Re: [TruthTalk] TT Double Standard
Oh, here is one I missed, 1. Yes most of the time I find your writings to be unclear rather than plain Lance 2. No I don't imply anything, I figure those whowalk after the Spiritunderstand God's Word. 3. This accusation is uncalled for Lance because what I addressed was personal accusations and this is what you are doing right here. Obviously you didn't understand what I was addressing ... Oh well! What's new On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:32:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JUDY:Am I being unclear? (I often am). Let me take another run at it. On those occasions in which you indicate that you've CORRECTLY APPREHENDED THE MEANING OF GOD'S WORD(s) on given issue, do you not implicitly or explictly indicate that the one(s) with whom you are speaking do not? Would you have genuine difficulty if recalling many such instances over the last 6 months? What then, am I attempting to say? YOU DO THAT WHICH WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES YOU. Thus, on occasion(s) THAT WHICH YOU DO WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES SOME ON TT IN EXACTLY THE SAME FASHION. Do you understand? Do you agree with this assessment? - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 14, 2005 08:13 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT Double Standard No Lance, I wouldn't acknowledge this to be the case because everything that is spoken on TT is not the Word of God, and noteverything I write is the Word of Godbecause that would have to include opinion at times along with personal stories. So what is the point you are trying to make here? Is it good to be calling one another hypocrites and disrespecting the Moderator? Where do you think this kind ofattitudeleads?? On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:00:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: When you describe that which you say as THE TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD Judy, while that spoken by another as OTHER THAN the truth of the word of god, Judy then, you are doing the very thing that you speak of as 'both discouraging and wearying'. Would you not acknowledge this to be the case? From: Judy Taylor We should make accusing each other personally a matter to be discussed offline. I find these constant accusations to be both discouraging and wearying - are we interested in Truth or not? Why give the enemy a platform to tear each other down. On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:01:13 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: I don't think you understand the nature of my posts, Perry. I'm not talking about your sexual experiences. I'm talking about Christian hypocrisy and the double standard as practiced on TT. Is the double standard on TT not a fair topic? Why should I have to discuss that matter offline? Is this not relevant to all TTers, Perry? I find it very telling that you make false accusations against me...you suggest I might have some knowledge of Izzy's sexual experiences,.which I did not do. Go back and read my exact words if you don't believe me. If you can't find them, I'll gladly provide them and you can see for yourself that you are again accusing me of something I did not do.you suggest that saying "one of Joseph Smiths spiritual wives" might have some sexual connotation,..That has been suggested before on TT by other TTers, and the moderator did nothing to discourage such comments. Now you want to ban me from posting something other TTers can post with no retribution. This is simply another example of a double standard.you try to spin Dean up by suggesting he gets "excited" by sexual references..I merely stated the truth about Deans sensitivity to such things. This was not an ad-hom attack. Is the truth now a problem on TT? People have said a lot more vile things about me with no condemnation by the moderator. Why the double standard now, Perry?these amount to false accusations,DAVEH: How can that possibly be a false accusation if it is true, Perry? If anything, it is you who is making false accusations about me in this matter. Once againa TT double standard.the intentions of spinning Dean up on a banned topicDAVEH: You are absolutely wrong again, Perry. You simply fail to understand the nature of my posts. My intentions are not to spin up Dean at all. It
Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes
How ironic Lance; you are constantly asking me these
kinds of questions.
So why are they suspect when they come your
way?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:10:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is this a trick question, Deegan? After John
connecting you with demons in his computer, I find myself somewhat cautious in
responding to such as yourself.
From: Kevin Deegan
Lance,
Do you believe yourself to be "in the truth"?Lance Muir
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I, for one, have no difficulty at all
criticizing the'deceived' as you put it, Judy. The difficulty is that some
who are, in reality deceived, believe themselves to be 'in the truth' do
they not?
From: Judy
Taylor
Meaning that all evangelism and preaching the
gospel should cease because we can not be
critical of anyones beliefs because this is
criticizing them personally?? IOW let the deceived
stay captive to the devil. Lord forbid
that we should offend anyone. Is Jesus a stumbling
stone
and a rock of offense ... or has he now become
fashionable in his new "living" form?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:49:55 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
You really don't get it
do you? If I were to criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing
your person
OK so we should not criticize beliefs.
But criticizing the person is OK in your
book
Good ol Self Refutin Lance...
Kevin, this so-called anti-Mormon
kick you're on seems to be about all you've got goin' for
ya..Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You really don't get it do you? If I were to
criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing your
person
No you wouldn't be because you
don't know my person. What you are talking about is
religious/racial bigotry
which is a misnomer. It is possible
to love the person and reject their belief. God did it when he
sent Jesus
Jesus did it when he hung on the
cross - and we can do it as His Ambassadors in a world full of sin
and strife.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:37:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
You really don't get it do you? If I were to
criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing your person and,
vice versa. Kevin et al do the same with the Mormons.
I've asked you previously. I shall ask you once
again. Is there a great gulf between who you are and what you say
(believe)?
From: Judy Taylor
Now if you had said Joseph
Smith Brigham Young your observation may have carried some
weight
Lance. However, I've yet
to seeKevin comment on Blaine or DaveH personally, it's
their false belief system he takes issue with and
in doing this he confronts them with their own
contradictions.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:56:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
OR YOUR OPINIONS OF BLAINE DAVEH
THAT'S CALLED ANTI MORMONISM!! Come to think of it, Kevin,
this so-called anti-Mormon kick you're on
seems to be about all you've got goin' for ya..
From: Kevin Deegan
This list is called Truth Talk
Lance. It is not all about your opinions
orme.
OR Lance's opinions OF you and others!
that is a different list called People
talkJudy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This list is called Truth Talk
Lance. It is not all about your opinions
orme.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:51:53 -0500 "Lance Muir"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Let me attempt something, Judy. WITH
WHAT FREQUENCY THEN, DO YOU EXHIBIT THIS 'TRUE
HIMILITY'?
Re: [TruthTalk] TT Double Standard
You are reading with the help of the powers of darkness
Lance. I do not denigrate people. This is an
unfounded and evil accusation.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:40:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No accusation here, Judy. This is a simple
statement of objective truth.You are forever denigrating persons both on and
off TT. You call it speaking the truth when so doing.
From: Judy Taylor
Oh, here is one I missed,
1. Yes most of the time I find your writings to be
unclear rather than plain Lance
2. No I don't imply anything, I figure those
whowalk after the Spiritunderstand God's Word.
3. This accusation is uncalled for Lance because
what I addressed was personal accusations and this is what you
are
doing right here.
Obviously you didn't understand what I was addressing ... Oh well!
What's new
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:32:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
JUDY:Am I being unclear? (I often am). Let me
take another run at it. On those occasions
in which you indicate that you've CORRECTLY APPREHENDED THE MEANING OF
GOD'S WORD(s) on given issue, do you not implicitly or explictly indicate
that the one(s) with whom you are speaking do not? Would you have genuine difficulty if recalling many such
instances over the last 6 months?
What then, am I attempting to say? YOU DO
THAT WHICH WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES YOU. Thus, on occasion(s) THAT WHICH
YOU DO WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES SOME ON TT IN EXACTLY THE SAME FASHION.
Do you understand?
Do you agree with this assessment?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: December 14, 2005 08:13
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT Double
Standard
No Lance, I wouldn't acknowledge this to be the
case because everything that is spoken on TT is not the
Word of God, and noteverything I write is
the Word of Godbecause that would have to include opinion
at
times along with personal stories. So
what is the point you are trying to make here? Is it good to be
calling one
another hypocrites and disrespecting the
Moderator? Where do you think this kind
ofattitudeleads??
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:00:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
When you describe that which you say as
THE TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD Judy, while that spoken by another as
OTHER THAN the truth of the word of god, Judy then, you are doing the
very thing that you speak of as 'both discouraging and wearying'.
Would you not acknowledge this to be the case?
From: Judy
Taylor
We should make accusing each other
personally a matter to be discussed offline.
I find these constant accusations
to be both discouraging and wearying - are we interested in Truth or
not? Why give the
enemy a platform to tear each other down.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:01:13 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
DAVEH: I don't think you understand the nature of
my posts, Perry. I'm not talking about your sexual
experiences. I'm talking about Christian hypocrisy and the double standard as
practiced on TT. Is the double standard on TT not a
fair topic? Why should I have to discuss that matter
offline? Is this not relevant to all TTers,
Perry? I find it very telling that
you make false accusations against me...you
suggest I might have some knowledge of Izzy's sexual
experiences,.which I did not do. Go back
and read my exact words if you don't believe me. If you
can't find them, I'll gladly provide them and you can see for
yourself that you are again accusing me of something I did not
do.you suggest that saying "one of Joseph Smiths
spiritual wives" might have some sexual
connotation,..That has been suggested before
on TT by other TTers, and the moderator did nothing to discourage
such comments. Now you want to ban me from posting something
other TTers can post with no retribution. This is simply
another example of a double standard.you try to spin
Dean up by suggesting he gets "excited" by sexual
Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes
Is everything you write to TT a joke
Lance?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:43:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nothing ironic here, Judy. I was havin' a little
fun with Kevin. Is 'fun' a secular work or, may it contain a 'spiritual
component'? I opt for the latter.
From: Judy Taylor
How ironic Lance; you are constantly asking me
these kinds of questions.
So why are they suspect when they come your
way?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:10:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Is this a trick question, Deegan? After John
connecting you with demons in his computer, I find myself somewhat
cautious in responding to such as yourself.
From: Kevin Deegan
Lance,
Do you believe yourself to be "in the truth"?Lance
Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I, for one, have no difficulty at all
criticizing the'deceived' as you put it, Judy. The difficulty is that
some who are, in reality deceived, believe themselves to be 'in the
truth' do they not?
From: Judy
Taylor
Meaning that all evangelism and preaching
the gospel should cease because we can not be
critical of anyones beliefs because this is
criticizing them personally?? IOW let the
deceived
stay captive to the devil. Lord
forbid that we should offend anyone. Is Jesus a stumbling
stone
and a rock of offense ... or has he now
become fashionable in his new "living" form?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:49:55 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
You really don't get
it do you? If I were to criticize your beliefs then, I am
criticizing your person
OK so we should not criticize beliefs.
But criticizing the person is OK in your
book
Good ol Self Refutin Lance...
Kevin, this so-called
anti-Mormon kick you're on seems to be about all you've got
goin' for ya..Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You really don't get it do you? If I were to
criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing your
person
No you wouldn't be because you
don't know my person. What you are talking about is
religious/racial bigotry
which is a misnomer. It is
possible to love the person and reject their belief. God
did it when he sent Jesus
Jesus did it when he hung on
the cross - and we can do it as His Ambassadors in a world full
of sin and strife.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:37:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
You really don't get it do you? If I were to
criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing your person and,
vice versa. Kevin et al do the same with the
Mormons.
I've asked you previously. I shall ask you
once again. Is there a great gulf between who you are and what
you say (believe)?
From: Judy Taylor
Now if you had said Joseph
Smith Brigham Young your observation may have carried
some weight
Lance. However, I've
yet to seeKevin comment on Blaine or DaveH personally,
it's their false belief system he takes issue with
and in doing this he confronts them with their own
contradictions.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:56:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
OR YOUR OPINIONS OF BLAINE DAVEH
THAT'S CALLED ANTI MORMONISM!! Come to think of it, Kevin,
this so-called anti-Mormon kick you're
on seems to be about all you've got goin' for
ya..
From: Kevin Deegan
This list is called Truth Talk
Lance. It is not all about your opinions
orme.
Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes
As for fun having a spiritual component - of course,
all of it does; the question is - What spirit
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:43:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nothing ironic here, Judy. I was havin' a little
fun with Kevin. Is 'fun' a secular work or,
may it contain a 'spiritual component'? I opt for
the latter.
From: Judy Taylor
How ironic Lance; you are constantly asking me
these kinds of questions.
So why are they suspect when they come your
way?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:10:33 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Is this a trick question, Deegan? After John
connecting you with demons in his computer, I find myself somewhat
cautious in responding to such as yourself.
From: Kevin Deegan
Lance,
Do you believe yourself to be "in the truth"?Lance
Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I, for one, have no difficulty at all
criticizing the'deceived' as you put it, Judy. The difficulty is that
some who are, in reality deceived, believe themselves to be 'in the
truth' do they not?
From: Judy
Taylor
Meaning that all evangelism and preaching
the gospel should cease because we can not be
critical of anyones beliefs because this is
criticizing them personally?? IOW let the
deceived
stay captive to the devil. Lord
forbid that we should offend anyone. Is Jesus a stumbling
stone
and a rock of offense ... or has he now
become fashionable in his new "living" form?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:49:55 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
You really don't get
it do you? If I were to criticize your beliefs then, I am
criticizing your person
OK so we should not criticize beliefs.
But criticizing the person is OK in your
book
Good ol Self Refutin Lance...
Kevin, this so-called
anti-Mormon kick you're on seems to be about all you've got
goin' for ya..Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You really don't get it do you? If I were to
criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing your
person
No you wouldn't be because you
don't know my person. What you are talking about is
religious/racial bigotry
which is a misnomer. It is
possible to love the person and reject their belief. God
did it when he sent Jesus
Jesus did it when he hung on
the cross - and we can do it as His Ambassadors in a world full
of sin and strife.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:37:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
You really don't get it do you? If I were to
criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing your person and,
vice versa. Kevin et al do the same with the
Mormons.
I've asked you previously. I shall ask you
once again. Is there a great gulf between who you are and what
you say (believe)?
From: Judy Taylor
Now if you had said Joseph
Smith Brigham Young your observation may have carried
some weight
Lance. However, I've
yet to seeKevin comment on Blaine or DaveH personally,
it's their false belief system he takes issue with
and in doing this he confronts them with their own
contradictions.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:56:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
OR YOUR OPINIONS OF BLAINE DAVEH
THAT'S CALLED ANTI MORMONISM!! Come to think of it, Kevin,
this so-called anti-Mormon kick you're
on seems to be about all you've got goin' for
ya..
From: Kevin Deegan
This list is called Truth Talk
Lance. It
Re: [TruthTalk] TT Double Standard
I don't know these men and I said nothing, repeat
nothing, about them personally. I don't have
to accept their public teachings when they are not in
line with the clear teaching of God's Word.
To say that I personally denigrate these men is a
LIE
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:00:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
An evil accusation you say, Judy? Why don't you
research your comments on Polanyi, Torrance, Barth et al?
From: Judy Taylor
You are reading with the help of the powers of
darkness Lance. I do not denigrate people. This is an
unfounded and evil accusation.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:40:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
No accusation here, Judy. This is a simple
statement of objective truth.You are forever denigrating persons both on
and off TT. You call it speaking the truth when so doing.
From: Judy
Taylor
Oh, here is one I missed,
1. Yes most of the time I find your writings to
be unclear rather than plain Lance
2. No I don't imply anything, I figure those
whowalk after the Spiritunderstand God's Word.
3. This accusation is uncalled for Lance
because what I addressed was personal accusations and this is what you
are
doing right
here. Obviously you didn't understand what I was addressing ... Oh
well! What's new
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:32:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
JUDY:Am I being unclear? (I often am).
Let me take another run at it. On those
occasions in which you indicate that you've CORRECTLY APPREHENDED THE
MEANING OF GOD'S WORD(s) on given issue, do you not implicitly or
explictly indicate that the one(s) with whom you are speaking do
not? Would you have genuine
difficulty if recalling many such instances over the last 6
months?
What then, am I attempting to say? YOU DO
THAT WHICH WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES YOU. Thus, on occasion(s) THAT
WHICH YOU DO WEARIES AND DISCOURAGES SOME ON TT IN EXACTLY THE SAME
FASHION.
Do you understand?
Do you agree with this assessment?
- Original Message -
From:
Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: December 14, 2005
08:13
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] TT
Double Standard
No Lance, I wouldn't acknowledge this to be
the case because everything that is spoken on TT is not the
Word of God, and noteverything I
write is the Word of Godbecause that would have to include
opinion at
times along with personal stories. So
what is the point you are trying to make here? Is it good to
be calling one
another hypocrites and disrespecting the
Moderator? Where do you think this kind
ofattitudeleads??
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:00:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
When you describe that which you say
as THE TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD Judy, while that spoken by another
as OTHER THAN the truth of the word of god, Judy then, you are
doing the very thing that you speak of as 'both discouraging and
wearying'. Would you not acknowledge this to be the
case?
From: Judy Taylor
We should make accusing each
other personally a matter to be discussed
offline.
I find these constant
accusations to be both discouraging and wearying - are we
interested in Truth or not? Why give the enemy a platform to tear each
other down.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:01:13 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
DAVEH: I don't think you understand the
nature of my posts, Perry. I'm not talking about your
sexual experiences. I'm talking about Christian hypocrisy and the double standard as
practiced on TT. Is the double standard on TT not
a fair topic? Why should I have to discuss that
matter offline? Is this not relevant to all TTers,
Perry? I find it very telling that
you make false accusations against
Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
Who is trying to kill you, Blaine, or anyone else JD. Don't make this into something it's not. The men Jesus was speaking to were going to stone the adultress to death but noone said a word about the man and the Law said they were both to be stoned. As for TT. Mormon handshakes and sacred signs are occult and Mormonism itself is considered to be a cult by Mainstream Christianity. So what is your problem? Does speaking the truth to you make the messenger your enemy? On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:00:22 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I didn't take it as a personal insult. I knew you didn't have that thought. No apology needed, but yours is appreciated, nonetheless. Fair is fair, Blaine, but I think we both know the rest of the story. You are right -- on TT it is apparently OK to do or say whatever as long as one thinks the opponentisthe enemy. When Christ said "He who is without sin cast the .," it is clear the He believed that all possess sin at any given momenton some level ...but the sinless perfection crowd arrogantly disagrees (when it is so obvious otherwise.) jd From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmmm, JD is right, denigrating the symbols of another's religious beliefs was wrong. I apologize--apparently I offended JD, although I did so unthinkingly and without intention. It just came off the top of my head. Sometimes we get too caught up in proving our opinions and beliefs are more valid than every one else's, and I think I may have done just that. Now, if I may, I would like to ask for an apology from anyone who supported waving Mormon underclothing in public by the street preachers at general conference in Salt Lake City. And, the same for those who more recently have denigrated Mormon handshakes, and other sacred symbols on TT. And the same for those who have insisted on spelling "Mormon" with a lower-case letter.:) What is fair is fair, huh? Blainerb In a message dated 12/13/2005 8:37:10 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes ! and , by the way, DH, your assessment of the world's point of view on this is neither accurate or relevant. and this statementborders on insulting: One of the weirdest songs I ever heard was The Old Rugged Cross. It seemed to glorify the cross in a negative way. I doubt the Lord even to this day is overly fond of that old rugged cross. :) Blainerb I have to say something here -- both of you have made it clear (and I am not angry , by the way) that your stay here on TT has given you nothing in terms of reason for crossing over. Well, consider your failure in this regard, as well. With asmuchvariety as exists here amongst us Christians, you would think someone would consider the Mormon religion.But this latest discussion, while revealing, would surely close the door to any serious student of the Bible. To put down "death" and the "cross" is to simply miss the point of the life of Christ here on this earth .. and miss the mark by a wide margin !!! jd judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
Have you read the law Bill?
Why didn't these do gooders bring them both to Jesus
since they were both involved in the same
act and they were caught at the same time? The
point of the story is to illustrate their blatant
hypocrisy rather than their
own personal list of failures.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:00:15 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
. . . but noone said a word about the man and the
Law said they were both to be stoned.
It is not I who speculates, Judy.
Bill
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No that's not it at all Bill
Would you like to add your speculation about the
man now to the clear Words of scripture?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:44:15 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
. . . but noone said a word about the man and the
Law said they were both to be stoned.
So Jesus let her off on a legal
technicality. Is that it?
What makes you so sure they had not
already stoned the
man?Bill
From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Who is trying to kill you, Blaine, or anyone
else JD. Don't make this into something it's not. The men Jesus
was
speaking to were going to stone the adultress
to death but noone said a word about the man and the Law said
they
were both to be stoned. As for TT.
Mormon handshakes and sacred signs are occult and Mormonism itself
is
considered to be a cult by Mainstream
Christianity. So what is your problem? Does speaking the
truth to you
make the messenger your enemy?
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:00:22 + [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I didn't take it as a personal insult. I knew you didn't
have that thought. No apology needed, but yours is appreciated,
nonetheless. Fair is fair, Blaine, but I think we both
know the rest of the story. You are right -- on TT it is
apparently OK to do or say whatever as long as one thinks the
opponentisthe enemy.
When Christ said "He who is without sin cast the
.," it is clear the He believed that all possess sin
at any given momenton some level ...but the
sinless
perfection crowd arrogantly disagrees
(when it is so obvious otherwise.)
jd
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hmmm, JD is right, denigrating the symbols of another's
religious beliefs was wrong. I apologize--apparently I
offended JD, although I did so unthinkingly and without
intention. It just came off the top of my head.
Sometimes we get too caught up in proving our opinions and beliefs
are more valid than every one else's, and I think I may have done
just that.
Now, if I may, I would like to ask for an apology from anyone
who supported waving Mormon underclothing in public by the street
preachers at general conference in Salt Lake City.
And, the same for those who
more recently have denigrated Mormon handshakes, and other sacred
symbols on TT. And
the same for those who have insisted on spelling "Mormon" with a
lower-case letter.:)
What is fair is fair, huh?
