Darwinism because they became convinced that the 
scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why
would you want to warp young minds with useless 
information that is not proven? judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 


  
I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school 
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! 
Amazing

Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major 
school system  I am sure we can 
find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to 
worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to 
believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE 
DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! 
jd



    From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  I surmised as much JD; my point being that 
  religious ppl have many
  and varied points of view about anything and 
  everything and this is no
  measure by which to gauge what is needful or 
  true.
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 

WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM 
-- HUH ???

From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  So?
  There isn't a single view of the whole church 
  that is agreed upon
  by the whole church either. What does 
  that prove? judyt
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I 
know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by 
the whole church. 

jd



-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  

  John wrote:
   The world in which we live would reject 
   any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
  
   IMO. But creationism in the 
  schools? Could 
   that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
  
   fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
  ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
  purpose.
  
  John wrote:
   But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
  
   is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If 
  this 
   could be presented into the secular system of 
   education without it being coopted by the fundies 
  
   -- go for it. But I doubt that it 
  can. What a shame 
   that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 
  
   the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
  
   to introduce the Creator to others. 
  In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
  notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be 
  forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like 
  thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.
  
  David Miller
  


  
  
  Yahoo! 
  Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low 
rates.


Re: [TruthTalk] on Creationism

2006-03-23 Thread Judy Taylor



But only One Creator and only one kind who believe what 
is written as is.
Take your pick. I see no point in running after more 
darkness and/or presumption. 

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:02:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  There are as many 'species' of creationists as 
  fish. Put a million of 'em at the keyboards of computers and they'd come up 
  with.well...what they've already come up with. I rest my case your 
  honor.
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? 
As has already been noted "Only when we prove
evolution do we need to concern ourselves with 
"harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that
this level of proof has not been achieved includes 
the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned
Darwinism because they became convinced that the 
scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why
would you want to warp young minds with useless 
information that is not proven? judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school 
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! 
Amazing

Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every 
major school system  I am 
sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you 
would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the 
slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be 
happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT 
SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd



    From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  I surmised as much JD; my point being that 
  religious ppl have many
  and varied points of view about anything and 
  everything and this is no
  measure by which to gauge what is needful or 
  true.
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 

WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM 
-- HUH ???

From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  So?
  There isn't a single view of the whole 
  church that is agreed upon
  by the whole church either. What 
  does that prove? judyt
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. 
I know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed 
upon by the whole church. 

jd



-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  

  John wrote:
   The world in which we live would reject 
   any mention of God in the evolutionary 
  process, 
   IMO. But creationism in the 
  schools? Could 
   that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
  
   fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
  ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious 
  on purpose.
  
  John wrote:
   But to allow a mere statement that suggests 
  God 
   is somehow in control as the Creator(?) 
  If this 
   could be presented into the secular system of 
   education without it being coopted by the 
  fundies 
   -- go for it. But I doubt that it 
  can. What a shame 
   that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom 
  forces 
   the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful 
  opportunity 
   to introduce the Creator to others. 
  In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
  notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be 
  forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies 
  like thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing 
  this.
  
  David Miller
  


  
  
  Yahoo! 
  Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low 
rates.
  


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

2006-03-23 Thread Judy Taylor



It didn't Lance, you are lacking eyes 
thatsee

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 04:16:19 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  When did it change Judy?Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  



I don't believe so Lance. I do believe she has her 
own ideas - that she is faithful where
God has her and that she is weary of the constant 
carping and criticism that one must
endure on this list. When I came it wasn't 
like this but this is what it has become.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:00:50 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Or, she swims in a shallow pond, 
  Judy.
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 



I think she adjusts and adapts to 
theperceived depth of those she is addressing Lance


On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:12:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: You're soo deep, Iz.\ From: 
"ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Baloney.
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Lance  Even at this late date such a 
response is unworthy of you. Israel,  on some  
occasions (see it's Lebanese incursion), OPPRESSES!  
  - Original Message -   From: 
"ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: March 21, 2006 21:49  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A 
Special Message from Rabbi Daniel  Lapin: Purim  
2006-Not All Authority is Bad
But Israel oppresses its enemies by EXISTING!!! (Poor sissies!)  
iz   -Original Message- 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Kevin  Deegan  Sent: Tuesday, March 
21, 2006 4:06 PM  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel 
 Lapin: Purim  2006-Not All Authority is 
Bad   Lance says Israel, many times 
oppressed and, often by believers,  has  adopted 
the role of oppressor.   ROTFL 
 That is Ludicrous on the face of it.  Where did 
you pick this whopper up?   Perhaps you 
need a Geography lesson!  http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html 
 Israel in RED , is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of 
 California,  SURROUNDED by 22 hostile 
Arab/Islamic dictatorships with 640  TIMES her  
size, 60 TIMES her population and ALL the oil. How dare 
Arab  propagandists call Israel "expansionist!" And how 
dare anyone  believe  them! How can Israel, 
which occupies one-sixth of one percent of  the  
lands called Arab, be responsible for the political  
dissatisfaction of  22 Arab countries? How can the 
13 million Jews in the world  (almost 5  million 
fewer than they were in 1939!) be blamed for the problems  
of  the 300 million Arabs, who have brotherly ties 
to 1.4 billion  Muslims  
worldwide?   I guess DAVID OPPRESSED 
GOLIATH too  Israel Oppressing the Arabs is like 
the UN call for disarmament  of  David before he 
meets Goliath!  LOL  
   --- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:   Lance chimes in: Just like 
you and I, Linda, John has gone on  the odd  
'rant'. but, my goodness, JOHN IS IN NO WAY ANTI-SEMITIC!  
Sadly,  Israel, many times oppressed and, often by 
believers, has  adopted the  role of 
oppressor.This is WHO WE ARE WHEN IN POWER. 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: March 21, 2006 12:11 
 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from 
Rabbi Daniel  Lapin:  Purim 2006-Not All 
Authority is Bad   
 There is little point in talking with someone 
who knows me  better  than I know 
me. Such arrogant surmising is the product of the  
kind  of narrowness that I disregard. 
  jd 
  -- 
Original message --  
 From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Jd, I never 
said the Jews will be restored Outside of the  church; 
 they will be become believers. You say you don't 
dislike Jews  more  than any other 
unbelievers. It is obvious to me that you do.  
Your  stereotypes and slurs are very 
revealing. Izzy   
  Romans 
11  Israel Is Not Cast 
Away  1I say then, God 
has not (A)rejected His people, has He?  (B)May 
 it never be! For (C)I too am an Israelite, a descendant of 
 Abraham,  of the tribe of Benjamin. 
  2God 
(D)has not rejected His people whom He (E)foreknew  (F)Or 
do  you not know what the S

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-23 Thread Judy Taylor





On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 13:29:33 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? You 
  are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a "big 
  banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient family. In 
  fact, I am with the growing opinion that there has not been enough time 
  for evolution to have worked it's wonders.That doesn't mean 
  evolution at some level does not exist. But, now, it is I who 
  digresses.
  
  "Let there be" is hardly an evolvement. Who is it who 
  was laughing at me for believing it even took one whole day
  Wasn't that you JD?
  
