In a message dated 1/20/2005 6:55:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Donât worry JD, we realize you have bigger problems. J
Don't be so hard on yourself.
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:14:42 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 1/20/2005 2:43:24 AM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Why not explain the interaction below to me in a patient and
lucid manner as a pastor, bishop, beloved
Why -- because you
miss t
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005
8:20 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
In a message dated 1/20/2005 6:17
In a message dated 1/20/2005 6:17:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When you getting your eye-underderstanding coordination
I am wondering if some critics will attack me based on this coordination problem. Let's wait and see.
J
In a message dated 1/20/2005 2:43:24 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not explain the interaction below to me in a patient and lucid manner as a pastor, bishop, beloved
Why -- because you miss the point perhaps 80% of the time. Your bias covers your eys well before you
jt: No John, apparently I don't have a clue what you
were talking about but no point in being the
voice
of the accuser and getting your knickers in a knot.
Why not explain the interaction below to me in a
patient and lucid manner as a pastor, bishop, beloved
etc. or even a normal vanill
In a message dated 1/19/2005 8:45:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
don't have any "teachings" that are my own John; my goal is to agree with the "Teacher" so I can
receive and walk in His doctrine with those who are likeminded. So if you call that "stupid" then that is
betw
In a message dated 1/19/2005 6:15:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a myth wiz, too, eh?
oh, you betcha !! I do much better with criticism from friends than enemies.
J
a myth wiz, too,
eh?
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:09:34 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 1/19/2005 4:57:53 PM Pacific
Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a math wiz, eh:) On Wed, 19
Jan 2005 09:08:19 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
||.. I count only four co
In a message dated 1/19/2005 4:57:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a math wiz, eh:)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:08:19 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
||
.. I count only four contributors on this forum who apprently can't comply. 4 out of 14 contributors..
Alright!! I'v
a math wiz,
eh:)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:08:19 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
||
.. I count only four contributors on this forum who
apprently can't comply. 4 out of 14 contributors..
||
that's the seventh
spiritual life of the cat (seven is the perfect
number)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:00:36 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
||
[the] squeal without the pig thingy may work after
all -- that is if you don't give a care about the
person you criticize.
myth (they're all your
own acc to your own falsifications)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:20:12 -0500 Judy
Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I don't have any "teachings" of my own
||
In a message dated 1/18/2005 4:06:55 PM Pacific Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To call that ad hominem
is straining at gnats IMO. She did not call him any ugly names. She
is criticizing a theology not a person. Izzy (Since you asked.)
So, if I said that her theology wa
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:20:12 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I don't have any "teachings" that are my
own John; my goal is to agree with the "Teacher" so I
can
receive and walk in His
doctrine with those who are likeminded. So if you call that "stupid" then that
I don't have any "teachings" of my own John; my goal is
to agree with the "Teacher" and receive
and walk in His doctrine. If you call that "stupid"
then that is between you and the Lord. I would try
not to take it to heart but it would not be conducive
to any kind of fellowship because you wo
In a message dated 1/19/2005 6:41:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Why not? We should be able to be Berean here which is to compare different teachings alongside the Word of God
How does one insult a teaching it is either true or false and if false it needs to be brought to
In a message dated 1/19/2005 6:41:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:08:19 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about just discussing the validity of the teaching in question?
You can't do that without insulting the person or the teaching itself?
jt:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:08:19 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about just discussing the validity of the
teaching in question?
You can't do that without insulting the
person or the teaching itself?
jt: Why not? We should be able
to be Berean here which is to compare different teach
In a message dated 1/18/2005 5:10:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is my opinion - that this moderation thing is getting too oppressive. When
In a message dated 1/18/2005 4:06:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To call that ad hominem is straining at gnats IMO. She did not call him any ugly names. She is criticizing a theology not a person. Izzy (Since you asked.)
So, if I said that her theology was thoughtless,
LOL!
That was hysterical
Kay
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jeff
PowersSent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2005 16.37To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean
es').
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 18, 2005 20:06
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
It is my opinion - that t
conversationally,
perhaps Pastor S had a reason for sounding pessimistic;
e.g.:
[1.] other posts prove this is not possible; can it be
'ok' while it's false?
[2.]
the denial contains the ban, a contradiction which means in part
that your readers can understand some things..e.g.,
exclu
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:03:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ad hominem?
the hair splitting
distinctions you resort to elicit serious critiques
of your sup/posed dichotomies in (e.g.) wisdom, sin, and
resurrection..mismanaged Bib language yields cult lang/logic persuasive
if you don't want moderation
here, why are you tryg to entrench a post in moderatorese: 'ad
hominem'?
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:03:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
ad hominem?
the hair splitting
distinctions you resort to elicit serious critiques
of your sup/posed dichoto
ad hominem?
the hair splitting
distinctions you resort to elicit serious critiques of your
sup/posed dichotomies in (e.g.) wisdom, sin, and resurrection..mismanaged Bib
language yields cult lang/logic persuasive for certain 'peasants'
who'd be reasong at '~8th gr level'--that's not a cri
orgCc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
It is my opinion - that this moderation thing is
getting too oppressive. When it becomes impossible to dialogue with
another person without
constant nit picking abo
armourselves with the most potent of weapons.That weapon is
prayer.--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 18:40
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Ch
d. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of
every believer/non-believer in the
cosmos.
From: Judy Taylor
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean
ed. I am, by
inference, saying the same thing of every believer/non-believer in the
cosmos.