Blainerb
In a message dated 12/13/2005 8:37:10 A.M. Mountain Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes ! and , by the way, DH,
your assessment of the world's point of view on this is neither
accurate or relevant.
and this statementborders on insulting:
One of the weirdest songs I ever heard was The Old Rugged
Cross. It seemed to glorify the cross in a
negative way. I doubt the Lord even to this day is overly
fond of that old rugged cross. :)
Blainerb
I have to say something here -- both of you have
made it clear (and I am not angry , by the way) that
your stay here on TT has given you nothing in terms of reason for
crossing over. Well, consider your failure
in this regard, as well. With
asmuchvariety as exists here amongst us
Christians, you would think someone would consider the
Mormon religion.But this latest discussion, while
revealing, would surely close the door to any serious student of
the Bible. To put down "death" and the "cross"
Re: [TruthTalk] TRUE CHRISTIANS SAY NO TO SATAN BEFORE IT MANIFESTS INTO SIN - says Dean Moore
True believers hear the voice of the Spirit when they miss it and they go to the throne of grace to make things right. God doesn't use Nathans anymore and David only missed it in a big way once, maybe twice. It is all going to be "shouted from the housetops" anyway and God knows. so we don't need almost(s) and anti(s) pointingfingers on TT to help us along. Temptation is not sin. On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:00:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Speaking ONLY of expressions on TT, may I ask ALL participants who have never sinned ON TT to identify themselves. IMO, NOT ONE HAS NOT SINNED ON TT ALONE NEVER MIND THEIR LIVES APART FROM TT. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
Might as well admit it Blaine - you Mormon boys have been sprung. You've got yourselves in a mess over this one. This is exactly what happened with my little friend in Newfoundland Canada. Two good looking Mormon Missionaries had her and her friend snowed. They said they were born again Christians and she was a baby in the faith so at first she didn't know the difference The boys took Roseanne and her friend out bowling and when a (for Christians) well loved hymn came on over the sound system these good looking Mormonboys began to mock it This waswhen the lights came on for my friend and their missionary endeavors were over - to late for her, she already knew the Truth and darkness had lost it's cover. On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:44:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now Kevin, we don't despise crosses, we just like stars better. :) Blainerb In a message dated 12/13/2005 6:12:12 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The cats out of the bag: Christians Glory in the cross you dispise it since you are of those that the Bible says areENEMIES of the Cross whose END is DESTRUCTION! Galatians 6:14But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world. Ph 3 Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.(For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.) You are an example of those that mind earthly things such as your LUSTFUL MIND. What specifically is so WIERD here? Except for ENEMIES that is. On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,The emblem of suffering and shame;And I love that old cross where the dearest and bestFor a world of lost sinners was slain. Refrain So I’ll cherish the old rugged cross,Till my trophies at last I lay down;I will cling to the old rugged cross,And exchange it some day for a crown. O that old rugged cross, so despised by the world,Has a wondrous attraction for me;For the dear Lamb of God left His glory aboveTo bear it to dark Calvary. Refrain In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,A wondrous beauty I see,For ’twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,To pardon and sanctify me. Refrain To the old rugged cross I will ever be true;Its shame and reproach gladly bear;Then He’ll call me some day to my home far away,Where His glory forever I’ll share. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes
According to your scale of measure Terry - and assuming you know everything there is to know about the one you are judging. However, only God actually sees and knows the heart and you are judging by how it appears outwardly ... Jesus himself would not have appeared too humble on the day He weildedthose cords in the temple either according to theoutward look of humility and neither would Paul have appeared too humble in some of the places where he barged in like a street preacher and began speaking against what the ppl believed in (because they had been raised in it). I think all of us are aware of our own human shortcomings but facts are - it is God who is working in us to will and to do of His good pleasure and I am not about to call what He has done in my life a "miserable failure" You should have seen/known me before. Tell me - what does "boldness to speak the truth" look like?and remember thatlove covers a multitude of sin ... If you think we are missing it don't stone us, pray for us. Thereis responsibility on both sides and only one Judge. It's impossible to function while all the time examining one'sown navel for fear of offending. judyt On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:22:20 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do not agree, Iz. In fact, I would say not very perceptive at all. There are sins of commission and there are sins of omission, and it is not too hard to find one or the other in any post on TT. I stand by my statement that it is hard for us to see ourselves as others see us, and if that statement is true, it is also hard for us to see ourselves as the Lord sees us. I would suggest as an eye opener, that anyone on here who thinks that they are squeaky clean in the eyes of the Lord do the following: Go back over your last twenty posts. Examine them closely. See if there is any meekness, any humility in any of them. Then look again. See if you can see any love for others in your words. Finally, look again, this time to see how well you have managed to edify the Saints that you have been talking with, or down to. If seventy percent is a passing grade, you should see these things in at least fourteen of your posts.I am a miserable failure. How much better are you and Judy doing?TerryShieldsFamily wrote: Very perceptive, jt. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 3:18 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes Because others may have a critical and jaundiced eye does not necessarily mean there is sin in the object or focus of such criticism - at times it means the person looking needs to work on their own beam. On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:34:43 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: EXATAMUNDO! I have long been mystified by such, Terry. From: Terry Clifton I suspect that you are correct. Sometimes it is hard to see ourselves as others see us.Lance Muir wrote: How, you ask, did I figure that out, Terry? The same way you did. ARE YOU, TERRY, UNAWARE, THAT SOME EXCLUDE THEMSELVES FROM THIS.? From: Terry Clifton Lance Muir wrote: Speaking ONLY of expressions on TT, may I ask ALL participants who have never sinned ON TT to identify themselves. IMO, NOT ONE HAS NOT SINNED ON TT ALONE NEVER MIND THEIR LIVES APART FROM TT. DUH! How did you figure that out? I can spot the sins in you other guys every time you contribute.Terry judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes
Self rejection happenswhen children are either rejected by parents or have overly critical parents. When one israised in an unloving atmosphere they tend to accept the lie that this is because they are unlovable making it difficult to understand or receive the love of God. The world adds to the problem with unrealistic standards especially in the area of perfection and body image - thinness for women and Gk perfection for men and too many times this becomes a graven image or idol and people reject themselves when they don't measure up rather than giving thanks for being fearfully and wonderfully made. On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:14:35 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Could you explain what you mean by self rejection?Judy Taylor wrote: Hi Terry, I don't know that any of us would say that they are "self satisfied" in fact not even Paul himself said that. What he did say is that he didn't know of any sin but that did not mean he was justified completely before the Lord. I would say the same. At this point in my walk I see self rejection just assinful as the ignorance that comes with pride... either way it is all self, self, self, self. judyt judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawmen
Dave scripture is understood in the light of other scripture and calling it the tree of death does not change anything What was the result of their partaking of it? God said "In the day you eat you shall surely die" They ate and they immediately lost fellowship with the source of life and light. That day they died spiritually and became mortal, that is, they began to die physically as well. So how is calling this tree a tree of death spinning anything? You think death and dying are a good thing - rather than an enemy that has caused mankind to live in fear from that time on? On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:27:30 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: AE rejected it in favor of the tree of deathDAVEH: I find it interesting that you changed the terminology of the Bible regarding the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Judy. It seems like you are purposely spinning what the Bible said to promote your own bias by referring to it as a tree of death. Why would you call it a tree of death when the Lord called it a tree of knowledge? Do you have a particular reason for your aversion to the Lord's nomenclature regarding the tree of knowledge of good and evil?Judy Taylor wrote: God's wisdom is a tree of life JD AE rejected it in favor of the tree of death On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:38:42 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, you decided to ignore my comment about the Tree of Life?Adam and Eve were not given any restrictions concerningeating from this tree. What do you suppose would be the result of eating from such fruit? I say "continued life." jd -- ~~~ 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. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Cross
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:44:56 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I would expect Satan to teach his people to shun the cross...it is the very instrument of his defeat.DAVEH: Really? As I see it, the cross was the most successful tool Satan could devise to torture and kill our beloved Lord. Everything else he tried failedbut, the cross did the job. Only because He willingly layed His life down. If He had not done that nothing could have killedHim, the Lord of Life. ad there would have been no resurrection without a death. Satan didn't know what he was doing - he acted inignorance which must have been a blow to his pride (1 Cor 2:6-8) judyt The resurrection was the defeat of deathand Satan. Removing the guarded stone blocking the entrance, and rising from the tomb was the symbol of Satan's defeat, Perry. Perhaps you should consider hanging a millstone about your neck.. How do you see it that Jesus and the Apostles glorified the cross? Did they idolize it, and turn it into jewelery? Was it displayed on their edifices? Or are those examples simply Christian traditions that lay no claim to Biblical validity? Biblical references would be appreciated.Charles Perry Locke wrote: I hope you don't mind me intruding on your intrusion. I would expect Satan to teach his people to shun the cross...it is the very instrument of his defeat. Besides, Christ himself used the cross as a symbol, as did the Apostles. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for me. And, it is a frequent reminder of the tremendous sacrifice Jesus paid for our sins. I just do not think of that when I see a beehive. Perry */What does the CROSS "REPRESENT"/* DAVEH: I hope you don't mind me intruding on your discussion with Blaine, Kevin. This topic is of particular interest to me, as I've seen quite a few crosses at the sides of highways I travel. Quite often, they indicate places where people have died, or in the case of cemeteries.where they are buried... ..In the past couple thousand years, many Christians have idolized the cross to depict the death of Jesus. ...which to me seems rather bizarre to meif not macabre. Some Christians have taken to wearing jewelery, and displaying crosses in their abodes and places of worship. .As I see it, those crosses depict the *cruel tool* used to bring not only much pain and suffering to our beloved Savior, but also the device that was used by God's enemies to kill our Lord. This inhumane instrument was designed not only to kill God's children, but at the same time to punitively torture them in a humiliating and degrading way. It always amazes me that some Christians would have such an affinity to such a devilish device that brings pain, suffering and death to the minds of many who see it, and especially to those who were victims of it. I'm curious as to how you would feel about something similar, Kevin. I don't know if you have any children, but for the sake of this discussion let's assume you do. If your enemy were to maliciously use a knife to torture your daughter for a couple days to the point that the wounds killed her, would you be predisposed to wear a piece of jewelry on a chain around your neck in the form of a knife to remind you of what the guy did to your daughter? And, how would you feel if you drove by a gun knife store, and saw a sign depicting knives that looked similar to the one that killed your daughter..Would it bring back fond memories? LDS folks appreciate the dying sacrifice of our Lord in our behalf. But we don't glorify the tool that killed him. It sickens me to think of man's inhumanity that would bring such pain, suffering and death to one who did not deserve it. Nor do we idolize the cross as do so many others. Rather, we prefer to remember his sacrifice and glorify his Father---not the cross--- for the resurrection of his Son. FWIW.We have a large Christian church near us that a few years ago put 3 large prominent crosses on their building that are lit up at night with blue lights that are very noticeable to the cars passing by on the freeway http://www.rollinghills.org/about_us/campus/index.cfm .This picture really doesn't show them very well compared to the cars on the freeway, as it is taken from the wrong angle and at quite a distance. I have sometimes wondered if Jesus were to travel that road, what would he think if he were to pass such an edifice that memorializes his death in such a manner. I wouldn't be surprised if he would wince at such a sight.
Re: [TruthTalk] 1 Corinthians 2:14-16
How many meanings do you think it has Lance? Do you think it should be chameleon like for ppl to form it into whatever shape fits their doctrinal demands? Or should we seek the Lord with our whole heart to actually know what HE is saying so we can be a doer of HIS WORD On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:45:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, Judy, IT IS. THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO THINK THEMSELVES MATURE. (think being the operative word).As I understand you both, you and David believe both your apprehension of and, your interpretation(s) of, Scripture to be 'Spirit-Inspired' (Does Scripture have ONE MEANING? Are both you and David always in possession of that ONE MEANING?) From: Judy Taylor My, my Lance, you've just run right off here into another subject entirely - Let's stick with the one at hand and see what God has to say about it ... Those prophets are messing with your head. 1 Cor2:14 Juxtaposes the two kinds of wisdom - which are natural/worldly and spiritual or thatfrom above. 1 Cor 1:20 "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well pleased through the (incarnation)? ...foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body (1 Cor 15:44-46) There is wisdom from above and there is wisdom that is earthly, sensual and demonic (James 3:15) There are people who are spiritually minded and those who are worldly minded and devoid of the Spirit (Jude 19) Unless and until they repent the world can not receive the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17) God makes foolish the wisdom of the world (1 Cor 1:18-20) So lets stay on track and see what leads up to 1 Cor 2:14 .. Paul writes: 1 Cor 2:6 The wisdom we speak is not of this age nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away 1 Cor 2:7 We speak God's wisdom in a mystery . 1 Cor 2:8 The wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood ... 1 Cor 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit for the Spirit searches all things even the depths of God 1 Cor 2:11 Who knows the thought of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him ... even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God 1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God that we might know. 1 Cor 2:13 Which things we also speak not in words taught by human wisdom but in those taught by the Spirit combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words 1 Cor 2:14 But the natural (or worldly) man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. So how did "merely human" get into the conversation and where does the drug of sophistry come from? Paul is discussing two kinds of wisdom here -this is not about who the people think they are or mature/immature. On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:59:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 'Someone who is merely human doesn't accept the things of God's Spirit. They are foolishness to such people, you see, and they can't understand them because they need to be discerned spiitually.' But spiritual people discern everything , while nobody else can discern the truth about them! For. 'Who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to instruct him?' But we have the mind of the Messiah' Paul is now bringing his discussion of wisdom and folly, and spiritual maturity and immaturity, right down to where the Corinthians themselves are.They have been using the 'drug' of sophistry. supposing it makes them more 'spiritual'; and Paul declares that it has made them all the more human. The more they take the drug, the more immature they show themselves to be; and the proof of it all is -- their in-fighting about different Christian teachers! That is the main point Paul is making here, and it bears reflection in today's church as we so easily lapse from serious issues to personality clashes, and from personalities to mere gossip, while all the time pretending we are still dealing with important matters. Paul draws a distinction between 'spiritual' people (vs 13) and merely 'human people', those living on the ordinary level.The former are ones in whom God's Spirit has come to dwell, opening them up to new depths and dimensions of truth and experience. The latter may think themselves 'sophisticated' but th
Re: [TruthTalk] 1 Corinthians 2:14-16
Can you show me by the Word how I am misusing
same?
What other ppl do is their business. We are responsible
for what we do.
Well at last - we can agree on this at
least.
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:14:28 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One but, not necessarily yours.
No but, peoplewill
continue to do so. Yes
unequivocally!
From: Judy Taylor
How many meanings do you think it has
Lance?
Do you think it should be chameleon like for ppl to
form it into whatever shape fits their doctrinal demands?
Or should we seek the Lord with our whole heart to
actually know what HE is saying so we can be a doer of
HIS WORD
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:45:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Yes, Judy, IT IS. THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO
THINK THEMSELVES MATURE. (think being the operative word).As I understand
you both, you and David believe both your apprehension of and, your
interpretation(s) of, Scripture to be 'Spirit-Inspired' (Does Scripture
have ONE MEANING? Are both you and David always in possession of that ONE
MEANING?)
From:
Judy
Taylor
My, my Lance, you've just run right off here
into another subject entirely - Let's stick with the one at hand and see
what
God has to say about it ... Those
prophets are messing with your head.
1 Cor2:14 Juxtaposes the two
kinds of wisdom - which are natural/worldly and spiritual or thatfrom above.
1 Cor 1:20 "For since in the wisdom of God the
world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well pleased
through the (incarnation)?
...foolishness of the message preached
to save those who believe"
There is a natural body and there is a
spiritual body (1 Cor 15:44-46)
There is wisdom from above and there is wisdom
that is earthly, sensual and demonic (James 3:15)
There are people who are spiritually minded and
those who are worldly minded and devoid of the Spirit (Jude
19)
Unless and until they repent the world can not
receive the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17)
God makes foolish the wisdom of the world (1
Cor 1:18-20)
So lets stay on track and see what
leads up to 1 Cor 2:14 .. Paul writes:
1 Cor 2:6 The wisdom we speak is not of this
age nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away
1 Cor 2:7 We speak God's wisdom in a mystery
.
1 Cor 2:8 The wisdom which none of the rulers
of this age has understood ...
1 Cor 2:10 For to us God revealed them through
the Spirit for the Spirit searches all things even the depths of
God
1 Cor 2:11 Who knows the thought of a man
except the spirit of the man which is in him ...
even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of
God
1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit
of the world but the Spirit who is from God that we might
know.
1 Cor 2:13 Which things we also speak not in
words taught by human wisdom but in those taught by the
Spirit
combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural (or worldly) man
does not accept the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness
to him and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually
discerned.
So how did "merely human" get into the
conversation and where does the drug of sophistry come from? Paul
is
discussing two kinds of wisdom here
-this is not about who the people think they are or
mature/immature.
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:59:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
'Someone who is merely human doesn't accept the things of God's
Spirit. They are foolishness to such people, you see, and they can't
understand them because they need to be discerned spiitually.' But
spiritual people discern everything , while nobody else can discern
the truth about them! For. 'Who has known the mind of the Lord, so as
to instruct him?' But we have the mind of the Messiah'
Paul is now bringing his discussion of
wisdom and folly, and spiritual maturity and immaturity, right down to
where the Corinthians themselves are.They
have been using the 'drug' of sophistry. supposing it makes
them more 'spiritual'; and Paul declares that it has made them all the
more human.
The mor
Re: [TruthTalk] 1 Corinthians 2:14-16
Is this the "summary of commentary" Lance? To begin with I have said over and over that I do not "interpret" God's Word; if He does not give understanding we are all flailing about in the dark. This is why there are so many theologians and theological differences. Secondly - Yes scripture has one meaning although ppl seem to get all kinds of moral teachings out of it. I wouldn't go so far as to say that DavidM or myself are in possession of ALL TRUTH but we know the one who is. On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:45:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, Judy, IT IS. THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO THINK THEMSELVES MATURE. (think being the operative word). As I understand you both, you and David believe both your apprehension of and, your interpretation(s) of, Scripture to be 'Spirit-Inspired' (Does Scripture have ONE MEANING? Are both you and David always in possession of that ONE MEANING?) From: Judy Taylor My, my Lance, you've just run right off here into another subject entirely - Let's stick with the one at hand and see what God has to say about it ... Those prophets are messing with your head. 1 Cor2:14 Juxtaposes the two kinds of wisdom - which are natural/worldly and spiritual or thatfrom above. 1 Cor 1:20 "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well pleased through the (incarnation)? ...foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe" There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body (1 Cor 15:44-46) There is wisdom from above and there is wisdom that is earthly, sensual and demonic (James 3:15) There are people who are spiritually minded and those who are worldly minded and devoid of the Spirit (Jude 19) Unless and until they repent the world can not receive the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17) God makes foolish the wisdom of the world (1 Cor 1:18-20) So lets stay on track and see what leads up to 1 Cor 2:14 .. Paul writes: 1 Cor 2:6 The wisdom we speak is not of this age nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away 1 Cor 2:7 We speak God's wisdom in a mystery . 1 Cor 2:8 The wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood ... 1 Cor 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit for the Spirit searches all things even the depths of God 1 Cor 2:11 Who knows the thought of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him ... even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God 1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God that we might know. 1 Cor 2:13 Which things we also speak not in words taught by human wisdom but in those taught by the Spirit combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words 1 Cor 2:14 But the natural (or worldly) man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. So how did "merely human" get into the conversation and where does the drug of sophistry come from? Paul is discussing two kinds of wisdom here -this is not about who the people think they are or mature/immature. On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:59:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 'Someone who is merely human doesn't accept the things of God's Spirit. They are foolishness to such people, you see, and they can't understand them because they need to be discerned spiitually.' But spiritual people discern everything , while nobody else can discern the truth about them! For. 'Who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to instruct him?' But we have the mind of the Messiah' Paul is now bringing his discussion of wisdom and folly, and spiritual maturity and immaturity, right down to where the Corinthians themselves are.They have been using the 'drug' of sophistry. supposing it makes them more 'spiritual'; and Paul declares that it has made them all the more human. The more they take the drug, the more immature they show themselves to be; and the proof of it all is -- their in-fighting about different Christian teachers! That is the main point Paul is making here, and it bears reflection in today's church as we so easily lapse from serious issues to personality clashes, and from personalities to mere gossip, while all the time pretending we are still dealing with important matters. Paul draws a distinction between 'spiritual' people (vs 13) and merely 'human people', those living on the ordina
Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit
l be judged by the law. I see no statement
about
the spiritual condition of the Jews here at
all.
I assume a believing Jew would do the same
thing but having access to God'slaw helps
me so I figure it would also help them.Why would the Judaizers
be coming to the
Church at Rome on Sunday- they would be going to the Synagogue
wouldn't they?
And your out of context I Co 2:14
is really getting old. So unregenerated man cannot receive the things of
God unless he is given the Holy Spirit of God --
right?
RIGHT!! This is what Paul is teaching here
and it would make things a whole lot
easier for you if you accepted the fact.
There are those who have the Spirit and are thereby regenerated and those who do not and are
unregenerated. And
the unregenerated cannot receive the
things of God - nothing from God for all that God lays on us is
spiritual -- right
RIGHT.
1. God is a Spirit (John 4:24)
2. The Lord is that Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is
liberty (2 Cor 3:17)
3. Satan the fallen angel is a
spirit
4.Mankind are spirit beings (Zech 12:1)
5. The Law is spiritual (Rom
7:14)
And this would include the
Corinthians -- right?? I mean , the text says ".and even
now, you are still not able" (I Co 3:2).So, why is he writing to them
if they are not able to understand what he is saying? And how
did they come to a knowledge of the truth in the first place
? And on what occasion do you KNOW that you are right
and cannot be wrong, Judy
y? How many times have you read the text, layed it down and said to yourself," I have
no need to read this again for I know that I know ," Could you give me
an example of a fewspecific scriptures that you understand to the
point of never having to review those scriptures for "truth's" sake? Maybe just four or
five scriptures.