  My point? If the church had not surrendered its college 
  ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not need 
  this discussion. The church is not in the High School and our 
  senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving that 
  WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB 
  -- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD 
  --- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the 
  lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time 
  preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of 
  benevolent blessings to others. jd 
  
  Check the gospels again JD. Jesus always taught 
  before he ministered and this is the example left to us.
  If you are ministering as the oracles of God, rather 
  than your own opinion and he is blessing your words,
  then you should also have signs following just as He 
  did.
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Why advocate teaching what you don't know JD? 
As has already been noted "Only when we prove
evolution do we need to concern ourselves with 
"harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that
this level of proof has not been achieved includes 
the long list of scientists and others who have abandoned
Darwinism because they became convinced that the 
scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why
would you want to warp young minds with useless 
information that is not proven? judyt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school 
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! 
Amazing

Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every 
major school system  I am 
sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you 
would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the 
slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be 
happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT 
SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd
    
    

From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  I surmised as much JD; my point being that 
  religious ppl have many
  and varied points of view about anything and 
  everything and this is no
  measure by which to gauge what is needful or 
  true.
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 

WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM 
-- HUH ???
    
From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  So?
  There isn't a single view of the whole 
  church that is agreed upon
  by the whole church either. What 
  does that prove? judyt
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. 
I know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed 
upon by the whole church. 

jd



-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  

  John wrote:
   The world in which we live would reject 
   any mention of God in the evolutionary 
  process, 
   IMO. But creationism in the 
  schools? Could 
   that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
  
   fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
  ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious 
  on purpose.
  
  John wrote:
   But to allow a mere statement that suggests 
  God 

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-23 Thread Judy Taylor




Know what Lance? Nothing earthshaking 
coming from that direction.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:33:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Oh, I guess he does KNOW, Judy.
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: March 23, 2006 08:29
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams 
on Creationism

What in the hell do you think I have been talking about? 
You are so far off course here, as to be just plain silly. I am not a 
"big banger" nor do I believe that a lung fish is ancient 
family. In fact, I am with the growing opinion that there 
has not been enough time for evolution to have worked it's 
wonders.That doesn't mean evolution at some level does not 
exist. But, now, it is I who digresses.

My point? If the church had not surrendered its college 
ageyoung people to the Unisersity system, we would not 
need this discussion. The church is not in the High School and 
our senior class has yet to convert to atheistic evolutionism...proving 
that WE DON'T NEED TO BE IN THE SCHOOL SYSTEM IF WE ARE DOING OUR JOB 
-- AS A CHURCH OF CHRIST IN MINISTRY TO THE WORLD 
--- and I am not just talking about "preaching to the 
lost." Christ actually spent very little of His time 
preaching. Most ofHis day was spent in the offering of 
benevolent blessings to others. 

jd 

-- 
  Original message -- From: Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  Why advocate teaching what you don't know 
  JD? As has already been noted "Only when we prove
  evolution do we need to concern ourselves with 
  "harmonizing" evolutionism with theism. Evidence that
  this level of proof has not been achieved 
  includes the long list of scientists and others who have 
  abandoned
  Darwinism because they became convinced that the 
  scientific evidence DOES NOT support it. So why
  would you want to warp young minds with useless 
  information that is not proven? judyt
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  

  I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school 
  systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! 
  Amazing
  
  Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every 
  major school system  I am 
  sure we can find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you 
  would have to worryabout consensus and no one will have the 
  slightest idea what to believe. but you and Kev will be 
  happy. CONSENSUS BE DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT 
  SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !! jd
  
  
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I surmised as much JD; my point being that 
religious ppl have many
and varied points of view about anything 
and everything and this is no
measure by which to gauge what is needful 
or true.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 
  
  WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM 
  -- HUH ???
      
      From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?
There isn't a single view of the whole 
church that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What 
does that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I 
  do. I know this -- 
  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed 
  upon by the whole church. 
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary 
process, 
 IMO. But creationism in the 
schools? Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a 
fanatical 
 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 

ROTFLOL. I sure hope 

Re: [TruthTalk] In sum

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor



Oophs! The mockers have been emboldened 
...
Anarchy is at the door

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:47:26 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 09:52:32 -0500 "David 
  Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:.. [so  so has no]method 
  whatsoever to discern the truth of Scripture 
  :
  
  
  
  On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 20:27:27 -0800 (PST) 
  Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  the Bible has offered a *[partial but truthful] revelation concering 
  Himself and His son
  [*g]
  
  
  ---
  
  On Mon, 6 Mar 2006 23:12:34 -0500 Judy 
  Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
TRUTH IS Jesus 
Christ

g: then, implicitly,you area 
  liar
  


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

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor




If this were so Lance it would behoove you who are in 
the "know" to lay it
out clearly and succinctly so that we might be 
corrected. So far I have not
seen anything but tongue in cheek comments that are 
often snide along with
Personal shots and put 
downs. So what is your problem??

From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would say what Martin Luther would say... show it to me by Scripture, not 
by quoting a church father or some dignified scholar in the church. 
You seem to have no firm standard to judge what is of God and what is not, 
nor do you seem to have any method whatsoever to discern the truth of 
Scripture. Your biggest mantra is, nobody knows the truth! From your 
perspective, we all speculate and sometimes we accidentally overlap with 
truth and sometimes we don't.

David Miller

From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:57 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in 
Genesis literal or figurative?


David:My interpretation of what you just said:

'Lance:Judy and I see this matter as it should be seen. We've tried so 
hardto get you to come around to see things our (God's) way. You do not see 
themour (God's) way so, you do not see at all!

Of course, David, I'm aware of the distinction you two make! I'm 
'thick'but, not that 'thick".SOMETIMES and only SOMETIMES the two of you 
apprehendTHE TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE. SOMETIMES and only SOMETIMES that which 
is spokenof as being 'orthodox' and the teaching of Scripture overlap.

The two of you, David. often MISAPPREHEND the actual teaching of 
Scripture!!This is sometimes why the two of you are wrong vis a vis both 
Scripture'steaching and orthodoxy. The two of you, on some occasions, are 
presumptuousto the nth degree!!


- Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
March 22, 2006 08:43Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal 
or figurative?


 Lance, you have never been able to distinguish between Orthodoxy and 
the teaching of Scripture. Judy has been trying so hard to get you 
to see it. Martin Luther, if he was here, would be trying so hard to get 
you to see it. You just don't get it. Orthodoxy and the 
teaching of Scripture is not the same thing. We repent if we walk 
contrary to Scripture. We do not necessarily repent if we depart 
from Orthodoxy, nor do we call upon others to repent if they depart from 
Orthodoxy. The standard of Orthodoxy and the standard of 
the Bible are two different things. Why can't you see 
that? David Miller - Original 
Message -  From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the 
day in Genesis literal or figurative? David:'PROVEN'? 
'ERROR' In the light of 'orthodox' thought concerning the Triune nature 
of God David, it is an heresy. It'd appear to be an heresy that is a 
part of YOUR BELIEVE CONCERNING THE TRIUNE NATURE OF GOD but, 
that does not change what it is in this context. - 
Original Message -  From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 21, 2006 13:14 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in 
Genesis literal or figurative? Excuse me, John, but 
nobody has proven that modalism is an error, so how can 
you use the word repent in regards to this? Do you really think it is 
a sin for someone to think modalism is useful in 
understanding the Godhead? David 
Miller - Original Message -  From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is 
the day in Genesis literal or figurative? In short, 
Modalism !! 
Modalism The error that there is only one 
person in the Godhead who manifests himself in three forms or 
manners: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. REPENT -- 
HURRY !! jd -- 
Original message --  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
GOD IS ONE; JESUS SAID "I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE" More accurately, 
one person in three manifestations On Tue, 
21 Mar 2006 06:27:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS From: 
ShieldsFamily Unity in Diversity. Fatness in 
Skinniness. Ugliness in Beauty. Dumbness in 
Intelligence. Wisdom in Nonsense. Jibberish in 
Eloquence. 
iz 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 