From:
Judy Taylor
Subject:
what are your
resurrections?
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:36:13 -0500 Judy
Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Not referring to that
resurrection
||
: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
Is this considered an ad hominem? "My belief is that you are in a
time warp, stuck in your cosmic incarnation while
DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrectio
Slade wrote:
> Is this considered an ad hominem? "My
> belief is that you are in a time warp, stuck
> in your cosmic incarnation while DavidM,
> myself and others have moved on to the
> resurrection" Or do we allow the lawyers
> say, "it is not an ad hominem because Judy
> used the term "My belief
Jeff wrote:
> Does that mean that you David Miller are sinless?
No. It means that I do not consciously, actively, sin daily in thought,
word and deed.
On second thought, define sinless.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, th
Not referring to that resurrection 'G' - You will need
to get them straight before making myth
pronouncement.
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:15:30 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
myth [the NT res is not a
cultic evnt; everyone will re resurrectd inc
Lance:)]
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:59:3
myth [the NT res is not a
cultic evnt; everyone will re resurrectd inc Lance:)]
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:59:37 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the
resurrection.
there's a post or two in
play alludg to at least two categories of wisdom..perhaps a semineognostic force
is at work in a virtual cult environment?
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0500
"Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
..[re: certain ppl] in possession of
an 'objective truth' tha
f is?"
--
slade
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy
TaylorSent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2005 08.00To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian t
er.--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov
- Original Message -
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005
11:09
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
In a message dated 1/18/2005
Does that mean that you David Miller are sinless?
- Original Message -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean
anything
Lance wrote:
IFF David is
ly know what he believed about holiness.
thanks,
Lance
- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 18, 2005 07:59
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theo
Sent: January 18, 2005 11:58
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
Hahaha...I found that funny.
Actually, I've heard of the "Sinless Doctrine"from C. Barr and
Daniel Lee.
Run,
JohnRUN!
K
-
Hahaha...I found that funny.
Actually, I've heard of the "Sinless Doctrine"from C. Barr and Daniel
Lee.
Run,
JohnRUN!
K
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2005
11.09To: T
In a message dated 1/18/2005 5:20:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to this in your life then, please say so without ambiguity.
Yes. That is all I am getting at. I thought it was clear until David sent that post talking about
In a message dated 1/18/2005 8:04:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Sorry, John. Some misunderstanding here. In this particular context, I
interpret "battle with sin" as being the struggle one experiences when they
are tempted to sin. A battle can be either won or lost.
John wrote:
> I don't like it when I am talking about one
> thing "sin" and you speak of soemthing
> entirely different "temptation." I do not
> like that at all.
Sorry, John. Some misunderstanding here. In this particular context, I
interpret "battle with sin" as being the struggle one exp
In a message dated 1/18/2005 5:02:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
others have moved on to the resurrection. It is the power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to be free from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence for sin. T
If you think I want David to make clear what is clear to me -- well, then, call it any of your favorite little names. Either he believes that he is a sinner [with current sin problems as opposed to temptation problems] or he doesn't. Since you are the one who challenged this (my assertion
ortals if
your
> >life experience (sinlessness, I think) is identical to his.
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To:
> >Sent: January 18, 2005 09:16
> >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Ch
==
We could all chip in and hire someone to follow David around until they
catch him sinning, but if he doesn't sin then we might all go broke.
Probably better (and cheaper) to take him at his word . Taking him at
his word costs nothing.
T
age -
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: January 18, 2005 09:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean
anything
Lance wrote:
IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
actively, sins daily in thought, word and
J
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of David Miller
Lance wrote:
> IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
> actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed.
Then I guess I am not one of you.
Peace be with you.
Davi
uot;David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: January 18, 2005 09:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean
anything
> Lance wrote:
> > IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
> > actively, sins daily in thought, wor
That is the point in contention—is it
not? Izzy
5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed. I am, by inference, saying the
same thing of every believer/non-believer in the cosmos.
Lance wrote:
> IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
> actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed.
Then I guess I am not one of you.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know
how you ought to answer eve
Sent: January 18, 2005 07:59
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
FWIW Lance, My belief is that you are in a
time warp, stuck in your cosmic incarnation while
DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrection. It is the
p
e of us' then, he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, word and
deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of every
believer/non-believer in the cosmos.
From:
Judy
Taylor
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Tr
ge -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 18, 2005 07:22
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
Thank you for those thoughts Lance. I use "from what
I am, by inference, saying the same thing of every
believer/non-believer in the cosmos.
From:
Judy
Taylor
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
John, some people are able to separate themselves.
From wh
ry.org
Sent: January 18, 2005 06:27
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
John, some people are able to separate themselves.
From what I understand David to say he still gets around in a flesh body
and he
has the same opportunity to sin
John, some people are able to separate themselves. From
what I understand David to say he still gets around in a flesh body and he
has the same opportunity to sin every day as the rest
of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting him? Is this
some kind
of public humiliation?
I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his postings have been very clear on the subject to everyone except Judy.
Here is the question and we can start the discussion from this:
David Miller,. do you have sin in your life to any degree? Consider sins of omission (knowing
In a message dated 1/17/2005 1:29:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Judy wrote:
>>When did DavidM say his battle with sin
>>was over when he received the indwelling
>>Spirit?
John wrote:
>OK -- let's confirm.
>What about this David?
She is correct. I continue to battle w
64 matches
Mail list logo