No JD, I couldn't give you anything
because you and your theologians already
KNOW IT ALL.
And how many of these questions
will you now ignore?
If I had been sensible enough to read through the
whole thing first I wouldn't have answered any of them
because you are not sincerely wanting to know
anything from me - you are just bloviating here and your mind
is already made up.
Its called "gatcha." Bless
your heart, Judy. You are honest enough to allow the post to
include your reponse just as it happened !!! Hats
off. Most would have changed their first reponses.
And you are wrong about my
honesty. I would accept your point of view if I could answer my
own queestions offered to you. But I cannot
answer those questions using your theology either.
You are cultish in your doctrine and blind
to any possibility of
change. That is NOT the
leadership of the Spirit.
If I were you JD, I'd go back to Barth. He is the one
with all the answers, along with TFT, Polyani,
etc... Why
go back when I am doing so good with the biblical text ??!!
I will await your answers. Still
waiting.
jd
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:24:07
-0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit
Whatever JD; You asked the question, I just answered
it.
Maybe it's best for you to stick with Barth
and leave
Romans to those who understand Paul the apostle
who
is inspired by the Spirit of God.
As I've said before scripture is
'spiritually discerned' 1 Cor
2:14. So my reason, your reason, and/or
Barth's
reasonings have nothing to do
with anything, not anything important that is.
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't
keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:05:10 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, you didn't answer the question. The gentile in Romans 2 IS NOT a regeneratedindividual. How do we know this?This is a person who has never heard the preaching of the law of God (Paul contrasts hearing with doing in this context) AND his salvation is tenuous , at best, because it is based solely upon his ability to "naturally" obey the law apart from any spirit influence or knowledge of the law. You have changed the wording of Vs.14 from "When gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires" - to "naturally" obeying the law JD. Why?How do you know they never heard the preaching of the cross of Christ? The point of Romans 2 is the contrast between the have's and the have not's. The Gentiles are those who outside God's revelation and the Jews are those who are in. He is speaking to the Church in Rome JD; all believers are in and in Christ there is no separation between these ppl so why are you making one here? I am making one because Paul did. CAn't you read? He is the one who speaks of G-E-N-T-I-L-E-S and J-E-W and and contrasts them in terms of hearing the law and not having heard the law. You deny this? Only to make his larger point which is what he begins the 2nd chapter of Romans with, which is "therefore you have no excuse O man whoever you are for judging another - he then goes on to explain God's kindness which is meant to lead them to repentance and/or God's righteous judgment" His point is NOT racial differences. Paul begins with this scenario. Now I know that this is no longer true - but Paul is using this very distinction to teach that in Christ's economy, the distinction between Jew and Gentile is no longer important. Not only unimportant, it is no longer there unless the Jews are still practicing Judaism.Remember this is written in 57 AD 24yrs after the cross and in Rom 2:11 Paul announces thatGod shows NO partiality. "non-partiality" IS NOT the theme of this section of Romans 2, Judy ..inwardness verses the letter of the law is, hearing versus doing. In the passage THE GENTILE IS ONLY ONE DOING THE WUILL OF GOD BY NATURE..the Jew is not. He does go onin the rest of chapter2 to contrast teaching the law to others while neglecting to obey it themselves dishonors God and makes them lawbreakers which is curious in the light of your teaching JD which is thatfollowing the cross the law is no more. The Gentile - typically speaking - is not God's chosen while the Jewis -- typically speaking . Using this stereotype, Paul makes the point that is most shocking to the Jewish Christian in Rome hearing is notthe most important issue doing is. Why would Paul contradict (by what you see as a stereotype) what he had just said in Vs.11 JD? This makes no sense at all. The Jews had been trying to do God's Law since Moses came down from Mt. Sinai unsuccessfully. Judy, in Romans 2:23, who is NOT keeping the law -- the Jew or the Gentile? And who is doing the deeds of the law by "nature?" How did we get to Vs.23? I thought we were discussing Romans 2:14,15? Arn't you a bit ahead of yourself? Oh well! Let's just look at Paul's summary in Vs.29 which is "He is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God. OK so the gentiles were able to do the law because they had circumcized hearts. IOW they were born of the Spirit so they were able to do "by nature" what is required by God's Law. The contrast of hearing and doing is unmistakable in 2:13-14. Hence, the Gentile has not heard the law. It is not there JD, you are reading this into the text. This is the perfect example of bias overwhelming reason. Youareso convinced of the notion that unregenerated man cannot understand the will of God nor accomplish anything good that you cannot see what is being said here in Romans 2: 11ff. You don't see the words "Gentiles" and "Jew" in this text? You don't see the words "by nature" associated with the Gentiles only in this passage? You can't see this? Yes I can see the words JD - and I can understand them. There is nothing in the text about whether or not the gentiles who are by nature doing what is required in the law have or have not heard the preaching of the gospel. You have theold "us vs them" mentality that is accepted in many church circles. Think about it in light of the fall of man and the old sin nature How is an unregenerate gentile who has never heard of God's Law going to do what is required in it by their pagan nature? As far as unregenerated man not being able to do good -- why did Jonahgoto Nineveh? Jonah was a prophet who had a ministry gift working in his life which he was trying to run from.
Re: [TruthTalk] Saving Faith -- what is it?
Is this fellow talking to himself or what? Maybe he and Gary are in cahoots. He asks the question and then he answers himself ... only Gary doesn't stop at one answer On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:59:14 +1100 "Andrew C. Bain" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Question : "Who can declare what are the essential doctrines of soteriology?? All the doctrines are interconnected. The Scripture cannot be broken. So, anyone denying one doctrine, denies them all." My response: There are TWO issues here.
Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher
Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? Because simple folk like you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about, JT. OK JD, I should have known better; since Barth is your forte - I leave him to you. I don't care what he was about or what he said or didn't say; what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:28:49 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:09:34 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "But in respect of the very three elements which are supposed to vindicate it[theology]as a science, namely, the idea of unity, the possibility of myth, and the humanistic relevance of Christianity, it can only be described as completely empty from the theological standpoint, so that theology integrated along these lines must be flatly disowned as theology" (Dogmatics, 1.1, The word of God, pp. 9,10). So the late Barth did or did not believe theology is a science? There is no way I can answer that question without you misunderstanding. Sorry. besides, the point of the above had nothing to do with "science." Is this what he said all that to say? This is not written in English. When critics of Barth leapfrogsuch foundational comments, they cannot possibly understand what Barth is all about. He is as "conservative" as one gets - if being centered in the Word is a definition of same. Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? Because simple folk like you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about, JT. Ppl can be conservative and well meaning and still be dead wrong. Thank you for your testimony on that. Bro Barth seems to accept these criterion as legitimate considerations when one thinks to consider theology as a "science" How is it possible for theology to be a science when observation is the key toscience? So how does one observe God? Who said the rules of natural science are the rules of thgology? Not me. Not Barth. Just you. You are just arguing with yourself on this one, Judy. 1. freedom from contradiction The Bible is already free from contradiction with or without Barth Not the way you interpret it 2. Unity in the sphere of its object. [read: subject matter]. That's sadly lacking - on TT at least, I guess Barth would have been unified with himself.] Huh? All I know is that you do not agree with any other person on TT -- none of do. 3. The willingness to accept request for verification. Who would he verify with? Anyone who has an ear for understanding. 4. Respect for that which is physically and biologically impossible. What is impossible with God?You miss the point. If you do not have have respect for what is naturally impossible, you will never recognize a miracle when it happens. 5. Freedom from all prejudgments. 6. The validity of axiomatic propositions [relative to biblical studies and 'theological' conclusions]. Certainly, these are excellent considerations as one considers a person hermeneutic. [] are my additions. jd judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
Blaine writes: The Book of Mormon is the word of God I'm sure you know already that I don't buy that Blaine; God's Words never contradict themselves, he is not confused. Thanks for your concern but to the contraryI am content, I enjoy my life, God has always been faithful so I'm not about to desert Him at this late date. PS: He calls diviners and diviningan abomination that should not be seen in Israel. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy you're just too fixed on a one bible only theme. You would enjoy your life more if you would loosen up on that point a bit, huh? The Book of Mormon is the word of God, and see what you are missing? Tell me your birthday, maybe I can psych out your problem . . . :) Blainerb In a message dated 12/10/2005 12:41:16 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have it and have yet to figure out what it is excellent for I'd put it on the same level as "Dead Sea Scrolls" and "Dead Sea Scroll Bibles" On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:17:04 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I SELL this book. It's excellent! From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] As you should know by now, I do not believe the Bible to be the only source of spiritual enlightenment! :) I have a book titled Lost Books of the Bible, in which there are accounts that are written as being true, but were not accepted by those who made the final decisions of what should and what should not be included in the holy writ. I tried to find it--must still be buried with stuff from when I moved--if I find it I will give you chapter and verse. In the account it actually gives the sister's name, and describes her as being very beautiful. Blainerb judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable to Elvis??
Where was the Word during the dark ages? (even
thoughthere were some Anabaptists and Waldenses and some now deny that
there ever were what was called the dark ages)? God hasn't redeemed the whole world (unless you are Lance and
believe that everyone was assumed up into Him) and the NT still says that a
friend of the world is God's enemy. Yes Jesus did
love and accept the prostitute - but even she and allthe onesHe
ministered towere only the ones the Father sent Him, He did not run about willy nilly embracing everythingand
everyone and callingthem redeemed. It's those who do the will of the
Father who make it and we stillneed to walk
circumspectly - The faith we walk in is our own conviction and happy is he who
does not condemn himselfby what he approves (Rom 14:22).
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:56:10 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I dont want to be
the kind of person who is Against Everything. I want to be For God-Kinds
of Things. I dont want to spend my life fighting against
everything. I want to spend my life Celebrating Life in Christ.
Like Jesus, I dont want to emulate the world, but to embrace the world with
His Truth. Jesus didnt reject the prostitute. He redeemed
her. Jesus didnt reject the world. He became part of it. He
bled for it. He redeemed it. And because of that His Secret
Kingdom now permeates the world. We who dwell in that Secret Kingdom are now the counter-culture
revolutionaries that Jesus was. We turn the things of the world on
their head, and use them to spread the Good News. Whether it be
mythology, movies, or e-mail, we use the things of the world to overcome the
world with good. The gospel triumphs over every imagination of
man. There were probably those who rejected those strange new printing
contraptions that made those newfangled books called Bibles. Why cant
we just read from the scrolls like our grandfathers did? The Word will not be
bound by the traditions of men, but explodes exponentially with each new
age. izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Judy
Taylor
I don't see His parables as every day
stuff - especially not when he told His disciples
that
he spoke in parables so that some
would not see - rather than to make it easy for the
regular
run of the mill person out there (see
Matt 13:34-43)
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:58:17 -0600 "ShieldsFamily"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I use the word
secular to denote everyday stuff vs. religious stuff.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Judy
Taylor
Why do you call them "the secular
allegory of His day?" Iz
Wasn't He born under the Law into a
theocracy?
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:37:29 -0600 "ShieldsFamily"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Jesus used the
secular allegory of His day; called parables.
iz
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005
12:26 PMTo:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] CSL
comparable to Elvis??
In a message
dated 12/9/2005 6:00:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Ugh!
Will have to suffer witches and lions at the FF places for a
while. Did God say it was
through
secular
allegoryHe would draw ppl or was it by the foolishness of
preaching??
Blainerb:
Are we alluding to CS Lewis and his writings?
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] 1 Corinthians 2:14-16
My, my Lance, you've just run right off here into
another subject entirely - Let's stick with the one at hand and see
what
God has to say about it ... Those prophets are
messing with your head.
1 Cor2:14 Juxtaposes the two kinds of
wisdom - which are natural/worldly and spiritual or
thatfrom above.
1 Cor 1:20 "For since in the wisdom of God the world
through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well pleased through
the (incarnation)? ...foolishness of the message preached to save those who
believe"
There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body
(1 Cor 15:44-46)
There is wisdom from above and there is wisdom that is
earthly, sensual and demonic (James 3:15)
There are people who are spiritually minded and those
who are worldly minded and devoid of the Spirit (Jude 19)
Unless and until they repent the world can not receive
the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17)
God makes foolish the wisdom of the world (1 Cor
1:18-20)
So lets stay on track and see what leads up to
1 Cor 2:14 .. Paul writes:
1 Cor 2:6 The wisdom we speak is not of this age nor of
the rulers of this age who are passing away
1 Cor 2:7 We speak God's wisdom in a mystery
.
1 Cor 2:8 The wisdom which none of the rulers of this
age has understood ...
1 Cor 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the
Spirit for the Spirit searches all things even the depths of
God
1 Cor 2:11 Who knows the thought of a man except the
spirit of the man which is in him ...
even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God
1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the
world but the Spirit who is from God that we might know.
1 Cor 2:13 Which things we also speak not in words
taught by human wisdom but in those taught by the Spirit
combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural (or worldly) man does not
accept the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him and he
cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
So how did "merely human" get into the
conversation and where does the drug of sophistry come from? Paul is
discussing two kinds of wisdom here -this
is not about who the people think they are or
mature/immature.
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:59:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
'Someone who is merely
human doesn't accept the things of God's Spirit. They are foolishness
to such people, you see, and they can't understand them because they need to
be discerned spiitually.' But spiritual people discern everything , while
nobody else can discern the truth about them! For. 'Who has known the mind of
the Lord, so as to instruct him?' But we have the mind of the
Messiah'
Paul is now bringing his discussion of wisdom and
folly, and spiritual maturity and immaturity, right down to where the
Corinthians themselves are.They have been using the
'drug' of sophistry. supposing it makes them more 'spiritual'; and Paul
declares that it has made them all the more human.
The more they take the drug, the more immature
they show themselves to be; and the proof of it all is -- their in-fighting
about different Christian teachers!
That is the main point Paul is making here, and
it bears reflection in today's church as we so easily lapse from serious
issues to personality clashes, and from personalities to mere gossip, while
all the time pretending we are still dealing with important
matters.
Paul draws a distinction between 'spiritual'
people (vs 13) and merely 'human people', those living on the ordinary
level.The former are ones in whom God's Spirit has come to dwell, opening them
up to new depths and dimensions of truth and experience. The latter may think
themselves 'sophisticated' but they are 'merely human'. ('soul-ish') Such a
person (the latter) simply can't understand what's going on when talk turns to
the deeper things of the spirit. They become LIKE A TONE-DEAF PERSON AT AN
OPERA: IT'S ALL NONSENSE TO THEM. Imagine being the only muscial person
listening to a wonderful string quartet in a large room full of tone-deaf
people. That is rather like Paul's picture of being a 'spiritual' person in a
world of 'merely human' people.
Those who have the spirit have the MESSIAH'S MIND
THE CORINITHIANS AREN'T READY FOR IT. Paul is
drawing out the difference (2:6) between those who were ready for serious
teaching and those who were still at the infancy stage. Paul declares (3:2)
You are still babies. You are driven by all-too-human impulses.
LET THOSE WHO HAVE EARS TO HEAR,
HEAR!
What is this passage NOT about? What IS it
concerning? One ought not employ God's Word without spiritual discernment.
Might it be the case that those who buttress their comments with many biblical
citations occasionally display immaturity? Might it also be the case that
one's maturity/discernment can
Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher
I am not of Barth and neither am I of Dakes jt On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:59:50 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) Read Barth (instead of Dakes) From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about JD? Because simple folk like you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about, JT. OK JD, I should have known better; since Barth is your forte - I leave him to you. I don't care what he was about or what he said or didn't say; what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present tense) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
How amazing - This situation completely reverses everything Woe until them that call evil goodandgoodevil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!! (Isa 5:20) On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:34:04 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So Satan told the Truth as far as "ye shall be as" But God left this info out, and did not tell them the "WHOLE TRUTH"? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/9/2005 8:15:44 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The lie that Satan perpetrated in the garden of Eden to deceive Eve is still alive today in some cults..."and ye shall be as gods".Perry Blainerb: "and ye shall be as the gods, knowing good and evil," was actually the truth--the lie was that they would not die. Satan often pairs the truth with a lie so as to give the lie credibility--politicians often do the same thing, as do Street Preachers :) Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:42:37 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Actually, you didn't answer the question. The gentile in Romans 2 IS NOT a regeneratedindividual. How do we know this?This is a person who has never heard the preaching of the law of God (Paul contrasts hearing with doing in this context) AND his salvation is tenuous , at best, because it is based solely upon his ability to "naturally" obey the law apart from any spirit influence or knowledge of the law. How do you know he had never heard the preaching of the cross of Christ? He just didn't have the Law the way that the Jews did.He would have to be regenerated to 'DO BY NATURE' what is written in God's Law. Love is the fulfillment of the law and the unregenerated gentile would be unable to do this. Paul was speaking to the Church at Rome wasn't he? And , as often as not, he fails in this doing , by the way.If the phrase "by nature" means to include the indwelling of the Spirit, then the Jew in this passage DOES NOT HAVE THE SPIRIT, for he is clearly NOT doing the law "by nature." Your theology of Ro 2 has the Jew , in this passage lost and without the Spirit. But, of course, you do not believe that a nd so away you go. My so called theology is not judging any Jew one way or the other. I assume a believing Jew would do the same thing but having access to God'slaw helps me so I figure it would also help them.Why would the Judaizers be coming to the Church at Rome on Sunday- they would be going to the Synagogue wouldn't they? And your out of context I Co 2:14 is really getting old. So unregenerated man cannot receive the things of God unless he is given the Holy Spirit of God -- right? RIGHT!! This is what Paul is teaching here and it would make things a whole lot easier for you if you accepted the fact. There are those who have the Spirit and are thereby regenerated and those who do not and are unregenerated. And the unregenerated cannot receive the things of God - nothing from God for all that God lays on us is spiritual -- right RIGHT. 1. God is a Spirit (John 4:24) 2. The Lord is that Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty (2 Cor 3:17) 3.Mankind are spirit beings (Zech 12:1) 4. The Law is spiritual (Rom 7:14) And this would include the Corinthians -- right?? I mean , the text says ".and even now, you are still not able" (I Co 3:2).So, why is he writing to them if they are not able to understand what he is saying? And how did they come to a knowledge of the truth in the first place ? And on what occasion do you KNOW that you are right and cannot be wrong, Jud y? How many times have you read the text, layed it down and said to yourself," I have no need to read this again for I know that I know ," Could you give me an example of a fewspecific scriptures that you understand to the point of never having to review those scriptures for "truth's" sake? Maybe just four or five scriptures. No JD, I couldn't give you anything because you and your theologians already KNOW IT ALL. And how many of these questions will you now ignore? If I had been sensible enough to read through the whole thing first I wouldn't have answered any of them because you are not sincerely wanting to know anything from me - you are just bloviating here and your mind is already made up. You are cultish in your doctrine and blind to any possibility of change. That is NOT the leadership of the Spirit. If I were you JD, I'd go back to Barth. He is the one with all the answers, along with TFT, Polyani, etc... I will await your answers. jd -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:24:07 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit Whatever JD; You asked the question, I just answered it. Maybe it's best for you to stick with Barth and leave Romans to those who understand Paul the apostle who is inspired by the Spirit of God. As I've said before scripture is 'spiritually discerned' 1 Cor 2:14. So my reason, your reason, and/or Barth's reasonings have nothing to do with anything, not anything important that is. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable to Elvis??
He paid the price for all of them - but they won't all
come. Read your Bible JD.
It is those who not only come - but those who endure to
the end who are saved.
Also it's good to be red hot for the Lord because He
spews the lukewarm out.
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:44:48 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
God hasn't redeemed the whole world
. ??
!-Original
Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun,
11 Dec 2005 03:59:04 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable to
Elvis??
Where was the Word during the dark ages? (even
thoughthere were some Anabaptists and Waldenses and some now deny that
there ever were what was called the dark ages)? God hasn't redeemed the whole world (unless you are Lance and
believe that everyone was assumed up into Him) and the NT still says that a
friend of the world is God's enemy. Yes Jesus did
love and accept the prostitute - but even she and allthe onesHe
ministered towere only the ones the Father sent Him, He did not run about willy nilly embracing everythingand
everyone and callingthem redeemed. It's those who do the will of
the Father who make it and we stillneed to
walk circumspectly - The faith we walk in is our own conviction and happy is
he who does not condemn himselfby what he approves (Rom 14:22).
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:56:10 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I don't want to be
the kind of person who is Against Everything. I want to be For
God-Kinds of Things. I don't want to spend my life fighting against
everything. I want to spend my life Celebrating Life in Christ.
Like Jesus, I don't want to emulate the world, but to embrace the world with
His Truth. Jesus didn't reject the prostitute. He redeemed
her. Jesus didn't reject the world. He became part of it.
He bled for it. He redeemed it. And because of that His Secret
Kingdom now permeates the world. We who dwell in that Secret Kingdom are now the counter-culture
revolutionaries that Jesus was. We turn the "things of the world" on
their head, and use them to spread the Good News. Whether it be
mythology, movies, or e-mail, we use the things of the world to overcome the
world with good. The gospel triumphs over every imagination of
man. There were probably those who rejected those strange new printing
contraptions that made those newfangled books called Bibles. Why can't
we just read from the scrolls like our grandfathers did? The Word will not
be bound by the traditions of men, but explodes exponentially with each new
age. izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Judy
Taylor
I don't see His parables as every
day stuff - especially not when he told His disciples
that
he spoke in parables so that some
would not see - rather than to make it easy for the
regular
run of the mill person out there
(see Matt 13:34-43)
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:58:17 -0600 "ShieldsFamily"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I use the word
secular to denote "everyday stuff" vs. "religious stuff".
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy
Taylor
Why do you call them
"the secular allegory of His day?" Iz
Wasn't He born under
the Law into a theocracy?