[TruthTalk] Scripture

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor




That's real good Lance,
So insightful from someone who has no understanding at 
all.
I have never ever seen you present scripture as grounds 
for anything you believe.
It is always some theologian or other or else it is rcc 
orthodoxy... and yet you are
more opininionated than anyone I know who is a 
sincereand steady student of 
the Bible.

From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David:No wonder you come both readily and frequently to Judy's defence. 
Now, if only we could clarify, prior to TT's demise, that you both hold to 
an heretical position concerning illumination/interpretation of 
Scripture.


From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
March 21, 2006 17:56Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis literal 
or figurative?


 Yes. - Original Message -  From: 
"Kevin Deegan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the 
day in Genesis literal or figurative? Do you 
still consider yourself a Trinitarian leaning towards Modalism? 
--- David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote: Excuse me, John, but nobody has proven that modalism 
is an error, so how can you use the word repent in 
regards to this? Do you really think it is a sin 
for someone to think modalism is useful in understanding the 
Godhead? David Miller - 
Original Message -  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is 
the day in Genesis literal or figurative? In short, 
Modalism !! 
Modalism The error that there is only 
one person in the Godhead who manifests himself in three 
forms or manners: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. REPENT 
-- HURRY !! jd 
-- Original message ------  From: Judy Taylor 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
GOD IS ONE; JESUS SAID "I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE" More accurately, 
one person in three manifestations On Tue, 
21 Mar 2006 06:27:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS From: 
ShieldsFamily Unity in Diversity. Fatness in 
Skinniness. Ugliness in Beauty. Dumbness in 
Intelligence. Wisdom in Nonsense. Jibberish in 
Eloquence. 
iz 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 see the 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 the fear of 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 bibli

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

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor



Your observations are delusions Lance; I have learned 
much during my time on TT
Just because you have no insight does not negate the 
reality. Nor does it let you off
the hook. If you have all of this insight that 
DavidM and myself lack then it is your
responsibility to lay it out. judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:39:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Judy:Short of intervention by the Spirit of God, 
  I deem it IMPOSSIBLE for you to be shown 
  anything on TT by anyone. I've observed this over 
  my entire stint on TT. Of course you'll disagree with this. 
  
From: Judy Taylor 

If this were so Lance it would behoove you who are 
in the "know" to lay it
out clearly and succinctly so that we might be 
corrected. So far I have not
seen anything but tongue in cheek comments that are 
often snide along with
Personal shots and put 
downs. So what is your problem??


From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:57 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in 
Genesis literal or figurative?


David:My interpretation of what you just said:

'Lance:Judy and I see this matter as it should be seen. We've tried so 
hardto get you to come around to see things our (God's) way. You do not 
see themour (God's) way so, you do not see at all!

Of course, David, I'm aware of the distinction you two make! I'm 
'thick'but, not that 'thick".SOMETIMES and only SOMETIMES the two of you 
apprehendTHE TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE. SOMETIMES and only SOMETIMES that 
which is spokenof as being 'orthodox' and the teaching of Scripture 
overlap.

The two of you, David. often MISAPPREHEND the actual teaching of 
Scripture!!This is sometimes why the two of you are wrong vis a vis both 
Scripture'steaching and orthodoxy. The two of you, on some occasions, 
are presumptuousto the nth degree!!


- Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
March 22, 2006 08:43Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis 
literal or figurative?


 Lance, you have never been able to distinguish between Orthodoxy 
and the teaching of Scripture. Judy has been trying so hard to 
get you to see it. Martin Luther, if he was here, would be trying so 
hard to get you to see it. You just don't get it. 
Orthodoxy and the teaching of Scripture is not the same thing. 
We repent if we walk contrary to Scripture. We do not 
necessarily repent if we depart from Orthodoxy, nor do we call upon 
others to repent if they depart from Orthodoxy. The standard 
of Orthodoxy and the standard of the Bible are two different 
things. Why can't you see that? David 
Miller - Original Message -  From: 
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is 
the day in Genesis literal or figurative? 
David:'PROVEN'? 'ERROR' In the light of 'orthodox' thought concerning 
the Triune nature of God David, it is an heresy. It'd appear to be 
an heresy that is a part of YOUR BELIEVE CONCERNING THE TRIUNE 
NATURE OF GOD but, that does not change what it is in this 
context. - Original Message -  From: "David 
Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 21, 2006 13:14 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in 
Genesis literal or figurative? Excuse me, John, 
but nobody has proven that modalism is an error, so how 
can you use the word repent in regards to this? Do you 
really think it is a sin for someone to think 
modalism is useful in understanding the Godhead? 
David Miller - Original Message - 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 8:56 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? In 
short, Modalism !! 
Modalism The error that there is only 
one person in the Godhead who manifests himself in three forms 
or manners: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. REPENT 
-- HURRY !! jd 
    -- Original message --  From: Judy 
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
GOD IS ONE; JESUS SAID "I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE" More 
accurately, one person in three 
manifestations On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 
06:27:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS From: 
ShieldsFamily Unity in Diversity. 
Fatness in Skinniness. Ugliness in Beauty. Dumbness 
in Intelligence. Wisdom in Nonsense. Jibberish in 
Eloquence. 
iz If your idea were so JD 
then Jesus would have prayed "mak

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor



So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that is 
agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does that 
prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know 
  this -- 
  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the whole 
  church. 
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
 IMO. But creationism in the schools? 
Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 
 could be presented into the secular system of 
 education without it being coopted by the fundies 
 -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. 
What a shame 
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 
 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
 to introduce the Creator to others. 
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden 
inschools. It is the liberal loonies like thisArchbishop 
of Canterbury who are doing this.

David Miller

  


Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor



Let me get this straight JD.
By Rad Fundies you are talking about people who believe 
Genesis as it is
written - Right??

PS What is wrong with the Carroll Dean's and the Pat 
Robertsons of this
world? You may have to eat those words one day because 
both are busy
about what they believe God has called them to do and 
who are you to
denigrate another man's servant. O thou Romans 14 
theological expert...

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:18:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  It is a shame we will not be able to finish this thread, I 
  suppose, but I must say something here -- the 
  conflict (speaking for myself) is not between science and 
  religion. It is between religion and fundamentalism (radical 
  fundamentalism, if you will.) Knowing that the first step will not 
  be last step for Rad Fundies, I prefer to deal with the situation 
  outside the school setting. The church has done an excellent 
  job in this regard with the High School population -- but it has 
  forsaken the University campus' without a fight. Truth will win 
  out if compared to that which has no bearings. The failure, 
  here, is with the church and its seeming inability to continue with the 
  college age population. It -- religion - simply does 
  not need to be in collegiate curriculum to win the fight for the hearts and 
  minds of the college age student. 
  
  The church has done a shameful job with the older student, just as it 
  does with the unwanted-infant population. If the church 
  could place 1.4 million newborns each year -- abortion would 
  be EASILY defeated. But , as long as we think that after 
  birth,it is all up to the infant, well, the battle will 
  rage. 
  
  In short -- the fundies (and not they alone) do not 
  want the kind of involvement that would make victory in either venue almost 
  undeniable. I do not want the Carroll Dean's and Pat Robertsons of this 
  world running anything of an evangelistic nature.
  
  jd
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Lance wrote:   If 
Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 'sectarian 
loonie' , David.   I'm sectarian only in the sense that the 
holy and the profane ought to be  separate. I am not sectarian 
within the group of those who have submitted  unto Jesus Christ as 
their Lord and Savior.   Lance wrote:   He is a 
brother in Christ who believes   differently than you on some 
matters.   Now, if that makes him what you say   
then, that makes you what I say.   He is not a liberal loony 
for believing differently from me. The moniker  was offered because 
of his statement about how acknowledgement of our  Creator did not 
belong in schools. He made an irrational statement,  assuming tha t 
CNN reported him accurately. If he is a brother in Christ,  then I 
expect to hear a retraction or clarification made soon as other  
believers correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will 
 continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove 
the  acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he 
said was very  damaging to our society, to believers who want to 
acknowledge God the  Creator in their study of origins. To think 
that science and the  acknowledgement of God are incompatible is 
expected from scientists but not  from theologians, and certainly 
not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland  Williams, Archbishop of 
Canterbury.   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 lis t, 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: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor



Well what are you about Lance Muir
Are you doing what God has called someone else to 
do?
Are you criticizing what you think someone else is 
doing that God didn't tell them to do?
Are you hearing God as to what he wants you to 
do?
How do you know you are hearing God since noone can 
know truth according to you?

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:06:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Operative _expression_ 'what they believe God has 
  called them to do'?
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Let me get this straight JD.
By Rad Fundies you are talking about people who 
believe Genesis as it is
written - Right??

PS What is wrong with the Carroll Dean's and the 
Pat Robertsons of this
world? You may have to eat those words one day 
because both are busy
about what they believe God has called them to do 
and who are you to
denigrate another man's servant. O thou Romans 14 
theological expert...

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:18:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  It is a shame we will not be able to finish this thread, I 
  suppose, but I must say something here -- 
  the conflict (speaking for myself) is not between science and 
  religion. It is between religion and fundamentalism 
  (radical fundamentalism, if you will.) Knowing that the first 
  step will not be last step for Rad Fundies, I prefer to deal with 
  the situation outside the school setting. The church has 
  done an excellent job in this regard with the High School population 
  -- but it has forsaken the University campus' without a 
  fight. Truth will win out if compared to that which has no 
  bearings. The failure, here, is with the church and its 
  seeming inability to continue with the college age population. 
  It -- religion - simply does not need to be in collegiate 
  curriculum to win the fight for the hearts and minds of the college age 
  student. 
  
  The church has done a shameful job with the older student, just as it 
  does with the unwanted-infant population. If the church 
  could place 1.4 million newborns each year -- abortion 
  would be EASILY defeated. But , as long as we think that 
  after birth,it is all up to the infant, well, the battle will 
  rage. 
  
  In short -- the fundies (and not they alone) do not 
  want the kind of involvement that would make victory in either venue 
  almost undeniable. I do not want the Carroll Dean's and Pat 
  Robertsons of this world running anything of an evangelistic nature.
  
  jd
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Lance wrote:   If 
Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 'sectarian 
loonie' , David.   I'm sectarian only in the sense that 
the holy and the profane ought to be  separate. I am not 
sectarian within the group of those who have submitted  unto 
Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.   Lance wrote: 
  He is a brother in Christ who believes   
differently than you on some matters.   Now, if that makes 
him what you say   then, that makes you what I say.  
 He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. 
The moniker  was offered because of his statement about how 
acknowledgement of our  Creator did not belong in schools. He 
made an irrational statement,  assuming tha t CNN reported him 
accurately. If he is a brother in Christ,  then I expect to hear 
a retraction or clarification made soon as other  believers 
correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will  
continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the 
 acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he 
said was very  damaging to our society, to believers who want to 
acknowledge God the  Creator in their study of origins. To think 
that science and the  acknowledgement of God are incompatible is 
expected from scientists but not  from theologians, and 
certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland  Williams, 
Archbishop of Canterbury.   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 lis t, 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

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor





I think she adjusts and adapts to theperceived 
depth of those she is addressing Lance


On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:12:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes: You're soo deep, Iz.\ From: "ShieldsFamily" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 Baloney.
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Lance  Even at this late date such a response is 
unworthy of you. Israel,  on some  occasions (see it's 
Lebanese incursion), OPPRESSES!- 
Original Message -   From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: March 21, 2006 21:49  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special 
Message from Rabbi Daniel  Lapin: Purim  2006-Not All 
Authority is BadBut Israel oppresses 
its enemies by EXISTING!!! (Poor sissies!)  iz  
 -Original Message-  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Kevin  Deegan  Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 
2006 4:06 PM  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi Daniel  
Lapin: Purim  2006-Not All Authority is Bad 
  Lance says Israel, many times oppressed and, often by 
believers,  has  adopted the role of oppressor. 
  ROTFL  That is Ludicrous on the face 
of it.  Where did you pick this whopper up? 
  Perhaps you need a Geography lesson!  
http://www.masada2000.org/geography.html 
 Israel in RED , is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of  
California,  SURROUNDED by 22 hostile Arab/Islamic dictatorships 
with 640  TIMES her  size, 60 TIMES her population and 
ALL the oil. How dare Arab  propagandists call Israel 
"expansionist!" And how dare anyone  believe  them! How 
can Israel, which occupies one-sixth of one percent of  the 
 lands called Arab, be responsible for the political  
dissatisfaction of  22 Arab countries? How can the 13 
million Jews in the world  (almost 5  million fewer than 
they were in 1939!) be blamed for the problems  of  the 
300 million Arabs, who have brotherly ties to 1.4 billion  
Muslims  worldwide?   I guess 
DAVID OPPRESSED GOLIATH too  Israel Oppressing the Arabs 
is like the UN call for disarmament  of  David before he 
meets Goliath!  LOL   
  --- Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  Lance chimes in: Just like you and I, Linda, John 
has gone on  the odd  'rant'. but, my goodness, JOHN 
IS IN NO WAY ANTI-SEMITIC!  Sadly,  Israel, many 
times oppressed and, often by believers, has  adopted the 
 role of oppressor.This is WHO WE ARE WHEN IN POWER. 
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
 Sent: March 21, 2006 12:11 
 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] A Special Message from Rabbi 
Daniel  Lapin:  Purim 2006-Not All Authority is 
Bad
There is little point in talking with someone who knows me  
better  than I know me. Such arrogant surmising 
is the product of the  kind  of narrowness that I 
disregard.   jd 
  -- 
Original message --   
From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Jd, I never said the 
Jews will be restored Outside of the  church;  they 
will be become believers. You say you don't dislike Jews  
more  than any other unbelievers. It is obvious to me 
that you do.  Your  stereotypes and slurs are 
very revealing. Izzy   
  Romans 11 
 Israel Is Not Cast Away 
 1I say then, God has not (A)rejected 
His people, has He?  (B)May  it never be! For (C)I 
too am an Israelite, a descendant of  Abraham,  of 
the tribe of Benjamin.  
 2God (D)has not rejected His people 
whom He (E)foreknew  (F)Or do  you not know what the 
Scripture says in the passage about  Elijah, how  he 
pleads with God against Israel?  
 3"Lord, (G)THEY HAVE KILLED YOUR 
PROPHETS, THEY HAVE TORN  DOWN  YOUR ALTARS, AND I 
ALONE AM LEFT, AND THEY ARE SEEKING MY  LIFE." 
  4But what is the 
divine response to him? "(H)I HAVE KEPT  for  Myself 
SEVEN THOUSAND MEN WHO HAVE NOT BOWED THE KNEE TO BAAL." 
  5In the same way 
then, there has also come to be at the  present  
time (I)a remnant according to God's gracious choice. 
  6But (J)if it is 
by grace, it is no longer on the basis of  works, otherwise 
grace is no longer grace.  
 7What then? What (K)Israel is 
seeking, it has not obtained,  but  those who were 
chosen obtained it, and the rest were  (L)hardened; 
  8just as it is 
written, 
 