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:37:29 -0600 "ShieldsFamily"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Jesus used the
secular allegory of His day; called parables.
iz
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005
12:26 PMTo:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] CSL
comparable to Elvis??
In a message
dated 12/9/2005 6:00:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Ugh!
Will have to suffer witches and lions at the FF places for a
while. Did God say it was
through
secular
allegoryHe would draw ppl or was it by the foolishness of
preaching??
Blainerb:
Are we alluding to CS Lewis and his writings?
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him&qu
[TruthTalk] Joybells
Who is it (I believe JD and Blaine) who are constantly telling me to lighten up - or accusing me of having no joy. Look at this bunch - God's people and I'd say they had some joy .. but it didn't help them any. I guess God must not believe in 'once saved, always saved' "therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge; and their honourable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst. Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure; and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it." Isaiah 5:13,14) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
[TruthTalk] : Doug Gresham Comments on Narnia
Interesting comments from CSL's stepson - contradicting the voice of scripture which says loving the brethren is how we know we are "in Him" and His Spirit is in us. The professing church may not be as it should at any given time but where else does one go to findbrethren? Did anyone see "The Hour of Power" this morning? Doug Gresham was on. He made one interesting comment (others, too) -"the closer Jack got to the Lord, the farther he got away from the church." Was "Jack" C.S.'s nickname? soks For those not on the SpareOom list, here is what Doug Gresham (Lewis's stepson) had to say about the movie's critics Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:30:30 + From: douglas gresham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1946 Dear All, Poking my nose around the door very briefly before resuming my ride on the tornado that my life has become of late, to make a couple of observations about our movie. First, the attacks from the sneering anti-Christian elements of the press are to be expected and indeed welcomed. Expected because there are always those who approach such matters blinded by their own prejudices, those who feel that to tear down something great and glorious makes them bigger, and those whom fame has eluded leaving them only notoriety to pursue. Welcomed for they prove that we have stayed close enough to Jack's original book to honour his work and thus provide grist to the mills of the bigoted, the prejudiced and the envious. Second, whatever those who have never walked the razor's edge may say, we know we have made a spectacularly beautiful and very good movie. We know that what we have produced honours Jack's work and delights both children and adults who are honest in their approach to it. No film is ever perfect, so don't expect perfection. This one though, is very good. So don't worry about what is written by snide hacks who have never made a movie nor written a halfway decent book in their lives, just go and see it and form your own opinion of our work. I am hurtling off again soon, but will check in occasionally to see what your opinions are, for they are more valuable to me than most. Blessings all (in haste) Doug (G). Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healinghttp://us.click.yahoo.com/B6T8nB/Vp3LAA/EcBKAA/GuTslB/TM~- Yahoo! Groups Links* To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ill-legalism/* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ An Optimist: "My tire is only flat on the bottom." Soks Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "ill-legalism" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
Perry in this case obtuse would probably be an improvement I for one find the "abstruseness" since he likes that wordto be quite wearying. On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:15:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe you mean to use the word ABSTRUSE instead of OBTUSE do you not, Charles? How are you able to MODERATE when you misperceive so regularly? As to the 'anti-thingy', Charles: I weary, even though I must say mea culpa, (1 Cor 2) of you, Dean, Kevin, Judy etc. always writing in the 'attack mode'. PS:I don't have a link. - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 11, 2005 09:49 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AEBut you see, lance, it is almost impossible to have a straight conversation with you. I ask a quaestion, you answer a different one. That is called beign OBTUSE. It does not lead to conversation, and tends to make one appear arrogant. All I want to do is get a link to your bookstore. And, what is an "anti-thingy"? From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:44:47 -0500 Charles Perry Locke!! I KNEW what you were asking! Let go this anti-thingy Charles. - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 11, 2005 09:35 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Lance, I was not asking for recommendations, just asking you to "post a link to your bookstore so we can check out your wares." From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:11:38 -0500 We'd best be certain that we're speaking of the same book(s). When I say that it (the book) is excellent, I'M NOT RECOMMENDING IT! This is particularly true concerning those who believe other texts to function on a par with Scripture. I apologize if I mislead anyone on this. I carry lots of material that I'd not recommend to everyone. Who wouldn't? - Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 11, 2005 00:25 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Lance, post a link to your bookstore so we can check out your wares. From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:17:04 -0500 I SELL this book. It's excellent! - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 10, 2005 13:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE As you should know by now, I do not believe the Bible to be the only source of spiritual enlightenment! :) I have a book titled Lost Books of the Bible, in which there are accounts that are written as being true, but were not accepted by those who made the final decisions of what should and what should not be included in the holy writ. I tried to find it--must still be buried with stuff from when I moved--if I find it I will give you chapter and verse. In the account it actually gives the sister's name, and describes her as being very beautiful. Blainerb In a message dated 12/9/2005 6:00:57 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine do you read the Bible? It was not a coveted sister Cain was jealous of - why not go back and refresh . [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Eve had a passal of children, they just didn't make headlines like Cain. Cain married his sister, according to one account. He was jealous of Able because the coveted sister liked Able better than Cain--until Able was "removed," at least. -- "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. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas
s between a 'radical/fundamentalist' Muslim
and a 'radical/fundamentalist' anything else?
Original Message -
From:
Christine
Miller
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
December 11, 2005 13:45
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas
Do you speak/believe in the gift of tongues,
Lance?I've taken Calculus and Financial Accounting. Next
up is Islam. Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I do, Christine.
Which courses are you being
'examined' on?
PS:I've met three 'prophets' in the
last couple of years. Two of them are socially dysfunctional
but, highly gifted. The other was in the store a week or two
back and a group of us chatted for a couple of hours.
-
Original Message -
From:
Christine
Miller
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
December 10, 2005 20:23
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas
Lance, I didn't know you believed in the
gifts of the Spirit.(Whew. Two final exams down, one
to go.)Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I actually do, Judy. A prophet
visited our store one week ago. God spoke through him and,
said exactly that. You may be surprised to know just how
dependent your country is on Canada. It is NOT JUST the
other way 'round. Most yanks are sufficiently insular to
know nothing of the rest of the world (including their
neighbour)
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent:
December 10, 2005 14:41
Subject:
Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings,
X-mas
If you really
believe what you write here Lance then you need to be
weeping between the porch and the
altar for us
down here. Do you really think that if the US goes down -
Canada will be left standing??
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance
MuirNo you
wouldn't, Judy. You are in deep doodoo without anyone,
including Canadians, keeping 'tabs', as you put
it.
From: Judy
Taylor
Sure
glad you are keeping up with our economy Lance. Don't
know what we
would do
if we didn't have the Canadians keeping tabs on
us. We'd
really
be in
trouble then ...
On Sat, 10 Dec
2005 08:40:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes: Upset? No! Why?
USA is a
secular republic
Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit
Oophs, typo, I meant Romans 2:14,15. When we become partakers of the 'divine nature' by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit we are enabled to do by nature what is required by God's Law. That is, when we choose to walk after the Spirit rather than follow the lusts of the old flesh nature. On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:44:07 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You speak as if the Holy Sprit indwelling and the "..law written on their hearts" are two different things. What exactly do you mean when you, Judy Taylor, speak of the law written on your heart? Memorization or what? No JD, it's too much for the old unregenerated mind - the law is spiritual - When we are in Christ and indwelt by the Spirit of Christ we like the ppl in Romans 2:14,15 do by nature the thingsrequired by God's Law. What ever it means, we do know that it cannot be the same experienceas those under theMosaical Law. Is it the Holy Spirit 's influence - but you make a difference between the two. If this "law" has to do with various and multiple commandments, how are they written on our hearts in a way different from the Old Law? I honestly have no idea how you might answer this question. I have no answer and that is why I reject (up to this point in time) the notion that the "law written on our hearts" is talking about law as opposed to the rule of the Spirit. jd Careful JD, if you reject everything in scripture that you don't comprehend mentally then pretty soon you will have to throw out the whole Book. jtFrom: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com In OT days they did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, nor did they have God's Law written on their hearts. They lived in a theocracy and Moses had to gather the ppl, men, women, and children and read God's Law to them every seven years. jt On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:21:12 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How is this different from OT days Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts ??? jd -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:11:07 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven? How is this different from OT days Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts ??? jd -----Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:09:54 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven? Why do we need scripture? Yes the born again/spirit filled believer is given the measure of faith - Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts But let's look at our example, the Head of the Church, the one we are to follow During His earthly ministry Jesus walked in all this too; in fact He walked in the fulness of the Spirit When confronted by the adversary - What was His defense? It is written, It is written, It is written. No wonder the professing church is so weak. You would rather do it any way but learn from Him. If anyone speaks not according to THIS WORD there is no light of day for him (Isa 8:20) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You haven't read the book either !!! This is what is so great about you and Judy. First -- you twodisagree on a number of points --but, like you, I willignore that for timebeing.In addition to the Inspired Version doctrine, and theInerrant Understanding didache, you two also believe that you can condemn a book without having read it , not to mention that you know of the personal judgments of God.With those qualifications, why do we even need the Bible? We certainly don't need preachers, pastors and teacher -- I mean the Holy Spirit will take care of all that - right? But ignore these questions, as well. Your peace of mind just migh t be at stake. jd - judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:26:28 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me again.JD
writes: You speak as if the Holy Sprit indwelling and the "..law written on
their hearts" are two different things. What exactly do you mean
when you, Judy Taylor, speak of the law written on your
heart? Memorization or what?
No JD,
it's too much for the old unregenerated
mind - the law is spiritual - When we are in Christ and indwelt by the Spirit of Christ we like the ppl in Romans 2:14,15 do by nature the thingsrequired by
God's Law.
You have not explained how your
version of legal inwardness is different from that of the OT opportunity for same.
OT people had noSpirit of
Christ indwelling them JD; they were to keep the Levitical Law along with
God's moral laws.
Secondly,you
misunderstand Romans , chapter 2 (you meant 2:14-,15 correct
?).The "Gentiles" in that passage are not regenerated
anything.
There is no way an unregenerated
person either OT or NT is able to fulfill God's
law "by nature" JD. Read about
their natures in Ephesians 2. Children of wrath.
Now tell me how you figure.
Makes no sense. You arein Calvin's mode -
OTOH
saying unregenerate man is by
nature totally depraved and the next minute claiming that
they can also"by nature" fulfill
God's law - something only Jesus
had accomplished pre
Calvary.
You only say that because your bias
orders you to do so.
If you want to call it that - OK
then.My scriptural bias compelsme to do
it.
Look at what you say
!! The "Gentile" (according to you) is anyone and everyone
who has the indwelling Holy
Spirit. He is one who has received the new nature and ,
therefore, does by nature the things of the Law.
Remember I did say the regenerated
gentile who is walking after the Spirit JD.
Don't leave anything
out.
So -- who is the Jew in
this passage? He is obviously not like the rest of
us. If the Gentile is the Holy Ghost inhabited disciple of
God - who is this Jew guy?
He is either a disciple of Christ
who is also indwelt by the Spirit of God - remember
in Christ there is no Jew, Greek,
bond, or free. All are one. Or he is a
legalistic
Judaiser who is still under bondage
to the sacrificial law.
And , if the Gentile is the one
withthe Holy Spirit, who does by nature the things of the Law
- how is it that he might be lost
("...conscience either
excusing or accusing .")?
That does not refer to saved/lost
JD. When a Christian's conscience excuses them
they go on their way
rejoicing. When accused by the conscience it is time to go
to
the throne of grace and do some
business with God. Time to repent.
And what of 2:12? The
"Gentile" in this passage, according to Judy, is the saved individual
(having the indwelling Holy
Spirit). He is judged by
onestandardand the
Jew (Christian?)
is judged by
another.
I didn't say anything of the kind
JD. The above is your construction and yours
alone
Please stop putting words in my
mouth. I can speak for myself, thank you.
It is so much easier to just accept
the text for what it says.
Yes, then you don't have to cut
anything out or try to manipulate any passages.
What ever it means, we do know that it cannot be the same
experienceas those under theMosaical Law. Is it the
Holy Spirit 's influence - but you make a difference
between the two. If this "law" has to do with various and
multiple commandments, how are they written on our hearts in a way
different from the Old Law? I honestly have no idea how you
might answer this question. I have no answer
and that is why I reject (up to this point in time) the notion that the "law
written on our hearts" is talking about law as opposed to the
rule of the Spirit. jd
Careful JD, if you reject everything in scripture that
you don't comprehend mentally then pretty soon you will have to throw out the whole
Book. jtI can't
reject what I don't comprehend, Judy. You are
such an avowed anti-intellectual that it is scary. And,
what is almost funny about your anti-intellectual stance is that you rely so
much on yourown brand of intellectualism. It is startling to me,
justhow little you use scripture to get from point A to
point B. "Discernment," my dear, is the single most
lacking quality you possess!!!
In OT days they did not have the Holy
Spirit indwelling them, n
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
I have it and have yet to figure out what it is excellent for I'd put it on the same level as "Dead Sea Scrolls" and "Dead Sea Scroll Bibles" On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:17:04 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I SELL this book. It's excellent! - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 10, 2005 13:34 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE As you should know by now, I do not believe the Bible to be the only source of spiritual enlightenment! :) I have a book titled Lost Books of the Bible, in which there are accounts that are written as being true, but were not accepted by those who made the final decisions of what should and what should not be included in the holy writ. I tried to find it--must still be buried with stuff from when I moved--if I find it I will give you chapter and verse. In the account it actually gives the sister's name, and describes her as being very beautiful. Blainerb In a message dated 12/9/2005 6:00:57 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Blaine do you read the Bible? It was not a coveted sister Cain was jealous of - why not go back and refresh .[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Eve had a passal of children, they just didn't make headlines like Cain. Cain married his sister, according to one account. He was jealous of Able because the coveted sister liked Able better than Cain--until Able was"removed,"at least. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas
If you really believe what you write here Lance then you need to be weeping between the porch and the altar for us down here. Do you really think that if the US goes down - Canada will be left standing?? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance MuirNo you wouldn't, Judy. You are in deep doodoo without anyone, including Canadians, keeping 'tabs', as you put it. From: Judy Taylor Sure glad you are keeping up with our economy Lance. Don't know what we would do if we didn't have the Canadians keeping tabs on us. We'd really be in trouble then ... On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:40:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Upset? No! Why? USA is a secular republic NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION! More pagans means more people with whom to share/live the gospel. What then ought one to be taking note of? How 'bout China/India. They, Terry, are the ones suppling the mdse for the aforementioned stores. No more 'made in the USA! (3 million manufacturing jobs lost since 2003 and many, many more to come). - Original Message - From: "Terry Clifton" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 10, 2005 08:20 Subject: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas We have been watching the news lately, plus getting some stuff by e-mail, and it seems that the world we once knew is no longer to be found. It is bad enough when all the big merchants, such as Wal Mart, Sears, Target and home depot stop advertising Christmas sales and start advertising "Holiday sales". When you walk in the stores you are greeted by salespeople with "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons greetings". Target stores went so far as to run the Salvation army off it's property. No buckets or bell ringers there anymore. This sounds like where the preachers and banners proclaiming Christ should be, but then you must remember that the reason these stores are there is not to proclaim Christ, but to make money. If they mentioned Christ mas, it would only be lip service. Besides that, we need to get the beam out of our own eye before we try to remove the speck from their's. It seems that since Christmas falls on Sunday this year, that many churches will not have services "So that people can spend time with their families". That, to me, is s stupid. Why not take the family to church? What am I missing here? The words of Jesus keep running through my mind. "If you do not love me more than mother or father, sister or brother (Family), you cannot be Mine. Do the rest of you get worked up or nauseous over this? Is there something here I don't see? Am I too critical? Your thoughts? Terry -- "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. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable to Elvis??
Why do you call them "the secular allegory of His day?" Iz Wasn't He born under the Law into a theocracy? On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:37:29 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jesus used the secular allegory of His day; called parables. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 12:26 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable to Elvis?? In a message dated 12/9/2005 6:00:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ugh! Will have to suffer witches and lions at the FF places for a while. Did God say it was through secular allegoryHe would draw ppl or was it by the foolishness of preaching?? Blainerb: Are we alluding to CS Lewis and his writings? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas
What kind of prophets go about giving political
statements? I understood the
spiritual giftings to be of the edification and
building up of the body of Christ. Are you
sure he isn't a fortune teller? Actually I am not
a "yank" by birth and I lived in Canada
for a number of years, long enough to know that there
are problems. True most Americans
don't know a whole lot about Canada - blame that on the
liberal media here.
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:49:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I actually do, Judy. A prophet visited our store
one week ago. God spoke through him and, said exactly
that. You may be surprised to know just how
dependent your country is on Canada. It is NOT JUST the
other way 'round. Most yanks are sufficiently
insular to know nothing of the rest of the world
(including their neighbour)
From: Judy Taylor
If you really believe what you
write here Lance then you need to be weeping between the porch and
the
altar for us down here. Do you really think that if the
US goes down - Canada will be left standing??
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance
MuirNo you wouldn't, Judy. You are
in deep doodoo without anyone, including Canadians, keeping 'tabs', as you
put it.
From: Judy
Taylor
Sure glad you are keeping up
with our economy Lance. Don't know what we
would do if we
didn't have the Canadians keeping tabs on us. We'd
really
be in trouble then
...
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:40:32 -0500 "Lance Muir"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes: Upset? No! Why? USA is a
secular republic NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION! More pagans
means more people with whom to share/live the gospel.
What then ought one to be taking note of? How 'bout China/India.
They, Terry, are the ones suppling the mdse for the
aforementioned stores. No more 'made in the
USA! (3 million manufacturing
jobs lost since 2003 and many, many more to
come). - Original Message -
From: "Terry Clifton" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: December 10, 2005 08:20 Subject: [TruthTalk] Happy
holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas
We have been watching the news lately, plus getting
some stuff by e-mail, and it seems that the world
we once knew is no longer to be found. It is bad
enough when all the big merchants, such as Wal Mart, Sears,
Target and home depot stop advertising Christmas sales and
start advertising "Holiday
sales". When you walk in the stores you are greeted
by salespeople with "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons
greetings". Target stores went so far as to
run the Salvation army off it's property. No buckets or bell
ringers there anymore. This sounds
like where the preachers and banners proclaiming Christ should
be, but then you must remember that the reason these
stores are there is not to proclaim Christ, but
to make money. If they mentioned Christ mas,
it would only be lip service. Besides
that, we need to get the beam out of our own eye before we try
to remove the speck from their's. It seems that
since Christmas falls on Sunday this year, that
many churches will not have services "So that
people can spend time with their families". That, to me, is s
stupid. Why not take the family to church?
What am I missing here? The words of Jesus keep running
through my mind. "If you do not love me
more than mother or father, sister or brother (Family), you cannot
be Mine. Do the rest of
you get worked up or nauseous over this? Is there
something here I don't see? Am I too critical?
Your thoughts? Terry --
"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
Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable to Elvis??
I don't see His parables as every day stuff - especially not when he told His disciples that he spoke in parables so that some would not see - rather than to make it easy for the regular run of the mill person out there (see Matt 13:34-43) On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:58:17 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I use the word secular to denote everyday stuff vs. religious stuff. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Why do you call them "the secular allegory of His day?" Iz Wasn't He born under the Law into a theocracy? On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:37:29 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jesus used the secular allegory of His day; called parables. iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 12:26 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable to Elvis?? In a message dated 12/9/2005 6:00:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ugh! Will have to suffer witches and lions at the FF places for a while. Did God say it was through secular allegoryHe would draw ppl or was it by the foolishness of preaching?? Blainerb: Are we alluding to CS Lewis and his writings? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas
Interpretation please... Gary is speaking in tongues - Or could it be Dylanspeak?? On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:57:02 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ..'bout a 50 megaton blast, baby On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:47:33 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: thewestern sun setnearhiroshima On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:49:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: || if the US goes down - Canada will be left standing?? || judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
JD your dylexia has kicked in again. We who are born through procreation are created in the "image" of the first Adam. They were here first already and the tree of life is what they were encouraged toeat from. to say they were walking in death right then is pure unwarranted speculation; why would a God og life create them in death? On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:33:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just like us -- which includes the fact that they were created "mortal," hence, the The Tree of Life , in the garden. jd-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:27:22 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE So Cain and Abel were children # 1 and #2. and when Cain killed Able -- who was he afraid of -- I mean, where did those people come from? I personally believe that Adam and Eve were not the only people created. But that is not a popular opinion.If we go with the standard opin -- Cain was afraid of his own people jd -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:20:07 ESTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE In a message dated 12/8/2005 8:27:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But why did they not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings I hate to tell you this Bbut the children generally come NINE Months AFTER the FACT! Blainerb: Hmm, let's see, chapter three of Genesis ends with the couple being driven out of the paradisiacal garden, then chapter 4 begins as follows: "And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord." Sounds like the fun began AFTER leaving the garden But no timetable is given. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blainerb:Ha! I agree, it was a good commandment! But why did they not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings, and 2) forced out of the garden? In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Iwasn't there Blaine. If you don't like it, complain to God. He ordered it, not me. I do, however, think it was a great idea. One of the easiest commands to keep. ;-)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior to the Fall?? What sacrilege is this?? :) Blainerb In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think you might have missed something, Blaine. There is no reason to think that Judy would not have been here if there had been no fall. The command to "Be fruitful and multiply" came prior to the fall. See Genesis 1:28.Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blainerb: You seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a daughter of God are, Judy. Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit, none of us including your wonderful self wouldeven be here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging around in their perfect little paradise, never knowing good from evil and not even caring. Butthey would be eternally pure and goody-good righteous... Is that what you think the Lord really wanted? In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thetrees in the garden DaveH are the two kinds of wisdom. The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat from. The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic. So take your pick. One leads to life and the other to death. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:45:44 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: being over protective through fear is one thingDAVEH: That seems to be a tactic of some Christians. For instance, the whole commonly believed scenario about hell being a literal punitive torturous form of punishment is an example that I see driving some people away from Christianity. I'm sure there will be some SPers who will point to their successes by using such methodology, but that does not necessarily offset the numbers of those who are turned off by such rhetoric. They may be turned off at that moment but who knows whether or not a seed has been planted that God will water at a later date? That was John the Baptists ministry ie "the axe will be layed to the root of the tree of those who do not repent"This is what the wisdom of the world teaches.DAVEH: Have you ever read of some of the examples where groups of people were decimated by diseases brought into their environment by outsiders? Yes and usually these groups were already compromised by sin. The American indians were pagan god worshippers and the Australian aborigines were animists leaving both wide open.God has given us an immune system which should be able to throw off anything that comes our wayDAVEH: I tend to agree with you on this to a point, Judy. Though I don't view it as an immune system, but rather as inoculation. We aren't born with a resistance to sin, but we achieve it as we become one with the Lord. I think it was Paul who explained the analogy of putting on the armor of God. We aren't born with that armor, but acquire it as we grow in Christ. The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat from.DAVEH: Then why do you think God kept AE from partaking of it after they transgressed? Because they would have lived forever in their fallen and demonized state and He will not haveany devils in heaven; but he did make for them a way of escape planned before the foundation of the world.The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic.DAVEH:: You've lost me on that one, Judy. Are you saying the tree of knowledge of good and evil is earthly, sensual, and demonic? If so, it sounds like you are implying that God planted something evil in the Garden of Eden in an effort to tempt AE. If that is what you are suggesting, do you have Biblical evidence to support your theory? I am saying He allowed it -to test their faith and they bit. It came in the form of the serpent who spoke to Eve He was full of wisdom from the other tree. In the gospels you will remember the parable of the sower who sows the good seed which is God's Word (Jesus explains) and the enemy who sows another word making tares which will be separated from the wheat in the last day. Same idea. FWIWI had the impression that Gen 1 suggests exactly the opposite12] And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good..That the trees God created were good. Reading Gen 2.. We are not talking about "fruit" trees here DaveH; in the garden there are two trees that have to do with different kinds of knowledge or wisdom.[9] And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evildoes not give me the impression that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was in itself evil. If you disagree, I'd like to understand why you think such. Because Jesus says that nothing that goes into the mouth is of itself evil - it just goes in and comes out in the draught. It is what comes out of the heart that defiles the man - and these two trees had that kind of power.Judy Taylor wrote: DaveH writes: FWIW.While it may be noble to want to keep one's children pure and innocent, a loving parent who overly protects their children will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the ills of the world. Not necessarily; being over protective through fear is one thing. Teaching children spiritual discernment in the fear of God is another because then the parent has His power and watchful eye on their side. I see it similar to communicable illnesses. You could raise your kid in a bubble and he would live a germ/virus free life. But once he enters the real world, he would be extremely vulnerable to catching a slew of nasty bugs. Isn't it much better to allow your kid be exposed to such hazards so that he can become inoculated against the
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:04:35 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: It is not that I disagree with what you said below, Judy.But, I think you've gone off topic. We are discussing AE's transgression, not our own. As soon as they were cast out of the Garden for their transgression, I think they pretty well knew they had no grounds to accuse Him of beingunloving or unjust. To think that God put them through that test just to prove to them the consequences of disobedience seems a little illogical to me, Judy. How is it illogical? When you being evil tell your child if you do that I will spank you. When they do it and you spank them - why is warning them illogical?Just jumping on them out of the blue would be illogical to me. Ponder that God foreordained Jesus to be AE's Savior even before AE were created. He then created a universe just for AE, and then a planet with all the goodies to keep AE alive, and then a Garden full of everything they would need to live forever in a very pure and comfortable environment. Then God plants one evil tree (from your perspective) and turns Satan loose in paradise to have a go at tempting AE just to test AE in an effort to prove to AE that they will not have grounds toaccuse Him of beingunloving or unjust. Whew!!!.To me that sure seems like a lot of effort for minimal return, Judy. Makes sense to me DaveH but then I accept God's Word, I don't try to second guess him or figure out a better way to do things. It is written already and sealed in heaven so to me allspeculation is a big waste of time and does not lead to peace and rest.. Please don't think that I am trying to minimize the import of this topicnothing could be further from the truth. To me, understanding the circumstances of the Fall is extremely important. It just seems from my perspective that the commonly believed Christian perspective regarding the Fall doesn't really explain why it happened, which is why I find it interesting to learn what you believe about it. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Let me get this straight - you are saying that the Christians have all been deceived about why the fall happened and you Mormons are the only ones who know the facts of the matter?? Am I hearing correctly??Judy Taylor wrote: When all of us stand before God at the great white throne judgment... we have to know where we failed. Noone will have grounds toaccuse Him of beingunloving or unjust because we will have condemned ourselves and we will know thiswithout anyone having to tell us... So the test is for us rather than for Him. judyt On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:36:28 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To test them DaveHDAVEH: ??? Do you not think God knew their faith, Judy? Why do you think God would need to test them, since he created themknowing they would transgress?Judy Taylor wrote: To test them DaveH. Faith is ALWAYS tested. On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:24:10 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He did not plan for them to fall.DAVEH: If that is so, then why do you think he placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden, Terry? Rather than go to all the trouble of preparing a remedy for the fall, would it have not been immensely easier to simply not have put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden? IOWthere must have been a reason for God to put the tree there. Seems like it would be important to understand for what the purpose the Lord placed that tree there. Why do you think, Terry?Terry Clifton wrote: This seems so obvious that it should be hard to miss, but if you have been taught otherwise all your life, I suspect it would be hard to accept.God is omnicient, He knew they would sin. He did not plan for them to fall. He planned a remedy for the fall. Big difference.As to their descendents missing the mark, who knows? All we can do is speculate, and speculation often leads to error.=Dave Hansen wrote: He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for everyone?if they had not they would have saved themselves and the rest of humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since then.DAVEH: Thank you two for your comments, both of which focus in one facet of the AE situation of which I am most keen. One of my earliest religious
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
What is the evidence? On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 04:20:21 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Agreed. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Also, there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just like us -- which includes the fact that they were created "mortal," hence, the The Tree of Life , in the garden. jdFrom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] So Cain and Abel were children # 1 and #2. and when Cain killed Able -- who was he afraid of -- I mean, where did those people come from? I personally believe that Adam and Eve were not the only people created. But that is not a popular opinion.If we go with the standard opin -- Cain was afraid of his own people jd From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 12/8/2005 8:27:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But why did they not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings I hate to tell you this Bbut the children generally come NINE Months AFTER the FACT! Blainerb: Hmm, let's see, chapter three of Genesis ends with the couple being driven out of the paradisiacal garden, then chapter 4 begins as follows: "And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord." Sounds like the fun began AFTER leaving the garden But no timetable is given. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blainerb:Ha! I agree, it was a good commandment! But why did they not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings, and 2) forced out of the garden? In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Iwasn't there Blaine. If you don't like it, complain to God. He ordered it, not me. I do, however, think it was a great idea. One of the easiest commands to keep. ;-)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior to the Fall?? What sacrilege is this?? :) Blainerb In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think you might have missed something, Blaine. There is no reason to think that Judy would not have been here if there had been no fall. The command to "Be fruitful and multiply" came prior to the fall. See Genesis 1:28.Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blainerb: You seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a daughter of God are, Judy. Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit, none of us including your wonderful self wouldeven be here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging around in their perfect little paradise, never knowing good from evil and not even caring. Butthey would be eternally pure and goody-good righteous... Is that what you think the Lord really wanted? In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thetrees in the garden DaveH are the two kinds of wisdom. The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat from. The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic. So take your pick. One leads to life and the other to death. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
So they were created one of two ways. They were
either eternal with the ability to fall through disobedience -
OR they were created like us which is mortal
and dying as we live with access to the tree of
life?
Why would a God of life in whom there is no darkness or
shadow of turning create a dying people? AE
chose death in disobedience.
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 04:33:36 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me thinks you are putting words in his mouth,
Judy. Had they have continued to eat of the tree of life, they would not
havedied, their mortality being the potential to die
in the absence of the sustenance supplied by the tree of life: "'And
now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and
live forever' -- so the LORD God banished him from the Garden . .
."
Bill
From: Judy Taylor
JD your dylexia has kicked in again. We who
are born through procreation are created in the "image" of the
first Adam. They were here first already
and the tree of life is what they were encouraged toeat from.
to
say they were walking in death right then is pure
unwarranted speculation; why would a God og life create them
in death?
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:33:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just
like us -- which includes the fact that they were created
"mortal," hence, the The Tree of Life , in the
garden.
jd-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 09 Dec
2005 00:27:22 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New
Subject-AE
So Cain and Abel were children #
1 and #2. and when Cain
killed Able -- who was he afraid of -- I
mean, where did those people come from? I personally
believe that Adam and Eve were not the only people created.
But that is not a popular opinion.If we go with
the standard opin -- Cain was afraid of his own
people
jd
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:20:07
ESTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
In a message dated 12/8/2005 8:27:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But why did they not have children until they
were 1) changed into mortal beings
I hate to tell you this Bbut the children generally come NINE
Months AFTER the FACT!
Blainerb: Hmm, let's see, chapter three of Genesis
ends with the couple being driven out of the paradisiacal garden, then chapter 4 begins as follows:
"And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she
conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the
Lord."
Sounds like the fun began AFTER leaving the garden
But no timetable is given.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blainerb:Ha! I
agree, it was a good commandment! But why did they
not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings, and
2) forced out of the garden?
In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Iwasn't there Blaine. If
you don't like it, complain to God. He ordered it, not
me. I do, however, think it was a great idea. One of the
easiest commands to keep. ;-)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior
to the Fall?? What sacrilege is
this?? :)
Blainerb
In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think you might have missed
something, Blaine. There is no reason to think that Judy
would not have been here if there had been no fall. The
command to "Be fruitful and multiply" came prior to the
fall. See Genesis 1:28.Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blainerb: You
seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a daughter of God
are, Judy. Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit, none of
us including your wonderful self wouldeven
be here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging around in
their perfect little paradise, never knowing good from evil
and not even caring. Butthey would be eternally
pure and goody-good righteous... Is t
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 05:01:44 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Judy Taylor
So they were created one of two ways. They
were either eternal with the ability to fall through disobedience -
OR they were created like us which is mortal
and dying as we live with access to the tree of
life?
More added words: you are setting up a strawman, Judy. Go back to what
has been said and see the distinction.
No strawman here
Bill.
Why would a God of life in whom there is no
darkness or shadow of turning create a dying people?
He did not create a "dying people."
What is the meaning of the word "mortal"?
It is"subject to death, or destined to die?" We who are
procreated are born mortal because of the first Adam's disobedience.
He fell from something Bill. So from whence did he
fall? From mortal to
mortal?
AE chose death by
their disobedience.
Adam and Eve chose disobedience, death being the consequence of their
actions: "The wages of sin is death ... "
Exactly - and if they were mortal already,
that is, if God created them mortal then He chose it for
them
before they got the chance to
disobey. jt
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 04:33:36 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Me thinks you are putting words in his mouth,
Judy. Had they have continued to eat of the tree of life, they would not
havedied, their mortality being the potential to
die in the absence of the sustenance supplied by the tree of life:
"'And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and
eat, and live forever' -- so the LORD God banished him from the Garden . .
."
Bill
From: Judy
Taylor
JD your dylexia has kicked in again. We
who are born through procreation are created in the "image" of
the
first Adam. They were here first
already and the tree of life is what they were encouraged
toeat from. to
say they were walking in death right then is
pure unwarranted speculation; why would a God og life create them
in death?
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:33:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just
like us -- which includes the fact that they were created
"mortal," hence, the The Tree of Life , in the
garden.
jd-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 09
Dec 2005 00:27:22 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New
Subject-AE
So Cain and Abel were children # 1 and
#2. and when Cain killed Able -- who
was he afraid of -- I mean, where did those people
come from? I personally believe that Adam and Eve were not
the only people created. But that is not a popular
opinion.If we go with the standard opin
-- Cain was afraid of his own people
jd
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 9
Dec 2005 00:20:07 ESTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] New
Subject-AE
In a message dated 12/8/2005 8:27:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But why did they not have children until
they were 1) changed into mortal
beings
I hate to tell you this Bbut the children generally come
NINE Months AFTER the FACT!
Blainerb: Hmm, let's see, chapter three of Genesis
ends with the couple being driven out of the paradisiacal garden, then chapter 4 begins as
follows:
"And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she
conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from
the Lord."
Sounds like the fun began AFTER leaving the
garden But no timetable is given.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blainerb:Ha!
I agree, it was a good commandment! But why did
they not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal
beings, and 2) forced out of the garden?
In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Iwasn't there
Blaine. If you don't like it, complain to God. He
ordered it, no
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
Blaine do you read the Bible? It was not a coveted sister Cain was jealous of - why not go back and refresh .[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Eve had a passal of children, they just didn't make headlines like Cain. Cain married his sister, according to one account. He was jealous of Able because the coveted sister liked Able better than Cain--until Able was"removed,"at least. In a message dated 12/8/2005 10:28:04 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So Cain and Abel were children # 1 and #2. and when Cain killed Able -- who was he afraid of -- I mean, where did those people come from? I personally believe that Adam and Eve were not the only people created. But that is not a popular opinion.If we go with the standard opin -- Cain was afraid of his own people jd Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 05:57:00 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Judy Taylor So they were created one of two ways. They were either eternal with the ability to fall through disobedience - OR they were created like us which is mortal and dying as we live with access to the tree of life? More added words: you are setting up a strawman, Judy. Go back to what has been said and see the distinction. No strawman here Bill. When you add the word "dying" to our words, Judy, you are setting up a strawman. If anyone set up a strawman it was JD; he is the one who said they were created "like us" which is mortal and the word "mortal" well I already gave the dictionary definition. They were created "in God's image" which is both holy and eternal. God did not create a dying people -- John did not say that, and neither did I. JD said created "like us" in which case they would be a "dying people" As long as AW were eating of the tree of life, there was no death in them whatsoever. Hence, what we are saying -- or at least I am -- is that God created a people with the potential to die. The above is a little different from what JD stated ... How about the potential to fall as Lucifer did. Angels are spirits - they don't die. Humans I believe are also created spiritual beings and tho our body is perishing our inner man is either being renewed or beingentrenched in even more darkness daily. If you will accept this distinction, I will be happy to continue our discussion. If not, then there is nothing to discuss. Bill judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
Yeah! Innocence turned to lust and caring and love turned into pride, selfishness, and shame. On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 07:52:03 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In a message dated 12/8/2005 10:34:55 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just like us -- which includes the fact that they were created "mortal," hence, the The Tree of Life , in the garden. jd They did not seem to be aware of their nakedness until they ate the apple. Then they made fig leaf aprons to cover their nakedness. Sounds like they were changed in some mysterious way by eating the apple. I can see it all now--Adam looks at Eve, and sees her for the first time asbeing desirable. She feels uncomfortable, and asks, why are you staring at me? He blushes--for the first time--and looks away. But steals a glance now and then when she's not looking. :) Satanassured Eve she would not die by eating the fruit, which indicates she was at that time immortal. Also, God told her if she ate the good stuff on the tree, she would surely die--another evidence she was at that time immortal. They were then kicked out of the garden, to prevent them from eating the fruit of the tree of life, which would have apparently restored their immortality. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawmen
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:33:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just like us -- which includes the fact that they were created "mortal," hence, the The Tree of Life , in the garden. jd Above is the strawman that needs to be kicked down And look at this, even the Mormon boys know better: Satanassured Eve she would not die by eating the fruit, which indicates she was at that time immortal. Also, God told her if she ate the good stuff on the tree, she would surely die--another evidence she was at that time immortal. They were then kicked out of the garden, to prevent them from eating the fruit of the tree of life, which would have apparently restored their immortality. So both God and Satan agree that the first two ppl are immortal ... which is not "like us" - that is outside of Christ.
Re: [TruthTalk] Mr. Cleo
I thought the same thing - this looks like what we used to call in Australia a golliwog. jt On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 07:53:46 -0600 Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kevin Deegan wrote: temple stone!I had kinda pictured God in my mind as having a little different hair do. Are you certain this is Him?Terry judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
[TruthTalk] For DaveH
When a woman wears leather clothing, . A man's heart beats quicker, his throat gets dry, he goes weak in the knees, and he begins to think irrationally. Ever wonder why? Because she smells like a new truck.
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
Why? The apostle Paul is good enough for me - He
used "great plainness of speech"
with no hidden agendas. Nothing was done in a
corner.
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:21:34 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bill speaks of 'AW'?? Hm...Freudian
slip? Bill's favourite FF place? A hidden agenda?
Good root beer? (as close as Bill gets to
'beer'?) We had all best ponder this encrypted message
from our vaunted theologian!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Amen.-Original Message-From: Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent:
Fri, 9 Dec 2005 05:57:00 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New
Subject-AE
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 5:20
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New
Subject-AE
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 05:01:44 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
From: Judy
Taylor
So they were created one of two ways.
They were either eternal with the ability to fall through disobedience
-
OR they were created like us which is mortal
and dying as we live with access to the
tree of life?
More added words: you are setting up a strawman, Judy. Go back to
what has been said and see the distinction.
No strawman here
Bill.
When you add the word "dying" to our
words, Judy, you are setting up a strawman. God did not create a dying
people -- John did not say that, and neither did I. As long as AW
were eating of the tree of life, there was no death in them
whatsoever. Hence, what we are saying -- or at least I am -- is that
God created a people with the potential to die. If you will accept
this distinction, I will be happy to continue our discussion. If not,
then there is nothing to discuss.
Bill
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Strawmen
God's wisdom is a tree of life JD AE rejected it in favor of the tree of death On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:38:42 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, you decided to ignore my comment about the Tree of Life?Adam and Eve were not given any restrictions concerningeating from this tree. What do you suppose would be the result of eating from such fruit? I say "continued life." jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:33:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Also, there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just like us -- which includes the fact that they were created "mortal," hence, the The Tree of Life , in the garden. jd Above is the strawman that needs to be kicked down And look at this, even the Mormon boys know better: Satanassured Eve she would not die by eating the fruit, which indicates she was at that time immortal. Also, God told her if she ate the good stuff on the tree, she would surely die--another evidence she was at that time immortal. They were then kicked out of the garden, to prevent them from eating the fruit of the tree of life, which would have apparently restored their immortality. So both God and Satan agree that the first two ppl are immortal ... which is not "like us" - that is outside of Christ. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-AE
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:33:15 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I love it. Judy interprets John !!! If this is an example of your "spirit discernment," you have a long long way to go. Correction! Judy has no interest in interpreting John. Judy reads and understands scripture. In the account of A E, they are mortal beings just like you and I with two exceptions in terms of circumstance: they had the Tree of Life and continued access to that tree was the only stated reason for their dismissal from the garden, and , they had not yet violated the expressly stated will of God. Then why the warning that if they ate of the wrong tree they would die if they were already mortal (like us) temporal ie passing away? God said they would die, Satan said they wouldn't The EFFECT of the fall presents the reader with consequences that are much more involved than we might have expected -- at least for me. Maybe you are making it a figment of your own imagination JD. If they were like us they would have no place to fall to. "In the image of God" is not a reference to the essence of God's existence. Holy and eternal are but two considerations of God. He is omnipresent. He is all wise and has all knowledge. He is all powerful. He is a triune being. Image and likeness does not make themCreator rather than Created; but they would have his nature and character and would be spirit beingswith a flesh body just as He is a Spirit. Give us a rule of some sort, a path of season, for accepting two of His qualities and not the others. The fact of the matter is this - I believe that I can come closer to a biblical consideration for saying the "image" is the need for community than you can for "holy and eternal" jd Oh I know JD - here we go again with the "procession and the perichoresis - and the trinity all dancing with each other" Some things never change. From: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 05:57:00 -0700 "Taylor" wmtaylor@plains.net writes: From: Judy Taylor So they were created one of two ways. They were either eternal with the ability to fall through disobedience - OR they were created like us which is mortal and dying as we live with access to the tree of life? More added words: you are setting up a strawman, Judy. Go back to what has been said and see the distinction. No strawman here Bill. When you add the word "dying" to our words, Judy, you are setting up a strawman. If anyone set up a strawman it was JD; he is the one who said they were created "like us" which is mortal and the word "mortal" well I already gave the dictionary definition. They were created "in God's image" which is both holy and eternal. God did not create a dying people -- John did not say that, and neither did I. JD said created "like us" in which case they would be a "dying people" As long as AW were eating of the tree of life, there was no death in them whatsoever. Hence, what we are saying -- or at least I am -- is that God created a people with the potential to die. The above is a little different from what JD stated ... How about the potential to fall as Lucifer did. Angels are spirits - they don't die. Humans I believe are also created spiritual beings and tho our body is perishing our inner man is either being renewed or beingentrenched in even more darkness daily. If you will accept this distinction, I will be happy to continue our discussion. If not, then there is nothing to discuss. Bill judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:44:07 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You speak as if the Holy Sprit indwelling and the "..law written on their hearts" are two different things. What exactly do you mean when you, Judy Taylor, speak of the law written on your heart? Memorization or what? No JD, it's too much for the old unregenerated mind - the law is spiritual - When we are in Christ and indwelt by the Spirit of Christ we like the ppl in Romans 1:14,15 do by nature the thingsrequired by God's Law. What ever it means, we do know that it cannot be the same experienceas those under theMosaical Law. Is it the Holy Spirit 's influence - but you make a difference between the two. If this "law" has to do with various and multiple commandments, how are they written on our hearts in a way different from the Old Law? I honestly have no idea how you might answer this question. I have no answer and that is why I reject (up to this point in time) the notion that the "law written on our hearts" is talking about law as opposed to the rule of the Spirit. jd Careful JD, if you reject everything in scripture that you don't comprehend mentally then pretty soon you will have to throw out the whole Book. jtFrom: Judy Taylor jandgtaylor1@juno.com In OT days they did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, nor did they have God's Law written on their hearts. They lived in a theocracy and Moses had to gather the ppl, men, women, and children and read God's Law to them every seven years. jt On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:21:12 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How is this different from OT days Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts ??? jd -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:11:07 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven? How is this different from OT days Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts ??? jd -----Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:09:54 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven? Why do we need scripture? Yes the born again/spirit filled believer is given the measure of faith - Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts But let's look at our example, the Head of the Church, the one we are to follow During His earthly ministry Jesus walked in all this too; in fact He walked in the fulness of the Spirit When confronted by the adversary - What was His defense? It is written, It is written, It is written. No wonder the professing church is so weak. You would rather do it any way but learn from Him. If anyone speaks not according to THIS WORD there is no light of day for him (Isa 8:20) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You haven't read the book either !!! This is what is so great about you and Judy. First -- you twodisagree on a number of points --but, like you, I willignore that for timebeing.In addition to the Inspired Version doctrine, and theInerrant Understanding didache, you two also believe that you can condemn a book without having read it , not to mention that you know of the personal judgments of God.With those qualifications, why do we even need the Bible? We certainly don't need preachers, pastors and teacher -- I mean the Holy Spirit will take care of all that - right? But ignore these questions, as well. Your peace of mind just migh t be at stake. jd - judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down
I sure don't wonder at this Christine, Whenever you post JD makes allusions to your age, like he is the old man full of wisdom and you are just the novice who still has to learn; do you sometimes feel like you are being diss'd? On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:11:05 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JD, I feel put down by you quite a bit. Not only do you pooh-pooh my thoughts, but you turn the issue into a personal analysis time and time again. No ones posts make me feel worse than yours.I would not have said anything but... you asked. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ALL of my posts are designed to help others -- so my percentage would be, ahh, well, zero!! Would that be your understanding as well? jdFrom: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience? And for a even more interesting note In your eyes what is your Percentage?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I understand you point of view. Putting poeple down is the subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings. Go refigure. jd-Original Message-From: Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people down Kevin's criticisms are godly. You may disagree with them, I may choose to make a more moderate approach to them, but the truth is, we must learn to be wary to falsehoods and lies. I am starting to see that more and more Christians do not take things as seriously as they should. The feminism movement is an example of this. It may not have seemed to obvious to the church in the 1960s what this movement would produce, and I'm sure it didn't seem like such a powerful movement at first, so they chose not to take a stand. But so much of society's moral decay has stemmed from that movement: immodesty, the erroding of the family unit, the confusion of gender roles, the rise of moral relativism and humanism, the rise of sexual promescuity, etc.Kevin's "putting people down" as you say is not act of bitterness or pride, but out of passion for the Truth. This passionate support/disdain of Kevin's is so crucial, especially in the last days. We must also be passionate in our support or rejection of the different issues.Mat. 11:12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense. The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to Lance.You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs.C.S.L included. jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs up Lance likes him because he is so Catholic The mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god' "Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36). http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE
When all of us stand before God at the great white throne judgment... we have to know where we failed. Noone will have grounds toaccuse Him of beingunloving or unjust because we will have condemned ourselves and we will know thiswithout anyone having to tell us... So the test is for us rather than for Him. judyt On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:36:28 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To test them DaveHDAVEH: ??? Do you not think God knew their faith, Judy? Why do you think God would need to test them, since he created themknowing they would transgress?Judy Taylor wrote: To test them DaveH. Faith is ALWAYS tested. On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:24:10 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He did not plan for them to fall.DAVEH: If that is so, then why do you think he placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden, Terry? Rather than go to all the trouble of preparing a remedy for the fall, would it have not been immensely easier to simply not have put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden? IOWthere must have been a reason for God to put the tree there. Seems like it would be important to understand for what the purpose the Lord placed that tree there. Why do you think, Terry?Terry Clifton wrote: This seems so obvious that it should be hard to miss, but if you have been taught otherwise all your life, I suspect it would be hard to accept.God is omnicient, He knew they would sin. He did not plan for them to fall. He planned a remedy for the fall. Big difference.As to their descendents missing the mark, who knows? All we can do is speculate, and speculation often leads to error.=Dave Hansen wrote: He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for everyone?if they had not they would have saved themselves and the rest of humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since then.DAVEH: Thank you two for your comments, both of which focus in one facet of the AE situation of which I am most keen. One of my earliest religious memories was a comment a neighborhood kid made to me in which he said AE screwed it up for us by taking the forbidden fruit. He explained that had they not transgressed, we would all live forever without experiencing death. Even though the kid was less than religious later on in life, his comment always struck me as being intriguing, and now you folks have sparked that fire again. I must be missing something about your (forgive mebut let me say, Protestant) belief about the fall. If AE had not transgressed, do you think none of their descendants would have transgressed? In my experience, the best way to get a kid to do something, is to forbid him from doing it! Don't you think that at some point---probably much sooner than later---one of AE's children would have fallen? Or do you believe that of the billions who descended from AE, none would ever have transgressed? Just what are the chances of that happening.zilch?!?!?! Sowhy do most Christians blame AE for the misery in the world, when it was inevitable. From my perspectivenot only was it expected, but it was planned. And...evidently you believe that as well, since you believe Jesus was foreordained to be our Savior from before the world was created.that it was planned? (Please let me know if you do not believe such.) Yet you apparently don't believe that God wanted it to happen that way. Do you see why your perspective perplexes me? It doesn't seem logical. Like I saidperhaps I'm missing something about the way you understand it. Judy wrote:I think they did nto have to transgress and if they had not they would have saved themselves and the rest of humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since then. Why would the Lord want that for them/us?Terry Clifton wrote: God hates sin, Dave, more than I hate liver. I will never eat liver, no matter how many onions you use to cover it, no matter how many times I am given that option. God will give you the option, but it is not His desire. I think that must be one of the toughest parts of being God, wanting what is best for His people, yet allowing them to make choices
Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...
Lance my goodness, this looks more like a morning rant than morning musings ... sigh! On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:30:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Forever rail against the graciousness of this selfsame God? Who is railing? Taking His Own Words seriously is hardly railing against anything, in fact it is honoring Him in his love and graciousness because this is what He requires of us. Judy Kevin wish to inform us what God can't do through Lewis Tolkien (in print or on film). Y'all ought to read Linda Shield's observations. Amen Linda! I read Linda's observations and there was a time when I may have agreed with her - However, I now believe that a heart truly surrendered to Christ would have layed aside the classical education and mythology rather than try to mix it like oil and water. Paul had a pretty good education himself and he counted it as dung compared to the knowledge of Christ. For the record I don't believe CSL actually knew the Lord though he may have been up on doctrinal orthodoxy and he made a lot of money with his writing. His personal choices tell the rest of the story. David, Christine, Judy and Linda rail against feminism, absolving the believing community of its part in marginalizing women in the home, church and society at large (most are rather duplicitous on the society thingy). I have not railed against anything Lance and the "believing community" I am around encourages women to stay at home and nurture their children. I happen to believe that God made men and women to be different and that the women are the nurturers. In a home where there is the love of Christ (beginning with the husband/father) there is no reason for women to be out there swimming with the sharks and wearing themselves out to be accepted. MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a definition. Judy employed the word 'sad' three times in a post yesterday.Well TTers here is a piece of news for y'all GOD READS TT!! When we, either through ignorance or intentionality, misrepresent HIM then, HE IS SAD! There's a whole lot of misrepresentin' goin' on here children! No Lance. I have not misrepresented the God I serve at all; He may not meet your standards but He is the one I must answer to. You have your own thing going on that makes no sense at all to me. 'Drive by posts'..was that a Smithson original? Shootin' brothers and sisters, even when exhibiting mega stupidity, ain't the best way to go (ceptin' now and then, of course) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] On employing the words OF GOD without the WORD OF GOD
Lance why don't you trying employing the "words of God" with the WORD OF GOD sometime and give us an example of the "real thing" IYO of course. jt On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:41:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IFF one (mis)cites Scripture with the intention of speaking for God, what is it that one has done? Perhaps one who only/always cites/interprets without error can enlighten us? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down
Your fault if you don't know her mother's name Lance. David has mentioned it on TT before. I know it. Also why would they be talking about her when they are so ridiculed and maligned? I don't notice you saying a whole lot about your wife on this list either and I certainly would not know her name. On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:47:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps when her mind and the MIND OF GOD are more in sinc; having built upon this foundation layed for her by her mom (someone almost never mentioned by either her or her dad..strangely) she will then be spoken to more frequently as Christine and, not David's daughter. (I'd mention you mom's name but, don't know it). fn:Christine: Are you at the University of Florida? Do you know of Andrea Sterk? (professor) - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 08, 2005 05:22 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down I sure don't wonder at this Christine, Whenever you post JD makes allusions to your age, like he is the old man full of wisdom and you are just the novice who still has to learn; do you sometimes feel like you are being diss'd? On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:11:05 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JD, I feel put down by you quite a bit. Not only do you pooh-pooh my thoughts, but you turn the issue into a personal analysis time and time again. No ones posts make me feel worse than yours.I would not have said anything but... you asked. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ALL of my posts are designed to help others -- so my percentage would be, ahh, well, zero!! Would that be your understanding as well? jdFrom: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience? And for a even more interesting note In your eyes what is your Percentage?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I understand you point of view. Putting poeple down is the subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings. Go refigure. jd-Original Message-From: Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people down Kevin's criticisms are godly. You may disagree with them, I may choose to make a more moderate approach to them, but the truth is, we must learn to be wary to falsehoods and lies. I am starting to see that more and more Christians do not take things as seriously as they should. The feminism movement is an example of this. It may not have seemed to obvious to the church in the 1960s what this movement would produce, and I'm sure it didn't seem like such a powerful movement at first, so they chose not to take a stand. But so much of society's moral decay has stemmed from that movement: immodesty, the erroding of the family unit, the confusion of gender roles, the rise of moral relativism and humanism, the rise of sexual promescuity, etc.Kevin's "putting people down" as you say is not act of bitterness or pride, but out of passion for the Truth. This passionate support/disdain of Kevin's is so crucial, especially in the last days. We must also be passionate in our support or rejection of the different issues.Mat. 11:12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense. The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to Lance.You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs.C.S.L included. jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert Roeper give the 'Lion, the
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'FOR THE RECORD I DON't believe csl actually knew the Lord
Yes Lance, I do appreciate your concern But I have yet to consign the first person to hell - it's all in your too vivid imagination. On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:19:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your DISCERNMENT ON THIS MATTER (who knows, maybe a few other matters also) is wide of the mark.I've occasionally drawn a comparison between yourself and David Miller on this discernment thingy, Judy. Do take care won't you, Judy, in consigning persons to Hell? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down
How would you know how DavidM loves his wife Lance? Isn't this putting your opinion out there a bit? I don't think he has shared his whole mind on this matter exhaustively - do you? Also his priorities are definitely not mainstream. So why is he the subject here? On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:23:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My rather ill-formed point Judy, had more to do with David's errant 'take' and the male/female thingy. He and, others who espouse such errant thinking/teaching are somewhat accountable for the very issues they rail against. From: Judy Taylor Your fault if you don't know her mother's name Lance. David has mentioned it on TT before. I know it. Also why would they be talking about her when they are so ridiculed and maligned? I don't notice you saying a whole lot about your wife on this list either and I certainly would not know her name. On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:47:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps when her mind and the MIND OF GOD are more in sinc; having built upon this foundation layed for her by her mom (someone almost never mentioned by either her or her dad..strangely) she will then be spoken to more frequently as Christine and, not David's daughter. (I'd mention you mom's name but, don't know it). fn:Christine: Are you at the University of Florida? Do you know of Andrea Sterk? (professor) From: Judy Taylor I sure don't wonder at this Christine, Whenever you post JD makes allusions to your age, like he is the old man full of wisdom and you are just the novice who still has to learn; do you sometimes feel like you are being diss'd? On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:11:05 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JD, I feel put down by you quite a bit. Not only do you pooh-pooh my thoughts, but you turn the issue into a personal analysis time and time again. No ones posts make me feel worse than yours.I would not have said anything but... you asked. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ALL of my posts are designed to help others -- so my percentage would be, ahh, well, zero!! Would that be your understanding as well? jdFrom: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.com Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience? And for a even more interesting note In your eyes what is your Percentage?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I understand you point of view. Putting poeple down is the subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings. Go refigure. jd-Original Message-From: Christine Miller verilysaid@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 -0800 (PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people down Kevin's criticisms are godly. You may disagree with them, I may choose to make a more moderate approach to them, but the truth is, we must learn to be wary to falsehoods and lies. I am starting to see that more and more Christians do not take things as seriously as they should. The feminism movement is an example of this. It may not have seemed to obvious to the church in the 1960s what this movement would produce, and I'm sure it didn't seem like such a powerful movement at first, so they chose not to take a stand. But so much of society's moral decay has stemmed from that movement: immodesty, the erroding of the family unit, the confusion of gender roles, the rise of moral relativism and humanism, the rise of sexual promescuity, etc.Kevin's "putting people down" as you say is not act of bitterness or pride, but out of passion for the Truth. This passionate support/disdain of Kevin's is so crucial, especially in the last days. We must also be passionate in our support or rejection of the different issues.Mat. 11:12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but n
Re: [TruthTalk] WATCH BELOW AS JUDY ASSISTS LANCE IN THE ART OF INTERPRETATION
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:44:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy said'For the record, I don't believe that C. S. Lewis actually knew the Lord' Lance, having made an incorrect leap in logic,due to a belief that Judy believed that persons who die while not knowing the Lord (Lewis is dead), go to hell, thought she'd so consigned him. I suspect that the operative word herein is 'consigned'. Let me then remove this word and, ask Judy the following questions: 1. Do you stand by your assessment that csl did not 'know' (define please) the Lord? Yes I do and if you are scandalized by CSL Lance, I would say the same about Augustine, Athanasius and Calvin who called himself an "Augustinian theologian" ... They were not following the example Christ left for us either by hunting down and killing heretics.Do you think the "culture of their day" will excuse them? I can't imagine having to stand in front of the Lord in that day and say "But Lord, I hunted down and killed all of these heretics in your name" (as per Matt 7:21) Tell me, is this doing the will of the Father? Is this following Jesus' example? Will He say "Well done thou good and faithful servant?" 2. Should you be correct then, WHERE IS CSL? (employ some biblical interpretation, please) CSL has gone to spend eternity with the one he served and the Lord Himself will make that determination by either accepting or rejecting him on that day. thanks, Lance judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Lance Needs to Check Archives
Lance, it may be wise for you tocheck the archives before making these wild accusations. It's not me doing the painting. It is you who have me in a corner of your mind labelled "fundamentalist" And you ascribe to me all of the beliefs in your "fundamentalist"card file. As perthe issue of who goes to hell I have always said the same thing which is "that is not my call" But you have yet to hear me - do I need a soapbox and bullhorn? Oh well!! Nothing new under the sun is there Far be it for me to try and tell you anything ... even when it comes to what I personally believe. On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:11:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: WATCH BELOW AS JUDY ASSISTS LANCE IN THE ART OF INTERPRETATION OK Judy! Having painted yourself in a corner, just make yourself comfortable. I'll watch your posts in future for use of the word 'HELL'. From: Judy Taylor On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:44:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy said'For the record, I don't believe that C. S. Lewis actually knew the Lord' Lance, having made an incorrect leap in logic,due to a belief that Judy believed that persons who die while not knowing the Lord (Lewis is dead), go to hell, thought she'd so consigned him. I suspect that the operative word herein is 'consigned'. Let me then remove this word and, ask Judy the following questions: 1. Do you stand by your assessment that csl did not 'know' (define please) the Lord? Yes I do and if you are scandalized by CSL Lance, I would say the same about Augustine, Athanasius and Calvin who called himself an "Augustinian theologian" ... They were not following the example Christ left for us either by hunting down and killing heretics.Do you think the "culture of their day" will excuse them? I can't imagine having to stand in front of the Lord in that day and say "But Lord, I hunted down and killed all of these heretics in your name" (as per Matt 7:21) Tell me, is this doing the will of the Father? Is this following Jesus' example? Will He say "Well done thou good and faithful servant?" 2. Should you be correct then, WHERE IS CSL? (employ some biblical interpretation, please) CSL has gone to spend eternity with the one he served and the Lord Himself will make that determination by either accepting or rejecting him on that day. thanks, Lance judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] ATTENTION MODERATOR(s) We do have two (2) of them don't we?
Are you up to being able to separate the holy from the profane yourself Lance? On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that only those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be his mouthpieces. They (JRRTY CSL) were not speaking for Him (God). IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE THE HOLY FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you as you applied to them (JRRT CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS MOUTHPIECE! Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on this point? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] ATTENTION MODERATOR(s) We do have two (2) of them don't we?
That is not my problem (what you think); it is entirely
between you and the one you serve.
My responsibility is to walk in good conscience toward
the Lord and others.
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:30:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Honestly Judy, just SOMETIMES!
Now, back to the matter at hand; IFF you are
wrong concerning JRRT CSL (according to some on TT) then, what are we to
think concerning that which we read of you hereafter?
From: Judy Taylor
Are you up to being able to separate the holy from
the profane yourself Lance?
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that only
those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be his
mouthpieces. They (JRRTY CSL) were not speaking for Him
(God).
IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE THE
HOLY FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you as you applied to
them (JRRT CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS MOUTHPIECE!
Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on this
point?
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] What is it with this PERSONALIZE PROBLEM?
OK - You go first On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are the PERSONS on TT suggesting that that which they say is not embodied truth? J ust say so so that we may factor that in when reading you. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] To Lance who is ever seeking the perfect person
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:42:37 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even the one 'infallible interpreter' on TT has taken issue
with your Scriptural interpretation(s) on occasion(s).
Many have taken exception to your
non-personalist hermeneutic.
What in the world is this? If we are to communicate
Lance, you will have to use plain-speak
Many take exception to your sacred/secular dichotomy.
And what is this? Separating the holy from the
profane? Being unwilling to call the world sacred in the face
of your belief that it was all assumed in
Christ?
Many take exception over your dualism/gnosticism.
I don't have a "gnosticism" What I do have is a
"walking after the Spirit" and not fulfilling the lusts of the
flesh
Faulty exegesis here Lance.
Many take exception to your unthinking criticisms of persons whom God holds dear.
(Calvin, Barth, Lewis, Tolkien BOB DYLAN) (Maybe just
you and me on this one, Gary)
God holds the whole unbelieving world "dear" for that
matter (John 3:16) - but when they judge themselves unworthy of eternal
life they exclude themselves from his
Promises. The ones who make it are those who do His will and
who
speak as the "oracles of God"
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: December 08, 2005 07:23
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance Needs to
Check Archives
Lance, it may be wise for you tocheck the
archives before making these wild accusations.
It's not me doing the painting. It is
you who have me in a corner of your mind labelled
"fundamentalist"
And you ascribe to me all of the beliefs in your
"fundamentalist"card file.
As perthe issue of who goes to hell I have
always said the same thing which is "that is not my call"
But you have yet to hear me - do I need a soapbox
and bullhorn? Oh well!! Nothing new under the sun is
there
Far be it for me to try and tell you anything ...
even when it comes to what I personally believe.
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:11:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
WATCH BELOW AS JUDY ASSISTS LANCE IN THE ART OF INTERPRETATION
OK Judy! Having painted yourself in a corner, just make
yourself comfortable. I'll watch your posts in future for use of the word
'HELL'.
From: Judy
Taylor
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:44:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Judy said'For the record, I don't believe that C. S.
Lewis actually knew the Lord'
Lance, having made an incorrect leap in logic,due to
a belief that Judy believed that persons who die while not
knowing the Lord (Lewis is dead), go to hell, thought she'd so
consigned him. I suspect that the operative word herein is
'consigned'. Let me then remove this word and, ask Judy the following
questions:
1. Do you stand by your assessment that csl did not
'know' (define please) the Lord?
Yes I do and if you are scandalized by CSL
Lance, I would say the same about Augustine, Athanasius and Calvin who
called himself an "Augustinian theologian" ... They were not
following the example Christ left for us either by
hunting down and killing heretics.Do
you think the "culture of their day" will excuse them? I can't
imagine having to stand in front of the Lord in that day and say "But
Lord, I hunted down and killed all of these
heretics in your name" (as per Matt 7:21) Tell me, is this doing the
will of the Father? Is this following
Jesus' example? Will He say "Well done thou good and faithful
servant?"
2. Should you be correct then, WHERE IS CSL? (employ
some biblical interpretation, please)
CSL has gone to spend eternity with the one
he served and the Lord Himself will make that determination by either
accepting or rejecting him on that
day.
thanks, Lance
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Lance's Opinion - My problem???
Lance I don't make your opinions my problem so why is
what I write your problem?
You won't ever have to answer to anyone for it. I
am responsible for what I speak/write.
Why arn't you just as concerned about the heretic
hunters as you are about the occultic
type fantasy folk? jt
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:45:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy: You made it YOUR problem when you stated
that he did not know the Lord.
(I don't think you even employed an IMO). Why
not, at the very least, give us an "IMO'?
From: Judy Taylor
That is not my problem (what you think); it is
entirely between you and the one you serve.
My responsibility is to walk in good conscience
toward the Lord and others.
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:30:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Honestly Judy, just SOMETIMES!
Now, back to the matter at hand; IFF you are
wrong concerning JRRT CSL
(according to some on TT) then, what are we
to think concerning that which we read of you hereafter?
From: Judy
Taylor
Are you up to being able to separate the holy
from the profane yourself Lance?
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that
only those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be
his mouthpieces. They (JRRTY CSL) were not speaking for Him
(God).
IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE
THE HOLY FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you as you
applied to them (JRRT CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS
MOUTHPIECE!
Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on
this point?
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Lance's Opinion - My problem???
Bottom line Lance is Jesus' criteria for knowing the
Truth (Himself) is
When we abide in Him and HIS WORDS abide in us - is
when we will know the Truth and
the truth will make us free .
Rather than when we know a little bit about Him and mix
it with pagan folklore and
mystery religions ...
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:03:56 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lance I don't make your opinions my problem so why is
what I write your problem?
You won't ever have to answer to anyone for it.
I am responsible for what I speak/write.
Why arn't you just as concerned about the heretic
hunters as you are about the occultic
type fantasy folk? jt
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:45:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Judy: You made it YOUR problem when you stated
that he did not know the Lord.
(I don't think you even employed an IMO). Why
not, at the very least, give us an "IMO'?
From: Judy Taylor
That is not my problem (what you think); it is
entirely between you and the one you serve.
My responsibility is to walk in good conscience
toward the Lord and others.
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:30:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Honestly Judy, just SOMETIMES!
Now, back to the matter at hand; IFF you
are wrong concerning JRRT CSL
(according to some on TT) then, what are we
to think concerning that which we read of you hereafter?
From: Judy
Taylor
Are you up to being able to separate the holy
from the profane yourself Lance?
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that
only those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be
his mouthpieces. They (JRRTY CSL) were not speaking for Him
(God).
IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO
SEPARATE THE HOLY FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you
as you applied to them (JRRT CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS
MOUTHPIECE!
Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on
this point?
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy asks Lance
Are Kevin and Judy chasing them down to behead them or burn them at the stake taking away their opportunity to repent, Lord willing? The latter (as you call them) do not argue with orthodoxy as they are part of it but neither do they sanctify the Lord in their hearts which is apparent by the fruit of their lives. People who make a stand for the truth are never heroes ... Look at what happened to THE TRUTH HIMSELF On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:17:47 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: WHY AREN'T YOU JUST AS CONCERNED ABOUT THE HERETIC HUNTERS AS YOU ARE ABOUT THE OCCULTIC TYPE FANTASY FOLK? Lance answers Judy I am MUCH MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HERETIC HUNTERS as the latter are not heretics, Judy. Lance ansks himself: Who are the HERETIC HUNTERS? Lance answers himself (schizophrenia anyone?) Judy Kevin are the HH on TT.This is why I tend you respond to you, Judy. Kevin pretty much gets DELETE from me. He strikes me as both bright and, informed but says nothing worth hovering over (IMO). judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] What is it with this PERSONALIZE PROBLEM?
I think anyone who introduces a new thing should pave the way - which is to start with themselves. My response is not an excuse for anything - what am I excused from?? On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:52:49 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: yet another excuse to not answer questions. You and Kevin have this down to an art form !! From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK - You go first On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are the PERSONS on TT suggesting that that which they say is not embodied truth? J ust say so so that we may factor that in when reading you. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?
In OT days they did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling them, nor did they have God's Law written on their hearts. They lived in a theocracy and Moses had to gather the ppl, men, women, and children and read God's Law to them every seven years. jt On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:21:12 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How is this different from OT days Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts ??? jd -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:11:07 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven? How is this different from OT days Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts ??? jd -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:09:54 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven? Why do we need scripture? Yes the born again/spirit filled believer is given the measure of faith - Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts But let's look at our example, the Head of the Church, the one we are to follow During His earthly ministry Jesus walked in all this too; in fact He walked in the fulness of the Spirit When confronted by the adversary - What was His defense? It is written, It is written, It is written. No wonder the professing church is so weak. You would rather do it any way but learn from Him. If anyone speaks not according to THIS WORD there is no light of day for him (Isa 8:20) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You haven't read the book either !!! This is what is so great about you and Judy. First -- you twodisagree on a number of points --but, like you, I willignore that for timebeing.In addition to the Inspired Version doctrine, and theInerrant Understanding didache, you two also believe that you can condemn a book without having read it , not to mention that you know of the personal judgments of God.With those qualifications, why do we even need the Bible? We certainly don't need preachers, pastors and teacher -- I mean the Holy Spirit will take care of all that - right? But ignore these questions, as well. Your peace of mind just might be at stake. jd - judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] There he goes again
And of course me too!! judyt On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:26:21 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: JD wrote:You have allies on this forum but no real brethren I consider Kevin a dear brother and a man of God. You do not speak for me on this, JD. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense. The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to Lance.You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs.C.S.L included. jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs up Lance likes him because he is so Catholic The mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god' "Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36). http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175). Lewis used profanities, told bawdy stories, and frequently got drunk with his students (5/19/90, World magazine). Christians need to read more critically The Abolition of Man, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, The Great Divorce, and God in the Dock. For example, Lewis never believed in a literal hell, but instead believed hell is a state of mind one chooses to possess and become -- he wrote, "... every shutting-up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind is, in the end, Hell" (The Great Divorce, p. 65). ... Q: Speaking just as a layman, it seems to me that the "theology" you get out of THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA, THE GREAT DIVORCE, THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS is Orthodox. I was recently rereading THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS and Lewis has a section where Screwtape (the lead demon writing to the little demon, Wormwood) says something like, "In misleading your Protestant convert, the best thing to do is get him to pray extemporaneously; make sure that above all he does not pray the liturgical prayers his mother taught him; let him think that everything he says is original." When I read C.S. Lewis I hear an Orthodox voice. I hear a sacramentalist and liturgical traditionalist writing. How do evangelical, let alone fundamentalist, Protestants read C.S. Lewis and think that they are reading someone who is on "their side?" Howard: Maybe I'm being a little bit naughty, but the answer is, probably the same way they read the Bible! You and I would say the Apostolic Church is there, in its seed, in the Bible, but apparently it's possible to read the Bible as a Protestant for sixty or seventy or eighty years and never see it! By the same token, Lewis' evangelical American "clientele" simply don't get it. When C.S. Lewis speaks of the blessed sacrament, they don't hear it. When Lewis speaks of the prayers of the Church, they don't hear it. When Lewis speaks of auricular confession, which he practiced, they don't hear it.
[TruthTalk] More Musing......
Traditions have replaced the Word of God ... People whose hearts are set on the flesh nature need a physical tangible God ... Today this need is fulfilled through a form of godliness manifested by many religious organizations and doctrinal structures ... These like the golden calf, have been fashioned by the hands of religious leaders of the past to please men and they are protected by the religious leaders of today ... The hearts of people are captured by partial truths and slogans ... Years of teaching only scriptures that fit into a doctrinal structure have blinded them to the other parts of the gospel and have given them a false security ... WHEN THE WORD OF GOD IS RESISTED JESUS BECOMES A ROCK OF OFFENSE AND A STUMBLING STONE!! judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down
Amen Christine!! Agreed ... Back in the 1960's misguided soul that I was, I waslooking for truth in all the wrong places and as a mother of two young daughters found myself with a friend in her rcc church on Sundays (while living in the Bible Belt no less). Betty Friedan's book The Feminine Mystique had just been published and they were having a class to discuss it at this Church. I didn't attend but of course the winds of the movement didn't stay in that Church class and I agree that the fruit was not good. However, the men should not be completely exonerated as responsibility for the home begins with them. Find a man who is willing to love his wife as Christ loved the Church and you will find a wife who will gladly honor him and submit to his leadership. It is all about love and trust which are so lacking in the world today and sadly the world has permeatedthe church. judyt On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kevin's criticisms are godly. You may disagree with them, I may choose to make a more moderate approach to them, but the truth is, we must learn to be wary to falsehoods and lies. I am starting to see that more and more Christians do not take things as seriously as they should. The feminism movement is an example of this. It may not have seemed to obvious to the church in the 1960s what this movement would produce, and I'm sure it didn't seem like such a powerful movement at first, so they chose not to take a stand. But so much of society's moral decay has stemmed from that movement: immodesty, the erroding of the family unit, the confusion of gender roles, the rise of moral relativism and humanism, the rise of sexual promescuity, etc.Kevin's "putting people down" as you say is not act of bitterness or pride, but out of passion for the Truth. This passionate support/disdain of Kevin's is so crucial, especially in the last days. We must also be passionate in our support or rejection of the different issues.Mat. 11:12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense. The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to Lance.You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs.C.S.L included. jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs up Lance likes him because he is so Catholic The mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god' "Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36). http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175). Lewis used profanities, told bawdy stories, and frequently got drunk with his students (5/19/90, World magazine). Christians need to read more critically
[TruthTalk] the Sneaky Pagan
If you want to look like Lewis Tolkien read them - If you want to look like Jesus - Selah!! Let them "humanize" you or trust Jesus to send the Promise and make you part of a "New Creation" in Him. C.S. Lewis, the Sneaky PaganThe author of A Field Guide to Narnia says Lewis wove pre-Christian ideas into a story for a post-Christian culture.Interview by Rob Moll June 1, 2004 Colin Duriez is a frequent writer and speaker on topic related to C.S. Lewis and his Inkling friends. Duriez is most recently the author of A Field Guide to Narnia. His other books include Tolkien and C.S. Lewis: The Gift of Friendship, Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings, The C.S. Lewis Encyclopedia, and The J.R.R. Tolkien Handbook. Duriez lives in Leicester, England and was recently in the U.S. Why do you think the Chronicles of Narnia are Lewis's greatest achievement and will last the longest? In the Chronicles, you get the presence of Lewis. You get the cast of his mind in a way that's unequalled in any of his other books. Lewis once said that the imaginative man in him was more basic than any other aspect. In the Chronicles, every part of him was brought into play: the depth of his intellect, the depth of his knowledge, the richness of his imagination. They all work organically together and achieved this remarkable series of not one, but seven connected books. It's folly to predict the future, but being a fool, I'll say that maybe in 150 years it will be the Chronicles of Narnia that are the most remembered of Lewis's work. In order to write to a post-Christian culture, Lewis used pre-Christian, pagan ideas. C.S. Lewis's ideas about returning to a paganism before coming to Christian faith still apply today. He recognized that we live in a post-Christian world, and for him that was the most basic category when trying to understand present society. We talk about modernism and now postmodernism, but if Lewis was around I think he'd still be saying that the fact that we're post-Christian is more fundamental. Contemporary people have no background at all in Christian faith. They need to be brought to paganism to prepare the way to become Christians, which is rather a provocative idea. But it was also part of the way he tried to rehabilitate the old Christian West. The "Old West" is what he called it. He and J.R.R. Tolkien tried to rehabilitate the values and virtues of this vast period, which goes back to the Classical times. I'm not an expert on that period, but it seems to be a blend of pagan insights that are completed by a Christian understanding. Lots of pagan things are Christianized like Christmas. That seemed to be a strategy in the medieval period and before. Lewis and Tolkien carried on this mentality of fulfilling the insights people have as ordinary human beings into the nature of reality. Lewis and Tolkien had a kind of natural theology where they felt you could have insights into the nature of God's reality independent of scripture. He uses that to sneak Christian theology into the pagan setting of the Chronicles. He self consciously sneaks in those Christian insights. One of his books, Till We Have Faces, retells the classical story of Cupid and Psyche. It was a myth which to him had great meaning and power. He retold it in the form of a modern novel. It's set in pre-Christian times, and he explores the insight that it is possible to have within the pagan imagination that prefigure Christian truth. Lewis's conversion was very much shaped by the arguments of Tolkien that the gospel narratives fulfill the very best of human storytelling and myth. They bring into clarity and sharp focus insights that are found throughout the world, not just in the West but also in the depths of human experience of reality. [Till We Have Faces] actually has a lot of affinities to Tolkien because The Lord of the Rings has a pre-Christian setting, a Northern European setting. There's a wonderful shift in consciousness in [Orual's] part. I'm beginning to get more and more interested in the way C.S. Lewis tries to change consciousness in the reader, and I think he was deliberately trying to do this. By presenting an alternative world imaginatively, you actually can experience a different kind of consciousness, which gives you a perspective on your own world. That perspective can bring the reader to being undeceived, as you call it. That's very evident in Orual in Till We Have Faces. She goes through this undeception. And there's lots of instances in the Narnia stories of this experience. It's something that's very important to Lewis because he'd gone through it himself because for many years he was an atheist. He was halfway through his life before he became a theist and then a Christian. So there was a huge undeception on his part. How did Lewis understand the power of a story to undeceive? Lewis was hugely influenced by Tolkien. Tolkien saw story as fundamental as language itself. He
Re: [TruthTalk] TT's Feminine Mythtique
Forget it Lance, I've been there and it's a one way street to nowhere big waste of time. On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:27:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have either of you examined the role of your churches vis a vis that horrid 'feminism'? Let me hear from either of you (Christine/Judy) as to the legitimacy of some of the underlying concerns/criticisms put forward by such women? My goodness!! 'Don't go there girls'! Tell me of those feminists that either/both of you have befriended, listened to and, prayed with. (Please, no signs!) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says: IF YA WANTS TA LOOK LIKE 'EM THEN READ 'EM
The difference is in the way we read. You do not respect/revere me in the way you do your favorite theologians and authors and that makes all the difference. They are your teachers... and they are who you will become like On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:55:16 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not necessarily, Judy! I most assuredly do not want to 'look', as you put it, like you, yet I do read you!n judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Lance not having anything to contribute is back to his old word games....
I don't recall pronouncing anything at all having to do with evangelism... On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:57:12 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy pronounces relational evangelism with feminists A WASTE OF TIME! Want to add anyone else to the list? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down
Don't hold her in less esteem because of her age. Timothy was a pastor wasn't he? I see it the same way she does and I have children who are older than 20 something. You don't understand her POV JD Kevin is for the Truth. How can you argue with that??? On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:03:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I understand you point of view. Putting poeple down is the subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings. Go refigure. jdFrom: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin's criticisms are godly. You may disagree with them, I may choose to make a more moderate approach to them, but the truth is, we must learn to be wary to falsehoods and lies. I am starting to see that more and more Christians do not take things as seriously as they should. The feminism movement is an example of this. It may not have seemed to obvious to the church in the 1960s what this movement would produce, and I'm sure it didn't seem like such a powerful movement at first, so they chose not to take a stand. But so much of society's moral decay has stemmed from that movement: immodesty, the erroding of the family unit, the confusion of gender roles, the rise of moral relativism and humanism, the rise of sexual promescuity, etc.Kevin's "putting people down" as you say is not act of bitterness or pride, but out of passion for the Truth. This passionate support/disdain of Kevin's is so crucial, especially in the last days. We must also be passionate in our support or rejection of the different issues.Mat. 11:12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense. The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to Lance.You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs.C.S.L included. jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs up Lance likes him because he is so Catholic The mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god' "Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36). http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (Reflections on the Psalms, pp. 110), and that the Bible contained "error" (pp. 110, 112) and is not divinely inspired (The Inklings, p. 175). Lewis used profanities, told bawdy stories, and frequently got drunk with his students (5/19/90, World magazine). Christians need to read more critically The Abolition of Man, The Problem of Pain, Miracles, The Great Divorce, and God in the Dock. For example, Lewis never believed in a literal hell, but instead believed hell is a state of mind one chooses to possess and become -- he wrote, "... every shutting-up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind is, in the end, Hell" (The Great Divorce, p. 65). ... Q: Speaking just as a layman,
Re: [TruthTalk] TT's Feminine Mythtique
You are at least being honest about this JD - Excellent trait . On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:13:33 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Forget it Lance, I've been there and it's a one way street to nowhere big waste of time. = "I haven't a clue." jdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forget it Lance, I've been there and it's a one way street to nowhere big waste of time. On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:27:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have either of you examined the role of your churches vis a vis that horrid 'feminism'? Let me hear from either of you (Christine/Judy) as to the legitimacy of some of the underlying concerns/criticisms put forward by such women? My goodness!! 'Don't go there girls'! Tell me of those feminists that either/both of you have befriended, listened to and, prayed with. (Please, no signs!) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE
To test them DaveH. Faith is ALWAYS tested. On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:24:10 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He did not plan for them to fall.DAVEH: If that is so, then why do you think he placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden, Terry? Rather than go to all the trouble of preparing a remedy for the fall, would it have not been immensely easier to simply not have put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden? IOWthere must have been a reason for God to put the tree there. Seems like it would be important to understand for what the purpose the Lord placed that tree there. Why do you think, Terry?Terry Clifton wrote: This seems so obvious that it should be hard to miss, but if you have been taught otherwise all your life, I suspect it would be hard to accept.God is omnicient, He knew they would sin. He did not plan for them to fall. He planned a remedy for the fall. Big difference.As to their descendents missing the mark, who knows? All we can do is speculate, and speculation often leads to error.=Dave Hansen wrote: He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for everyone?if they had not they would have saved themselves and the rest of humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since then.DAVEH: Thank you two for your comments, both of which focus in one facet of the AE situation of which I am most keen. One of my earliest religious memories was a comment a neighborhood kid made to me in which he said AE screwed it up for us by taking the forbidden fruit. He explained that had they not transgressed, we would all live forever without experiencing death. Even though the kid was less than religious later on in life, his comment always struck me as being intriguing, and now you folks have sparked that fire again. I must be missing something about your (forgive mebut let me say, Protestant) belief about the fall. If AE had not transgressed, do you think none of their descendants would have transgressed? In my experience, the best way to get a kid to do something, is to forbid him from doing it! Don't you think that at some point---probably much sooner than later---one of AE's children would have fallen? Or do you believe that of the billions who descended from AE, none would ever have transgressed? Just what are the chances of that happening.zilch?!?!?! Sowhy do most Christians blame AE for the misery in the world, when it was inevitable. From my perspectivenot only was it expected, but it was planned. And...evidently you believe that as well, since you believe Jesus was foreordained to be our Savior from before the world was created.that it was planned? (Please let me know if you do not believe such.) Yet you apparently don't believe that God wanted it to happen that way. Do you see why your perspective perplexes me? It doesn't seem logical. Like I saidperhaps I'm missing something about the way you understand it. Judy wrote:I think they did nto have to transgress and if they had not they would have saved themselves and the rest of humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since then. Why would the Lord want that for them/us?Terry Clifton wrote: God hates sin, Dave, more than I hate liver. I will never eat liver, no matter how many onions you use to cover it, no matter how many times I am given that option. God will give you the option, but it is not His desire. I think that must be one of the toughest parts of being God, wanting what is best for His people, yet allowing them to make choices that bring pain and death.Look around you. Child molesters, burglars, robbers, selfishness, starvation, disease.Do you think that maybe He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for everyone?Dave Hansen wrote: DAVEH: One more fact from your perspective, Terry.I assume you believe that God did not want AE to sin though, even though he knew they would. Is that correct?Terry Clifton wrote: Just the facts, Dave. Fact one: Adam and Eve did sin.Fact two: God hates sin. Fact three: Getting people to sin is the top priority of Satan.It's over. We know who to blame. Nothing to discuss.Dave Hansen wrote: No.Actually, I have never heard this question discussedDAVEH: That rather surprises me. I remember asking Perry a similar question
Re: [TruthTalk] The accuser is busy ....
So where are the grounds for your accusation - where does itcome from? On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:24:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm sure you don't! From: Judy Taylor Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance not having anything to contribute is back to his old word games I don't recall pronouncing anything at all having to do with evangelism... On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:57:12 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy pronounces relational evangelism with feminists A WASTE OF TIME! Want to add anyone else to the list? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down
Christine is mature spiritually whatever her age Timothy was not discipled by Paul - it was his mother and grandmother who raised him in the scriptures (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15-17) Christine has a mother and father who raised her and taught her the same way. Selah!! On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:28:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With great ease and conviction of heart.Christine is a kid . Timothy was discipled by Paul. :-) jdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't hold her in less esteem because of her age. Timothy was a pastor wasn't he? I see it the same way she does and I have children who are older than 20 something. You don't understand her POV JD Kevin is for the Truth. How can you argue with that??? On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:03:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I understand you point of view. Putting poeple down is the subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings. Go refigure. jdFrom: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin's criticisms are godly. You may disagree with them, I may choose to make a more moderate approach to them, but the truth is, we must learn to be wary to falsehoods and lies. I am starting to see that more and more Christians do not take things as seriously as they should. The feminism movement is an example of this. It may not have seemed to obvious to the church in the 1960s what this movement would produce, and I'm sure it didn't seem like such a powerful movement at first, so they chose not to take a stand. But so much of society's moral decay has stemmed from that movement: immodesty, the erroding of the family unit, the confusion of gender roles, the rise of moral relativism and humanism, the rise of sexual promescuity, etc.Kevin's "putting people down" as you say is not act of bitterness or pride, but out of passion for the Truth. This passionate support/disdain of Kevin's is so crucial, especially in the last days. We must also be passionate in our support or rejection of the different issues.Mat. 11:12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense. The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to Lance.You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs.C.S.L included. jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs up Lance likes him because he is so Catholic The mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god' "Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36). http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301). His contention that some pagans may "belong to Christ without knowing it" is a destructive heresy (Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177), as was his statement that "Christ fulfils both Paganism and Judaism ..." (Reflections on the Psalms, p. 129). Lewis believed that we're to become "gods," an apparent affirmation of theistic evolution. He also believed the Book of Job is "unhistorical" (R
Re: [TruthTalk] The accuser is busy ....
So far as Evangelism is concerned Feminists are no different than Post Modern ppl who say they are Christian. Read No frame of reference unless God in His mercy opens their eyes and draws them. On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:24:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm sure you don't! From: Judy Taylor Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance not having anything to contribute is back to his old word games I don't recall pronouncing anything at all having to do with evangelism... On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:57:12 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy pronounces relational evangelism with feminists A WASTE OF TIME! Want to add anyone else to the list? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] The accuser is busy ....
I consider being a feminist a big waste of time As for chasing them down and trying to befriend, listen to and pray with them; no I have not done this. On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:48:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let me ask then Judy, what YOU referred to as a 'waste of time'? Below seehow the dialogue went: Forget it Lance, I've been there and it's a one way street to nowhere big waste of time. On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:27:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Have either of you examined the role of your churches vis a vis that horrid 'feminism'? Let me hear from either of you (Christine/Judy) as to the legitimacy of some of the underlying concerns/criticisms put forward by such women? My goodness!! 'Don't go there girls'! Tell me of those feminists that either/both of you have befriended, listened to and, prayed with. (Please, no signs!) From: Judy Taylor So where are the grounds for your accusation - where does itcome from? On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:24:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm sure you don't! From: Judy Taylor Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance not having anything to contribute is back to his old word games I don't recall pronouncing anything at all having to do with evangelism... On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:57:12 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy pronounces relational evangelism with feminists A WASTE OF TIME! Want to add anyone else to the list? judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down
You got the subject like right this time Lance. Put down has become your forte On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:49:35 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Indeed Judy!! Anyone old enough to recall Edgar Bergen Charley McCarthy? From: Judy Taylor Christine is mature spiritually whatever her age Timothy was not discipled by Paul - it was his mother and grandmother who raised him in the scriptures (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15-17) Christine has a mother and father who raisedand taught her the same way. Selah!! On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:28:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With great ease and conviction of heart.Christine is a kid . Timothy was discipled by Paul. :-) jdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't hold her in less esteem because of her age. Timothy was a pastor wasn't he? I see it the same way she does and I have children who are older than 20 something. You don't understand her POV JD Kevin is for the Truth. How can you argue with that??? On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:03:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I understand you point of view. Putting poeple down is the subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings. Go refigure. jdFrom: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin's criticisms are godly. You may disagree with them, I may choose to make a more moderate approach to them, but the truth is, we must learn to be wary to falsehoods and lies. I am starting to see that more and more Christians do not take things as seriously as they should. The feminism movement is an example of this. It may not have seemed to obvious to the church in the 1960s what this movement would produce, and I'm sure it didn't seem like such a powerful movement at first, so they chose not to take a stand. But so much of society's moral decay has stemmed from that movement: immodesty, the erroding of the family unit, the confusion of gender roles, the rise of moral relativism and humanism, the rise of sexual promescuity, etc.Kevin's "putting people down" as you say is not act of bitterness or pride, but out of passion for the Truth. This passionate support/disdain of Kevin's is so crucial, especially in the last days. We must also be passionate in our support or rejection of the different issues.Mat. 11:12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense. The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to Lance.You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs.C.S.L included. jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs up Lance likes him because he is so Catholic The mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god' "Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36). http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection of the literal resurrection of the body ar
Re: [TruthTalk] The accuser is busy ....
I didn't see Christine putting anyone down. Who
exactly do you reference?
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:23:43 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why go to all that bother when you can just join
Christine in 'putting them down'? Duh!
From: Judy Taylor
I consider being a feminist a big waste of time
As for chasing them down and trying to befriend, listen to and pray
with them; no I
have not done this.
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:48:27 -0500 "Lance Muir"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Let me ask then Judy, what YOU
referred to as a 'waste of time'?
Below seehow the dialogue went:
Forget it Lance, I've been there and it's a one way
street to nowhere big waste of time.
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:27:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Have either of you examined the role of your churches vis a vis that
horrid 'feminism'?
Let me hear from either of you
(Christine/Judy) as to the legitimacy of some of the
underlying
concerns/criticisms put forward
by such women?
My goodness!! 'Don't go there girls'!
Tell me of those feminists that either/both of you have
befriended, listened to
and, prayed with. (Please, no signs!)
From: Judy
Taylor
So where are the grounds for your accusation -
where does itcome from?
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:24:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I'm sure you don't!
From: Judy
Taylor
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance
not having anything to contribute is back to his old word
games
I don't recall pronouncing anything at all
having to do with evangelism...
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:57:12 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Judy pronounces relational evangelism with feminists A WASTE OF
TIME!
Want to add anyone else to the
list?
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down
This is a new one JD So if one does not go out and wallow in the mire for a while they become stunted? On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:28:45 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I see Christine as a very mature kid. If her views are not amendedas she grows in the Lord and in experience, she will find herself stunted. I know of many who , after coming to the Lord, have refused their own experienceswith retardation as a their finale. Thank God we don't have to be right. jdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Christine is mature spiritually whatever her age Timothy was not discipled by Paul - it was his mother and grandmother who raised him in the scriptures (2 Tim 1:5; 3:15-17) Christine has a mother and father who raised her and taught her the same way. Selah!! On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:28:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With great ease and conviction of heart.Christine is a kid . Timothy was discipled by Paul. :-) jdFrom: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't hold her in less esteem because of her age. Timothy was a pastor wasn't he? I see it the same way she does and I have children who are older than 20 something. You don't understand her POV JD Kevin is for the Truth. How can you argue with that??? On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:03:03 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nonsense - but as a 20 something, I understand you point of view. Putting poeple down is the subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings. Go refigure. jdFrom: Christine Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin's criticisms are godly. You may disagree with them, I may choose to make a more moderate approach to them, but the truth is, we must learn to be wary to falsehoods and lies. I am starting to see that more and more Christians do not take things as seriously as they should. The feminism movement is an example of this. It may not have seemed to obvious to the church in the 1960s what this movement would produce, and I'm sure it didn't seem like such a powerful movement at first, so they chose not to take a stand. But so much of society's moral decay has stemmed from that movement: immodesty, the erroding of the family unit, the confusion of gender roles, the rise of moral relativism and humanism, the rise of sexual promescuity, etc.Kevin's "putting people down" as you say is not act of bitterness or pride, but out of passion for the Truth. This passionate support/disdain of Kevin's is so crucial, especially in the last days. We must also be passionate in our support or rejection of the different issues.Mat. 11:12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people down. You have allies on this forum but no real brethren (except - possibly, Dean). I suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense. The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to you -- not to Lance.You have not spoken honestly about Barth. I suspect this is a habit of yours -- speaking dishonestly of other's beliefs.C.S.L included. jd -Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan openairmission@yahoo.comTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 (PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert Roeper give the 'Lion, the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs up Lance likes him because he is so Catholic The mormons love him because he believed as they do in BECOMING a 'god' "Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36). http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his prayers for the dead, belief in purgatory, and rejection
Re: [TruthTalk] The accuser is busy ....
I see what she wrote as addressing a particular issue
or movement. I don't read her as being down on persons just as
I
don't read what Kevin writes as being down on any
individual person.
Let's see - what did she write:
The feminism movement is an example of this. It
may not have seemed to obvious to the church in the 1960s what this movement
would produce, and I'm sure it didn't seem like such a powerful movement at first, so they chose not to take a stand. But
so much of society's moral decay has stemmed from that
movement: immodesty, the erroding of the family unit, the confusion of
gender roles, the rise of moral relativism and humanism, the rise of sexual
promescuity, etc.
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:38:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes: Feminists! Don't you read what she
writes?
From: Judy Taylor
I didn't see Christine putting anyone down.
Who exactly do you reference?
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:23:43 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Why go to all that bother when you can just
join Christine in 'putting them down'? Duh!
From: Judy
Taylor
I consider being a feminist a big waste of time
As for chasing them down and trying to befriend, listen to and pray
with them; no I
have not done this.
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:48:27 -0500 "Lance Muir"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Let me ask then Judy, what
YOU referred to as a 'waste of
time'?
Below seehow the dialogue
went:
Forget it Lance, I've been there and it's a one
way street to nowhere big waste of time.
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:27:01 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Have either of you examined the role of your churches vis a vis that
horrid 'feminism'?
Let me hear from either of you
(Christine/Judy) as to the legitimacy of some of
the underlying
concerns/criticisms put
forward by such women?
My goodness!! 'Don't go there
girls'! Tell me of those feminists
that either/both of you have
befriended, listened
to and, prayed with. (Please, no
signs!)
From: Judy
Taylor
So where are the grounds for your
accusation - where does itcome from?
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 10:24:30 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I'm sure you don't!
From: Judy Taylor
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Lance not having anything to contribute is back to his old word
games
I don't recall pronouncing anything at
all having to do with evangelism...
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:57:12 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Judy pronounces relational evangelism with feminists A
WASTE OF TIME!
Want to add anyone else to the
list?
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His
Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
[TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?
Here is one review from Amazon: Every Christian I've ever heard or read has condemned Judas to hell...until Anderson. Anderson's examination of both the Biblical story of Judas and Jesus' teaching on forgiveness demonstrate two things. Christians should have undying hope for everyone, even the worst of society; and Christians should minister Christ's love, even when it seem meaningless. This is an eye-opening book, and a must-read for anyone concerned about being Christ-like in today's world. I had Ray Anderson as a seminary professor and his perspective on ministry is life-changing. Maybe (possibly probably?) Judas is in heaven...doesn't that just blow your mind? So it looks like the fellow who wrote the review above has become "just like his mentor" Who - even though Jesus Himself says "the only one he lost is the son of perdition" still does not believe Him.If not a theological statement by a seminary professor - then it is for sure a statement of unbelief. judyt On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:25:43 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Gospel According to Judas - has any of the Critics read this book? Does anyone know -- other than Lance and perhaps Bill (alright !! and maybe G) that the book is much more than a theological statement, perhaps in a sense, not a statement at all? jd judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
[TruthTalk] CSL comparable to Elvis??
The more I read about this fellow the more alarming it becomes. Of course none of it would matter to Lance, but there is much more mixture than I had previously suspected. C. S. Lewis SuperstarHow a reserved British intellectual with a checkered pedigree became a rock star for evangelicals.by Bob Smietana | posted 11/23/2005 10:00 a.m.At first glance, C. S. Lewis and Elvis Presley seem like polar opposites. But a closer look will show that these two cultural icons have a lot in common. Like Elvis, C. S. Lewis had been a soldier. Both men came to fame on the radio. Both men's homes (Graceland and the Kilns) have become pilgrimage sites. Both left behind estates now valued in the millions. And both rose from relative obscurityElvis, a Mississippi truck driver, and Lewis, a tutor at Oxfordto become larger-than-life figures profiled in books and movies and beloved by legions of adoring fans. Like Elvis, even after death, Lewis remains a superstar. Clive Staples Lewis was anything but a classic evangelical, socially or theologically. He smoked cigarettes and a pipe, and he regularly visited pubs to drink beer with friends. Though he shared basic Christian beliefs with evangelicals, he didn't subscribe to biblical inerrancy or penal substitution. He believed in purgatory and baptismal regeneration. How did someone with such a checkered pedigree come to be a theological Elvis Presley, adored by evangelicals? The Problem of PainThe journey begins in 1940, when the world was teetering on the brink of collapse. The Nazis were rampaging across Europe. France had fallen, Hitler had signed a nonaggression pact with the Soviet Union, and only Great Britain stood in the way of Nazi domination of Europe. Theologian J. I. Packer was a schoolboy at the time in England. He recalls being taught about "inevitable progress fueled by scientists who were churning out the idea that science was going to transform the world. Science and education would make everything wonderfully different." Such liberal idealism quickly ran into sin-drenched reality. Packer notes dryly, "In the early months of the Second World War, the plausibility of that began to diminish rapidly." Into this void stepped Lewis, a former atheist and current member of the Church of England. Known to his friends as Jack, his literary success so far had been uninspiring. Sales of his book, The Pilgrim's Regress, had disappointed the publisher, J. M. Dent Sons. In Clive Staples Lewis: A Dramatic Life, William Griffin notes that when Lewis sent Dent a manuscript of his science fiction novel, Out of the Silent Planet, the publisher returned it. But Ashley Sampson, editor of a theological series called the Christian Challenge, had appreciated The Pilgrim's Regress. Sampson asked Lewis to write a book about suffering. Lewis agreed, and in it, rather than promoting "inevitable progress," he argued that pain and suffering are inevitable. Lewis drew on Scripture and Christian tradition to make a rather old-fashioned point. "We are very shy nowadays of even mentioning heaven," Lewis wrote. "We are afraid of the jeer about 'pie in the sky' and of being told that we are trying to 'escape' from the duty of making a happy world here and now into dreams of a happy world elsewhere. But either there is 'pie in the sky,' or there is not. If there is not, then Christianity is false, for this doctrine is written into its whole fabric. If there is, then this truth, like any other, must be faced, whether it is useful at political meetings or not." On the RadioThe Problem of Pain became Lewis's first publishing success. Soon after its release, Lewis received a letter from J. W. Welch, head of religious programming at the BBC. Would Lewis consider recording a series? The idea astounded Lewis, who, Griffin notes, "hardly listened to the radio and could not remember having heard a religious program." Welch suggested two options: a series about Christian influence on modern literature or "a positive restatement of Christian doctrines in lay language." The second appealed to Lewis. He wrote to Welch, telling him he would be glad to help, provided the programs could wait until the summer holidays. In August 1941, Lewis began a series of four 15-minute programs for the BBC, with the assistance of a Presbyterian minister named Eric Fenn. The first series, "Right and Wrong: A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe," was followed by talks on "What Christians Believe" and "Christian Behavior." The three series would form the basis for Lewis's masterwork of apologetics, Mere Christianity. He would appear 29 times on the radio, each with an estimated audience of 600,000 people. The radio talks had to be brief, precisely scripted, approved by BBC censors, and then followed to the letter. Any unexpected pauses, as Justin Phillips pointed out in C. S. Lewis at the BBC, could have allowed the signal to be interrupted by the German
Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable to Elvis??
You missed the Lord of the Rings Lewis and Tolkien - Occult mystery/mythology twins It is most definitely sad, sad, sad. On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:25:33 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is so SAD that the confessing church or Christians run from one FAD to the next! The prayer of jabez The passion movie Now the Narnia movie. When the passion was out churches bought tickets. There were predictions of Revivals Is this the NEW evangelism, buy someone a ticket to Narnia? Why would someone believe that a operation like DISNEY would be a conduit for Christianity? Christians get so EXCITED about a Movie, do they get so excited about Jesus? Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The more I read about this fellow the more alarming it becomes. Of course none of it would matter to Lance, but there is much more mixture than I had previously suspected. C. S. Lewis SuperstarHow a reserved British intellectual with a checkered pedigree became a rock star for evangelicals.by Bob Smietana | posted 11/23/2005 10:00 a.m.At first glance, C. S. Lewis and Elvis Presley seem like polar opposites. But a closer look will show that these two cultural icons have a lot in common. Like Elvis, C. S. Lewis had been a soldier. Both men came to fame on the radio. Both men's homes (Graceland and the Kilns) have become pilgrimage sites. Both left behind estates now valued in the millions. And both rose from relative obscurityElvis, a Mississippi truck driver, and Lewis, a tutor at Oxfordto become larger-than-life figures profiled in books and movies and beloved by legions of adoring fans. Like Elvis, even after death, Lewis remains a superstar. Clive Staples Lewis was anything but a classic evangelical, socially or theologically. He smoked cigarettes and a pipe, and he regularly visited pubs to drink beer with friends. Though he shared basic Christian beliefs with evangelicals, he didn't subscribe to biblical inerrancy or penal substitution. He believed in purgatory and baptismal regeneration. How did someone with such a checkered pedigree come to be a theological Elvis Presley, adored by evangelicals? The Problem of PainThe journey begins in 1940, when the world was teetering on the brink of collapse. The Nazis were rampaging across Europe. France had fallen, Hitler had signed a nonaggression pact with the Soviet Union, and only Great Britain stood in the way of Nazi domination of Europe. Theologian J. I. Packer was a schoolboy at the time in England. He recalls being taught about "inevitable progress fueled by scientists who were churning out the idea that science was going to transform the world. Science and education would make everything wonderfully different." Such liberal idealism quickly ran into sin-drenched reality. Packer notes dryly, "In the early months of the Second World War, the plausibility of that began to diminish rapidly." Into this void stepped Lewis, a former atheist and current member of the Church of England. Known to his friends as Jack, his literary success so far had been uninspiring. Sales of his book, The Pilgrim's Regress, had disappointed the publisher, J. M. Dent Sons. In Clive Staples Lewis: A Dramatic Life, William Griffin notes that when Lewis sent Dent a manuscript of his science fiction novel, Out of the Silent Planet, the publisher returned it. But Ashley Sampson, editor of a theological series called the Christian Challenge, had appreciated The Pilgrim's Regress. Sampson asked Lewis to write a book about suffering. Lewis agreed, and in it, rather than promoting "inevitable progress," he argued that pain and suffering are inevitable. Lewis drew on Scripture and Christian tradition to make a rather old-fashioned point. "We are very shy nowadays of even mentioning heaven," Lewis wrote. "We are afraid of the jeer about 'pie in the sky' and of being told that we are trying to 'escape' from the duty of making a happy world here and now into dreams of a happy world elsewhere. But either there is 'pie in the sky,' or there is not. If there is not, then Christianity is false, for this doctrine is written into its whole fabric. If there is, then this truth, like any other, must be faced, whether it is useful at political meetings or not." On the RadioThe Problem of Pain became Lewis's first publishing success. Soon after its release, Lewis received a letter from J. W. Welch, head of religious programming at the BBC. Would Lewis consider recording a series? The idea astounded Lewis, who, Griffin notes, "hardly listened to the radio and could not remember having heard
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject--AE
I think they did nto have to transgress and if they had not they would have saved themselves and the rest of humanity all of the heartache, suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since then. Why would the Lord want that for them/us? On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:09:38 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you mind if I ask why this subject is so interesting to you??DAVEH: Because the Protestant view seems rather narrow and lacks depth of understanding, as I understand it. I don't mean that to sound offensive, but rather an observation from what I've learned from asking you folks about it. Let me ask you a few questions, Judy. Do you think the Lord wanted AE to know the difference between good and evil? And, if AE had not transgressed, do you think they would have known the difference? Alsodo you think God created AE while knowing that they would definitely transgress, or do you think there was a possibility that they would not transgress?Judy Taylor wrote: You have brought this up in the past on TT DaveH but it didn't last long because there is no place to go with it. By definition all anyone could come up with is their own speculation. God wasn't caught blindsided. He knew and prepared for this "BEFORE the foundation of the world" so it's too late for "shoulda, coulda, woulda" now. Do you mind if I ask why this subject is so interesting to you?? On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 18:42:09 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: DAVEH: May I suggest another topic of interest to me? I am curious as to if any of you folks ever consider what would have happened IF Adam and Eve had not transgressed. Does that discussion ever come up with you folks?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Look -- what are we going to discuss here on TT? Wehave pretty much said all that can be said about any number of subjects. jd-- ~~~ 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. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)-- ~~~ 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. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Separation
So, is Anderson's thesis that because Jesus put up with a false disciple that the wheat should be chummy with all the tares which would be contradictory to Kevin's scriptural evidence for separation/sanctification. On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 06:00:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Two excellent books (available through OCB, of course!) 'The Gospel According to Judas' and, 'Jesus and Judas'. Both are by Ray Anderson. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 05, 2005 23:27 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Separation what's his take on JC theologizin'with Judas, Bro; onJudas experiencg personal fellowship with God at God's request? On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:19:44 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The prince of preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in his statement as to why he separated from the London Baptist Association in 1888 wrote, Complicity with error judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Separation
Oh now that makes a bit more sense - since so much other nonsense comes out of that place. On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 04:01:45 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Consider the source. Fuller Theo.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Two excellent books (available through OCB, of course!) 'The Gospel According to Judas' and, 'Jesus and Judas'. Both are by Ray Anderson. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 05, 2005 23:27 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Separation what's his take on JC theologizin'with Judas, Bro; onJudas experiencg personal fellowship with God at God's request? On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:19:44 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The prince of preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in his statement as to why he separated from the London Baptist Association in 1888 wrote, Complicity with error Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Separation
Yes, Jesus was longsuffering with him all along because He knew but let him hold the purse anyway. Now that's faith. On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 04:06:58 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jesus Loved him but He did not win him.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, is Anderson's thesis that because Jesus put up with a false disciple that the wheat should be chummy with all the tares which would be contradictory to Kevin's scriptural evidence for separation/sanctification. On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 06:00:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Two excellent books (available through OCB, of course!) 'The Gospel According to Judas' and, 'Jesus and Judas'. Both are by Ray Anderson. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: December 05, 2005 23:27 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Separation what's his take on JC theologizin'with Judas, Bro; onJudas experiencg personal fellowship with God at God's request? On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:19:44 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The prince of preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, in his statement as to why he separated from the London Baptist Association in 1888 wrote, Complicity with error judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) Yahoo! PersonalsLet fate take it's course directly to your email.See who's waiting for you Yahoo! Personals judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] Lance advocating unbelieving apocalyptic novels
Judy says 'SINCE SO MUCH OTHER NONSENSE COMES OUT OF THAT PLACE (FULLER SEMINARY) I don't read novels; we are cautioned to guard our hearts with all diligence - As for Fuller, part of their teaching staff did not believe in the inerrance of scripture - also this is where Wagner gave the Rock Musician who began the Signs Wonders and Vineyard Movement (I can't remember his name right now) but he taught Signs Wonders 101 there.As to your most recent observation Well Lance, it's like one man's trash is another man's treasure ... Selah!! On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 07:42:02 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anyone ever read the novel by Joseph Conrad upon which 'Apocalypse Now' was based?(nonsense penultimatesly issues from persons...Judy, Kevin) And David Miller sees you two as the 'high points' of TT? Yikes!! judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