"(M)GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, 
 
EYES TO SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, 
 
DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY."  
 9And David says, 
 
"(N)LET THEIR TABLE BECOME A SNARE AND A TRAP, 
 
AND A STUMBLING BLOCK AND A RETRIBUTION TO THEM. 
 10"(O)LET THEIR 
EYES BE DARKENED TO SEE NOT, 
 
AND BEND THEIR BACKS FOREVER."  
 11(P)I say then, they did not stumble 
so as to fall, did  they?  (Q)May it never be! But 
by their transgression (R)salvation has  come  to 
the Gentiles, to (S)make them jealous.  
 12Now if their transgression is 
riches for the world and  their  failure is riches 
for the Gentiles, how much more will their  (T)fulfillment 
be!   
13But I am speaking to you who are Gentiles. Inasmuch then  as 
 (U)I am an 

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

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor



There you go again - as is your custom. You make these 
great outlandish accusations
and then when asked for evidence you shrink back and 
put it all off on someone else.
There has got to be a psychological term for ppl like 
you, I know what my husband
would say - something about bull dog mouth and humming 
bird tail 

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:03:31 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I watched whilst the two of you shot down the 
  best of the 'layer-outers'. 
  Close mindedness is the operative _expression_. 
  Sad, sad, sad!
  
From: Judy Taylor 

Your observations are delusions Lance; I have 
learned much during my time on TT
Just because you have no insight does not negate 
the reality. Nor does it let you off
the hook. If you have all of this insight 
that DavidM and myself lack then it is your
responsibility to lay it out. 
judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:39:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Judy:Short of intervention by the Spirit of 
  God, I deem it IMPOSSIBLE for you to be shown 
  anything on TT by anyone. I've observed this 
  over my entire stint on TT. Of course you'll disagree with this. 
  
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

If this were so Lance it would behoove you who 
are in the "know" to lay it
out clearly and succinctly so that we might be 
corrected. So far I have not
seen anything but tongue in cheek comments that 
are often snide along with
Personal shots and 
put downs. So what is your problem??


From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Wednesday, March 22, 2006 8:57 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day 
in Genesis literal or figurative?


David:My interpretation of what you just said:

'Lance:Judy and I see this matter as it should be seen. We've tried 
so hardto get you to come around to see things our (God's) way. You 
do not see themour (God's) way so, you do not see at all!

Of course, David, I'm aware of the distinction you two make! I'm 
'thick'but, not that 'thick".SOMETIMES and only SOMETIMES the two of 
you apprehendTHE TEACHING OF SCRIPTURE. SOMETIMES and only SOMETIMES 
that which is spokenof as being 'orthodox' and the teaching of 
Scripture overlap.

The two of you, David. often MISAPPREHEND the actual teaching of 
Scripture!!This is sometimes why the two of you are wrong vis a vis 
both Scripture'steaching and orthodoxy. The two of you, on some 
occasions, are presumptuousto the nth degree!!


- Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
March 22, 2006 08:43Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day in Genesis 
literal or figurative?


 Lance, you have never been able to distinguish between 
Orthodoxy and the teaching of Scripture. Judy has been 
trying so hard to get you to see it. Martin Luther, if he was 
here, would be trying so hard to get you to see it. You 
just don't get it. Orthodoxy and the teaching of Scripture is not 
the same thing. We repent if we walk contrary to 
Scripture. We do not necessarily repent if we depart from 
Orthodoxy, nor do we call upon others to repent if they depart 
from Orthodoxy. The standard of Orthodoxy and the 
standard of the Bible are two different things. Why can't you see 
that? David Miller - 
Original Message -  From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 7:34 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative? 
David:'PROVEN'? 'ERROR' In the light of 'orthodox' thought concerning 
the Triune nature of God David, it is an heresy. It'd appear to 
be an heresy that is a part of YOUR BELIEVE CONCERNING THE 
TRIUNE NATURE OF GOD but, that does not change what it 
is in this context. - Original Message - 
 From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: March 21, 2006 13:14 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is the day 
in Genesis literal or figurative? Excuse me, 
John, but nobody has proven that modalism is an error, so 
how can you use the word repent in regards to 
this? Do you really think it is a sin for 
someone to think modalism is useful in understanding the 
Godhead? David Miller 
- Original Message -  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor



I surmised as much JD; my point being that religious 
ppl have many
and varied points of view about anything and everything 
and this is no
measure by which to gauge what is needful or 
true.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 
  WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM -- 
  HUH ???
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?
There isn't a single view of the whole church that 
is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does that 
prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know 
  this -- 
  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the 
  whole church. 
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
 IMO. But creationism in the 
schools? Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 

 could be presented into the secular system of 
 education without it being coopted by the fundies 
 -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. 
What a shame 
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 
 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
 to introduce the Creator to others. 
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden 
inschools. It is the liberal loonies like 
thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.

David Miller

  
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor



So true, so true KD


On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 13:54:02 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  A man may be Theologically knowing while spiritually 
  DEAD.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  

Let me get this straight JD.
By Rad Fundies you are talking about people who 
believe Genesis as it is
written - Right??

PS What is wrong with the Carroll Dean's and the 
Pat Robertsons of this
world? You may have to eat those words one day 
because both are busy
about what they believe God has called them to do 
and who are you to
denigrate another man's servant. O thou Romans 14 
theological expert...

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 19:18:00 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  It is a shame we will not be able to finish this thread, I 
  suppose, but I must say something here -- 
  the conflict (speaking for myself) is not between science and 
  religion. It is between religion and fundamentalism 
  (radical fundamentalism, if you will.) Knowing that the first 
  step will not be last step for Rad Fundies, I prefer to deal with 
  the situation outside the school setting. The church has 
  done an excellent job in this regard with the High School population 
  -- but it has forsaken the University campus' without a 
  fight. Truth will win out if compared to that which has no 
  bearings. The failure, here, is with the church and its 
  seeming inability to continue with the college age population. 
  It -- religion - simply does not need to be in collegiate 
  curriculum to win the fight for the hearts and minds of the college age 
  student. 
  
  The church has done a shameful job with the older student, just as it 
  does with the unwanted-infant population. If the church 
  could place 1.4 million newborns each year -- abortion 
  would be EASILY defeated. But , as long as we think that 
  after birth,it is all up to the infant, well, the battle will 
  rage. 
  
  In short -- the fundies (and not they alone) do not 
  want the kind of involvement that would make victory in either venue 
  almost undeniable. I do not want the Carroll Dean's and Pat 
  Robertsons of this world running anything of an evangelistic nature.
  
  jd
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  Lance wrote:   If 
Williams is a 'liberal loonie' then   you are a 'sectarian 
loonie' , David.   I'm sectarian only in the sense that 
the holy and the profane ought to be  separate. I am not 
sectarian within the group of those who have submitted  unto 
Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.   Lance wrote: 
  He is a brother in Christ who believes   
differently than you on some matters.   Now, if that makes 
him what you say   then, that makes you what I say.  
 He is not a liberal loony for believing differently from me. 
The moniker  was offered because of his statement about how 
acknowledgement of our  Creator did not belong in schools. He 
made an irrational statement,  assuming tha t CNN reported him 
accurately. If he is a brother in Christ,  then I expect to hear 
a retraction or clarification made soon as other  believers 
correct him. If he is not a brother in Christ, then he will  
continue to support the working of iniquity that seeks to remove the 
 acknowledgment of God our Creator from the schools. What he 
said was very  damaging to our society, to believers who want to 
acknowledge God the  Creator in their study of origins. To think 
that science and the  acknowledgement of God are incompatible is 
expected from scientists but not  from theologians, and 
certainly not from the Right Reverend Doctor Rowland  Williams, 
Archbishop of Canterbury.   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 lis t, 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. 
  
  
  __Do You 
  Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
  http://mail.yahoo.com 
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor



Some ppl are willing to let God be God JD
The secret things belong to the Lord and as Kevin says; 
let the ppl serving
Caesar fumble around and follow whatever way the wind 
is blowing.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:34:20 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Someone said
  render to Cesear what is Cesear's 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
So which fundamentalist version of creation do you support. 
That A  E were spirit people. A 6000 year date or a 10,000 
or an "unknown" e.t. ? The version that says it took God 
144 hours to speak words that canbe spoken in 24 seconds 
!!! I just did it in 24 big ones !! including 
a drink of water because my mouth was getting dry. 

Consensus has NOTHING to do with !! Rad Fundies cannot 
agree on much of anything. Which version goes into the school 
system ??? We are still waiting??

jd

-- 
  Original message -- From: Kevin Deegan 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Don't you get it JT?
  TRUTH is found in CONSENSUS!
  The opinions of Men are the key.Judy Taylor 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole church 
that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does 
that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know 
  this -- 
  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by 
  the whole church. 
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 

 IMO. But creationism in the 
schools? Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 

 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 

 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If 
this 
 could be presented into the secular system of 
 education without it being coopted by the fundies 

 -- go for it. But I doubt that it 
can. What a shame 
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 

 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 

 to introduce the Creator to others. 
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden 
inschools. It is the liberal loonies like 
thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.

David Miller

  
  
  
  Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make 
  PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less. 
  
  
  
  Yahoo! 
  Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor



Well of course you couldn't tell them the Truth JD 
could you?
I mean after all He is a Rock of offense and it might 
offend the Muslims
We are responsible to instruct our own children - The 
public schools don't
care what view anyone on TT holds do they?

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:22:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH VIEW 
  OF CREATIONISM GOES INTO THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM -- HUH 
  ??!! Be sure to answer with "the right one, John -- duh !!" or 
  will that be Linda's piece of intellectual contribuation for the day? 
  jd
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole church that 
is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does that 
prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know 
  this -- 
  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by the 
  whole church. 
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
 IMO. But creationism in the 
schools? Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If this 

 could be presented into the secular system of 
 education without it being coopted by the fundies 
 -- go for it. But I doubt that it can. 
What a shame 
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 
 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
 to introduce the Creator to others. 
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden 
inschools. It is the liberal loonies like 
thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.

David Miller

  
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor



Sure because this is what you are talking about JD; ppl 
of faith believe God's Word and wait for Him
to give them understanding. Religious ppl have 
all kinds of theories, big bang, black holes, and on and on.
You don't need to worry about fundies or school systems 
JD because you don't have influence over either
Say, does your mother wear combat boots - 
JD?

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 22:57:07 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school 
  systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! 
  Amazing
  
  Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major 
  school system ... I am sure we can 
  find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to 
  worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to 
  believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE 
  DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !!
  
  jd
  
  
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

I surmised as much JD; my point being that 
religious ppl have many
and varied points of view about anything and 
everything and this is no
measure by which to gauge what is needful or 
true.

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 
  WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM 
  -- HUH ???
  
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?
There isn't a single view of the whole church 
that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does 
that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know 
  this -- 
  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by 
  the whole church. 
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 

 IMO. But creationism in the 
schools? Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 

 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 

 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If 
this 
 could be presented into the secular system of 
 education without it being coopted by the fundies 

 -- go for it. But I doubt that it 
can. What a shame 
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 

 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 

 to introduce the Creator to others. 
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden 
inschools. It is the liberal loonies like 
thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.

David Miller

  
  
  


[TruthTalk] Know the Truth

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor



What do you know about "being free" JD?
Ppl who just talk and encourage carnality in others 
don't know anything about freedom or entering
His Rest. In fact this mindset replicates that of 
Israel who thought God cared so much for Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob that he would overlook some things 
they were getting up to. jt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
I'm talking about fundy creationist versions in the school 
systemsand you are talking about religious people!!! 
Amazing

Maybe we should install a different creationist version for every major 
school system  I am sure we can 
find enough fundy ideas to go around. That way , you would have to 
worryabout consensus and no one will have the slightest idea what to 
believe. but you and Kev will be happy. CONSENSUS BE 
DAMNED. KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT SHALL MAKE YOU FREE !!

jd

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 


  Isurmised as much JD; my point being that 
  religious ppl have many
  and varied points of view about anything and 
  everything and this is no
  measure by which to gauge what is needful or 
  true.
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:20:02 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? 

WHICH VIEW OF CREATIONISM GETS INTO THE CIRRICULUM 
-- HUH ???

From: 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  So?
  There isn't a single view of the whole church 
  that is agreed upon
  by the whole church either. What does 
  that prove? judyt
  
  On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I 
know this -- 
there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by 
the whole church. 

jd



-- 
  Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  

  John wrote:
   The world in which we live would reject 
   any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 
  
   IMO. But creationism in the 
  schools? Could 
   that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 
  
   fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
  ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
  purpose.
  
  John wrote:
   But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 
  
   is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If 
  this 
   could be presented into the secular system of 
   education without it being coopted by the fundies 
  
   -- go for it. But I doubt that it 
  can. What a shame 
   that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 
  
   the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 
  
   to introduce the Creator to others. 
  In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
  notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be 
  forbidden inschools. It is the liberal loonies like 
  thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.
  
  David Miller
  


  
  
  Yahoo! 
  Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor



Well Mr. Teacher - what is the "right 
answer?"
An opinion that is the same as yours? Why can't 
we deal with a little reality here at the last.

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 02:26:31 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  And sure enough, you did this very thing -- Be sure to 
  answer with "the right one, John -- duh !! Your wording a little 
  different, but it is the same ridiculous non-answer. 
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  
Well of course you couldn't tell them the Truth JD 
could you?
I mean after all He is a Rock of offense and it 
might offend the Muslims
We are responsible to instruct our own children - 
The public schools don't
care what view anyone on TT holds do 
they?

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:22:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Do you even know what this thread is about, Judy? WHICH 
  VIEW OF CREATIONISM GOES INTO THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM -- 
  HUH ??!! Be sure to answer with "the right one, John -- duh 
  !!" or will that be Linda's piece of intellectual contribuation for the 
  day? jd
      
  From: 
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

So?
There isn't a single fiew of the whole church 
that is agreed upon
by the whole church either. What does 
that prove? judyt

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 01:27:56 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Perhaps the Bishop has the same concerns I do. I know 
  this -- 
  there isn't a single view of creationism that is agreed upon by 
  the whole church. 
  
  jd
  
  
  
  -- 
Original message -- From: "David Miller" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 



John wrote:
 The world in which we live would reject 
 any mention of God in the evolutionary process, 

 IMO. But creationism in the 
schools? Could 
 that not be considered the beginnings of a fanatical 

 fundamentalist take-over of the culture? 
ROTFLOL. I sure hope youwere being facetious on 
purpose.

John wrote:
 But to allow a mere statement that suggests God 

 is somehow in control as the Creator(?) If 
this 
 could be presented into the secular system of 
 education without it being coopted by the fundies 

 -- go for it. But I doubt that it 
can. What a shame 
 that radical fundamentalism within Christiandom forces 

 the Body to dismiss a perfectly wonderful opportunity 

 to introduce the Creator to others. 
In case you did not notice,the fundamentalists are 
notcausing the acknowledgement of our Creator to be forbidden 
inschools. It is the liberal loonies like 
thisArchbishop of Canterbury who are doing this.

David Miller

  
  
  


Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Williams on Creationism

2006-03-22 Thread Judy Taylor



JD you are not keeping good company here - but then as 
the old adage goes"birds of a feather"
You really should discuss what you know about and it is 
obvious that you know nothing about
Rad Fundy's "Walking after the Spirit" or being a "doer 
of God's Word" rather than a deceived
hearer only. And no that's not it JD 
...

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 05:16:13 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  "Believe in God's word" is fundy code for "believe as I do." 
  
  
  When we have been dispersed, take with you the knowledge that not one 
  single Rad Fundy has given any of us a clue as to what "doctrine" they are 
  talking about. 
  
  You must obey the commandments !!! they yell to 
  the others. What commandments --- love one 
  another, treat others as you would be treated, do not judge with 
  finality, strive to be as mature as God is? Do not 
  lust. Be angry and sin not? Is that it? 
  
  They make it sound as if they have commandments no else has 
  -- and it turns out , they do not. Just a big deal over the 
  very same things all of uspractice. 
  
  Sigh jd
  
  From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

myth (this writersubjugates us 
to her narrow notions, permits usnofaith in God per 
se)

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 18:08:08 -0800 
(PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..
  
  jt:
  ppl of faith 
  believe God's Word 
  


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

2006-03-21 Thread Judy Taylor



On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 17:33:23 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  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? 
  
  There is no principle or a picture of "manifest 
  diversity" there JD; being either "weak or strong"IN 
  THE SAME FAITH once delivered to the 
  saintshardlyconstitutes"diversity". Also the doubtful 
  disputations in Romans 14:1 do not apply to doctrine but to what one feels 
  free to eat or not to eat. See Romans 14:15 "If your brother be grieved 
  at your meat, how are you walking in love?"
  So far as doctrine is concerned Paul goes on to write 
  in Romans 16:17 "Now I beseech you brethren, MARK THEM 
  which cause divisions and offences CONTRARY TO THE 
  DOCTRINE which ye have learned and AVOID 
  THEM"
  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? 
  
  What the Jews practiced or did not practice following 
  the resurrection is no standard for doctrine, nor is it a picture of manifest 
  diversity JD. This was the rationale of the rcc priest who once told me the 
  reason for rosary beads is because the ppl liked them and they comforted the 
  ppl sothe church adopted them. This is how we get off into heresy 
  and gross error. Paul was far from "unity in 
  diversity"at the end of his day when he writes"Therefore watch, 
  and remember that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn 
  every one night and day with tears" (Acts 20:31)
  
  
  
  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] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

2006-03-21 Thread Judy Taylor



GOD IS ONE; JESUS SAID "I AND THE FATHER ARE 
ONE"
More accurately, one person in 
threemanifestations
 

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:27:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS 
  
From: ShieldsFamily 


Unity in 
Diversity.
Fatness in 
Skinniness.
Ugliness in 
Beauty.
Dumbness in 
Intelligence.
Wisdom in 
Nonsense.
Jibberish in 
Eloquence.

iz






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, 

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

2006-03-21 Thread Judy Taylor




Israel was created by agreements of the young United Nations. Their 
new land was nothing like what it is today. 

The land was covenanted by God to Abraham and his seed 
in an "everlasting" covenant; I'd say that lasts a long
time - wouldn't you JD?

And the hatred of Palestinians goes beyond that which is reasonable or even 
human, at times.

One has to wonder why even the other Arab nations don't 
want anything to do with the Palestinians; possibly
because there is no such thing as a Palestinian; they 
are descendents of the Philistines who sailed over from
Greece ...

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.

Yes, Golda Meir used to say that they would have peace 
in the middle east when the Muslims begin to love their
children more than they hate the Jews.


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. 

I wouldn't be so quick to judge them JD; if we had the 
same kind ofhistory as a nation we would probably (without supernatural 
help) be the same. They have been run out of just about every country on 
the globe, with pogroms in Europe, Isabella shipped them out of Spain. I 
did a paper on it once and was amazed; Ifound it quite 
apalling.

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. 

You are ungrateful JD - go back and read Romans 
again. We received the oracles of God through the Jews and God has not 
forsaken them. Not yet. I personally believe their ability to 
prosper is crumbs of the blessings they once walked under.

  

jd

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 doesn’t 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
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Yahoo! MailBring photos to life! New 
  PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. 
  


[TruthTalk] God's Covenant with Abram for the Promised Land

2006-03-21 Thread Judy Taylor





  
  


  Genesis 
  13:14-15

  
  


  
(14) And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from 
him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art 
northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: (15) For all the 
land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever. 

  


  
  


  
  The lands where Abram lived is the land of Canaan, called 
  Israel today. That, then, is the Promised Land?that is why it is called 
  the Promised Land! 
  But for how long? Forever! The inheritance is to be an 
  eternal inheritance, which of necessity involves and includes everlasting 
  life! 
  If one inherits a piece of land, the deed must describe the 
  exact boundaries of the property. Is such a description given in this deed 
  of the land we may hope to inherit? The answer is found in Genesis 15:18, "In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have 
  I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river 
  Euphrates." From the Nile River in Egypt, to the Euphrates in the Near 
  East! 
  We have all seen enough maps to know where that is, and I am 
  sure we all know it is not up in heaven somewhere, but right here on this 
  earth. "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs 
  according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29); and the promise?the promise of 
  eternal inheritance?is the land of Israel, from the Nile clear to the 
  Euphrates, here on this earth! God help us to put our trust in the sure 
  Word of God, not in the fables of men! 
  Other scriptures show that the territory of Christ's Kingdom 
  is to expand and spread until ultimately it shall include the whole earth. 
  See Romans 
4:13.[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote: 

  
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 

[TruthTalk] Interesting Topic - Should we send them North?

2006-03-21 Thread Judy Taylor



Illegal Alien Invasion 

By Judge Roy Moore 

The Covenant News ~ March 21, 2006 



America is a land of immigrants. From the beginning of our Nation, 
  people have come to America "the land of opportunity" where they found freedom 
  and prosperity. However, over the last few years the immigration story has 
  changed from a tale of working hard, playing by the rules and achieving 
  success to a nightmare of poorly secured borders, irresponsible employers, 
  overwhelmed social services, and increased crime.Immigration is the 
  legal means by which one becomes a citizen of this Country. It has 
  historically involved an application for citizenship, a test, an investigation 
  and an oath. When people enter our Country who make no application to become a 
  citizen, do not wish to learn our language or our customs, and only intend to 
  reap the rewards of our economy while paying no taxes required of a citizen, 
  they are illegal aliens and not immigrants.It is estimated that nearly 
  20 million illegal aliens now reside in the United States, with thousands more 
  crossing the border every day. Statistics on how many illegal aliens reside in 
  Alabama are sketchy, but it is known that Alabama has seen an explosion in 
  those numbers over the last ten years. In 2000, the Immigration and 
  Naturalization Service (INS) estimated that 24,000 illegal aliens resided in 
  Alabama. That represented a 500 percent increase from INS estimates in 1996. 
  Today, experts place the number of illegal aliens at 75,000 to 100,000 and 
  rising rapidly.Such vast numbers of people are not harmlessly absorbed 
  into the overall population. Last year, police in Birmingham and Decatur 
  working with the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs to locate criminals 
  among the illegal alien population, arrested over 30 who were suspected of 
  being involved in brutal gang activities. One of those individuals arrested 
  had a prior felony charge and is suspected of kidnapping, extortion, and 
  trafficking of other illegal aliens into the country.The law requires 
  hospitals to provide free emergency medical services to illegal aliens, which 
  costs well over $250 million per year. Alabama received $572,326 from Congress 
  in fiscal year 2004 to offset the cost of medical services for illegal aliens, 
  but that amount represents only a fraction of what the state actually spends 
  in this area. Along with this illegal alien invasion come dangerous diseases 
  and other medical conditions which are cause for heightened 
  concern.Illegal aliens are generally not proficient in English and 
  this lack of proficiency leads to the additional costs of providing 
  translation expenses, and government services such as driver's license 
  testing, education, and law enforcement. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1982 
  that the children of illegal aliens, regardless of their place of birth, have 
  a constitutional right to be educated in public schools.This 
  judicially mandated entitlement currently costs the state over $7,000 per 
  child per year. Given such alarming numbers as well as the renewed emphasis on 
  security in the Country, one would think that our state and national 
  government would focus more attention on the illegal alien problem.In 
  fact, governments are doing less than they were even ten years ago. Since 
  1993, the federal spending on border enforcement has grown from more than $740 
  million to $3.8 billion. Despite the increase, the number of undocumented 
  aliens flooding into our Nation has continued at a rate of about 500,000 per 
  year. Clearly, current efforts to curtail these problems are not 
  working.Alabama is restricted by federal law with regard to 
  interdiction and deportation of illegal aliens. Nevertheless, our law 
  enforcement officers can never be prohibited from arrest and detention of 
  illegal aliens for criminal activity or violation of our laws. Some officers 
  have been led to believe otherwise. A simple training program could correct 
  this deficiency.Another course of action is to put more pressure on 
  employers who hire those illegally present in this state. The federal 
  government has left a gaping hole in this area of enforcement that the state 
  can fill. In 1992, INS issued 1,063 orders nationwide levying fines against 
  employers for hiring illegal aliens; in 2002, INS issued just 13 such orders. 
  Only 3 notices of intent to seek fines against employers for knowingly hiring 
  illegal aliens were issued in 2004 by the Immigration  Customs 
  Enforcement agency (ICE - the successor to INS). We can do better than 
  that!Alabama needs to fill the void left by the federal government by 
  enacting tougher laws that punish employers who hire illegal aliens for their 
  own profit. When it becomes clear that jobs will only be available to those 
  who become citizens by following the rules, illegal aliens will leave Alabama. 
  Fewer 

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance, TFT, Promises etc

2006-03-20 Thread Judy Taylor



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?

2006-03-20 Thread 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 , "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 tha

Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: and now

2006-03-20 Thread Judy Taylor



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] Is the day in Genesis literal or figurative?

2006-03-20 Thread 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 
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&

Re: [TruthTalk] Who is God?

2006-03-20 Thread Judy Taylor



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] Hell BoM

2006-03-20 Thread Judy Taylor




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?

2006-03-20 Thread Judy Taylor



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 othe

Re: [TruthTalk] Hell BoM

2006-03-20 Thread Judy Taylor



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] RSR

2006-03-20 Thread Judy Taylor




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] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11

2006-03-20 Thread Judy Taylor




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] Lance, TFT, Promises etc

2006-03-20 Thread Judy Taylor



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?

2006-03-20 Thread Judy Taylor





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 op

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

2006-03-20 Thread 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?

2006-03-20 Thread Judy Taylor



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

2006-03-20 Thread Judy Taylor



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] Physics, Astronomy and Genesis chapters 1-11

2006-03-19 Thread Judy Taylor



I'm wondering what would motivate someone to send a msg 
like this to a public list
Can you help me with it DavidM?
It is not conversation that's for sure
It is not communication either
Is this written to helpencourage or 
instruct?
What is the point in taking one line out of it's 
setting to make it imply something the author may
never have intended?

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 02:31:21 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  interesting eh, DavidM?
  
  On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 23:38:31 -0800 Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
||Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:20:45 -0800..
  I don't make up things that paint God into any 
  corner..I go to a higher authority 
  


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

2006-03-19 Thread Judy Taylor



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 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, theologians would not be taking a figurative approach 
  to Genesis  1. Do you see it different? Is there any way to argue 
  directly from the  text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a 
  very long process of creation?   David Miller  
     John, I have a couple questions for 
  you.   1. Have you ever read John Whitcomb's theological 
  treatment concerning the  length of the day in Genesis 1? I have 
  read his perspective and even  discussed this personally with him 
  before, but he comes from a theology  background and I come from 

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >