[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/26/2004 8:54:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt says What does jt say? I don't see anything in this space. You recently posted an email that addressed both BillT and myself. I think this is what Izzy was talking about. She used the party scenario. jt: No Izzy has an issue that goes back a long. time Mine is the gunslinger scenario. There you are on your white horse, riding down the main street of Dodge, "throwing lead" just as fast as you can pull the trigger. jt: Oh! Not more of this, when are we going to lay aside vain imaginations and deal with what is relevant?You may not believe this, but each person on this list is accomplished in some area of discussion with the possible exception of G. jt: How do you know this in such a short time - and what's wrong with 'G'? Surely you don't accept Izzy's pronouncement about him. She is cryptic and critical, but I find he has a good sense of humor and is good fora laugh. He is also a poet. He may be different but he is not destructive. I avoid those thread I have little interest in, such as the Polanyi discussion. But even in that thread, there has been several posts that I have saved. The Mormon boys are here to probably convert the rest of us which forces some on the list to sharpen their understanding of why they claim the name of Christ and recognize the biblical message as the revelatory kingpin of the faith. Because the message of grace is just as obvious in the Mormon Bible as in ours, the opportunity for commonality is always there with them. jt: They are taught that they have the full revelation and we just have a part. They do not have to reject their faith in order to accept Christ and the larger fellowship of the saints any more than the Jews of the first church had to forsake their sense of religion (Judaism) when they came to a knowledge of Christ. jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be Mormon/Christian any more than you can be Jew/Christian. Christ is all in all. It's Him plus nothing.Jews must give up their rituals and Mormons their heresy. Pick a couple of threads and, if you are not here to learn and receive, then use those threads to shape your ability to communicate. A preacher who has not converts is just another guy who likes to talk. If you are neither improving your personal ability and rhetoric or learning and growing as a result of being on this list, then why are you here? jt: Why would youthink I am not learning and growing?By the way, there really is not an answer to that question. Slow down, unload and grow in your own way. John smithson
[TruthTalk] Fw: **Private Correspondence**
Bill, My fellowship is with God's Word and those who love Him and tremble at His Word. I have no frame of reference for Polyani, Newbegin, andthe psychiatrists/psychologists along with themountains ofreligious folk wholived in times past. The world has no wisdom that is worth anything so far as God is concerned and I don't seeany Overcoming Church that has been passed on to our generation, so why repeatedly go over and overtheir mistakes? It's a new day. God mercies are new every morning. So why not learn from Him and give His Word the respect it is due? The flesh profits nothing. judyt From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy says Newbigin must be an unbeliever also because the mind is not the home of faith. Oh really? Is this all it takes to send someone to hell? Well then brace yourself! Judy, Why are you so quick to judge? Do you want to be judged so hastily? How about if I say you're going to hell because you jumped in the middle of something you did not understand? Would that be right of me? Is that not what you did to Newbigin? You called him an unbeliever because he did not understand the place of faith. Worse yet, you did this before even trying to understand him yourself. You did thisbefore trying to grasp what he was saying, before even asking me for clarification. Are you willing to conclude, therefore, just as hastily that you are an unbeliever? Be careful, lest you send yourself to hell! I began my post to John with these words: "I suppose you got the point of Newbigin -- He was criticizing the dualisms present in the scientific model and not endorsing them." I then went on to show the fallacy of those dualisms: "Faith is inferior to knowledge only if there is indeed a gap between the mind (the home of faith [a charge originating in Enlightenment mentality*]) and the real world (the object of study, the place where certainty dwells [a charge originating in Enlightenment mentality*]). *You would have known this if you would have read the same quote that John was referencing. And you both would have known this if you had been following my posts on Polanyi's understanding of knowledge. There is no need to respond to this, Judy. You bring this stuff on yourself. You don't need to discuss it with me. This is between you and the Lord.He will help you see that thediscussion you need to have is with your own mind, not mine, not Newbigin's -- your own. Judy, this is sin; you need to repent. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:38 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suppose you got the point of Newbigin -- He was criticizing the dualisms present in the scientific model and not endorsing them. Faith is inferior to knowledge only if there is indeed a gap between the mind (the home of faith) and the real world (the object of study, the place wherecertainty dwells). jt: Newbigin must be an unbeliever also because the mind is not the home of faith. Faith resides inthe heart... One may have a heart of faith or an evil heart of unbelief. If the gap is real, then "faith" is subjective and falls under the category of private opinion, and "knowledge" is objective, falling under the heading of public truth. jt: Would you say thatAbraham was full of "private opinion" and walked in public truth? This dualism disappears when we realize that the gap is itself an illusion of our mind, a trick played upon ourselves when we think of knowledge as a picture of reality. Faith and knowledge are compatible because both involve a participation with reality. jt: Whose reality would this be? Rather than competing one against the other forfealty and affection the twointegrate andwork together, each bolstering the other. jt:Faith rests in the promise of an unseen God who is Spirit. What does this have to do with "public truth" and what exactly is public truth? judyt In a message dated 3/25/2004 10:38:58 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Locke's famous definition, belief is 'a persuasion which falls short of knowledge.' Certainty is a matter of knowledge, not of faith.If we understand that persuasion and certainty are the same, these statements contradict. From my point of view, the first is much closer to the truth than the latter. I "know" this to be true because of Paul's use of the concept of faith, especially in Romans 14. The vegetarian's teaching was wrong, hence he is the "weak brother," but he is directed by Paul not to violate his faith, inaccurate as it was. John Smithson
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jt wrote: Our faith should not rest in Church history. Why do you say that God's grace and the blood of the lamb are the answer to all the mess. Do you think that God will validate all of the things you mention above anyway? God's grace and the continual flow of he blood do not validate sin, my dear. But, of course, you know that. God through Christ does not justify sin, but He does justify the sinner. jt: Not without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. Jesus is returning for a Church without spot, wrinkle, and/or blemish. A victorious church. Now that we have cleared that up, something about the point I was making in the email. The professing church is no place for open questioning and heart felt debate.It does not have the mentality for spirited disagreement. jt: Then the professing church should 'examine itself' to see whether or not it is in the faith. And those who disagree have never been in a running debate that placed them on the nontraditional side of the issue.The church has no idea how to handle those who come to the "wrong" conclusion. jt: What's wrong with"Preach theword; (rather than everyone's ideas about it) be instant, in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine" (2 Timothy 4:2) Apparently the blood of Christ protects from moral failing but not from wrong doctrinal decisions. There is much I could say as an indictment against the church. But, of course, God knew that the church would fail if the standard of measurement was right acting. jt:He knew because He is God butHe gave His best so that we might act right; Christ is everything we need for life and godliness; so what's the excuse? He left us an example that we should follow in His steps. His plan for saving man from himself is one that works even when man does not -- even when His church does not. Paul put it this way -- it is before our own master that we either sand or fall and we will be made to stand (kind of Romans 14:4). jt: When we do things God's way we will and this (Rom 14) is in the context of a very young believer and their conscience concerning food. I don't believe God is in the business or propping up an apostate mess that claims to belong to Him. In light of Romans 11, I believe He expects us to grow or we will also be cut off. I get a little ticked when I speak of the professing church -- but God does not and my opinion does not count. jt: How do you know He doesn't get upset? Have you spent much time in the OT? So, yes, God solved the problem. He does exactly the same thing for you and me. I am no better than the church I complain against. Hopefully this helps you to understand at least my point of view. John Smithson jt: I see what you have written John but I don't see your POV in scripture. judyt
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Furthermore, Judy, if I am so difficult to understand, why aren't you being a little more cautious about jumping in the middle of conversations I am having with someone else? Why not stay away from those conversations? You obviously know there is a great potentialforgreater misunderstanding. Maybe the problem is not so much with the words I'm using, but the ones you use. jt: Maybe because it's a public list and it is about Truth which is somethingI am interested in. IMO private parties and private conversations should go off list along with demeaning and critical comments. It's one thing to challenge someone's ideas and another to attack their person. Do you consideryour ideas, Polanyi's and Newbigin's sacred Bill? judyt From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious If you had been respecting my request, you would not even have been asking questions, Judy. BT From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:52 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] jt saysLet me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? Judy, What's wrong with waiting until I have actually said what I wanted to say? I very explicitly and nicely asked you to please hold off judgment on this until I had actually written something.Why were you unwilling to do this? jt: I did not see that it all flowed together Bill and that this was the same as the other. In fact, I have a difficult time trying to figure out what you are saying most of the time.Do you consider asking a question the same as making a judgment? jt Glad we can agree on something Bill - would you say that language is part of our problem? bt: Yes I would. I want to respond to the language part, but in a separate post, one which takes into view some of the things others have been saying.I wonder if we have been doing this all along and this is why there is such confusion. bt: Perhaps, to some extent, I have been(in speaking only for myself). But I would like to ask you to hold off judgment on this one until I get a chance to share in greater detail later on.I'll be exploring the question, Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts betweenGod's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language.Please be patient, Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:03 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious jt: Let me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts between God's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language. John: I would say absolutely not. True understanding is the hopeless victim of a church fragmented by thousands of years of bickering, killing, exclusions, and the like, all in the name of "truth." What are there -- 400 plus denominations? The fractured church is the professing church. Thank God for grace and the eternal flow of the blood of the Lamb. jt: So long as God is still God and the Holy Spirit has a ministry true understanding is not the victim of anything. Our faith should not rest in Church history. Why do you say that God's grace and the blood of the lamb are the answer to all the mess. Do you think that God will validate all of the things you mention above anyway? judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, now that that's settled I guess we can get back to real fellowship. Whose turn is it to bring the meat loaf?
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
1 JN 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. When the spirits say different things there is some lying going on. Proverbs 27 A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished. Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everyone has stuff that "just comes to them" - where it comes from is the question. This is why believers should have spiritual discernment. There are lots of spirits talking all the time. jt Blaine: This is very interesting Izzy. I have had similar experiences. I thought Mormons were the only ones who did this. LOL And how would you define relationship with the Lord? Occasionally, during my running daily conversations/mental mullings with the Lord as Im going through whatever work I am doing, I am startled by an awareness of Him distinctly answering my question. I know the answer came from Him, because it is a thought that I know did not originate with me. It is always a surprising thought because of this. This never ceases to amaze me. I think this is just one example of being in relationship with Him. He is really there. He really interacts with you. And you are aware of it. Awesome! Izzy Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Great wonderful bravo! You guys fawn over one apostate after another. James 2 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great, well said, wonderful, bravo. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Get over it John Do you want Judy to be as wishy washy as some on this list that still have not found the truth?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/26/2004 8:54:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt says You recently posted an email that addressed both BillT and myself. I think this is what Izzy was talking about. She used the party scenario. Mine is the gunslinger scenario. There you are on your white horse, riding down the main street of Dodge, "throwing lead" just as fast as you can pull the trigger. You may not believe this, but each person on this list is accomplished in some area of discussion with the possible exception of G. I avoid those thread I have little interest in, such as the Polanyi discussion. But even in that thread, there has been several posts that I have saved. The Mormon boys are here to probably convert the rest of us which forces some on the list to sharpen their understanding of why they claim the name of Christ and recognize the biblical message as the revelatory kingpin of the faith. Because the message of grace is just as obvious in the Mormon Bible as in ours, the opportunity for commonality is always there with them. They do not have to reject their faith in order to accept Christ and the larger fellowship of the saints any more than the Jews of the first church had to forsake their sense of religion (Judaism) when they came to a knowledge of Christ. Pick a couple of threads and, if you are not here to learn and receive, then use those threads to shape your ability to communicate. A preacher who has not converts is just another guy who likes to talk. If you are neither improving your personal ability and rhetoric or learning and growing as a result of being on this list, then why are you here? By the way, there really is not an answer to that question. Slow down, unload and grow in your own way. John smithson Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Judy, if you will go back to yesterday's posts, you will find that yesterday was the first time since coming to this list thatwe were actually getting along with each other. I thought we had actually begun to get beyond whatever it was that had been putting me on one side of conversations and you on the other. Last night (in mytime zone) you involved yourself in two different conversations that I was having with John. Each time you took issue with something I had said. Each time you responded to something you did not understand -- you were hearing me say one thing; in actuality I was saying something quite different. Neither time did you have enough context to begin to grasp my thread of thought. I am not saying that you should keep your nose out of my discussions -- I welcome the intrusion (I am also aware of the format of TT). However, I would like to suggest that before you intrude upon my next discussion, you familiarize yourself with what it is that I am discussing. Maybe don't come in accusing, but inquiring, if you believe that there is some misunderstanding. This will help us to get along better, if we should ever get back to the point of having gotten along for almost a day. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 5:13 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Furthermore, Judy, if I am so difficult to understand, why aren't you being a little more cautious about jumping in the middle of conversations I am having with someone else? Why not stay away from those conversations? You obviously know there is a great potentialforgreater misunderstanding. Maybe the problem is not so much with the words I'm using, but the ones you use. jt: Maybe because it's a public list and it is about Truth which is somethingI am interested in. IMO private parties and private conversations should go off list along with demeaning and critical comments. It's one thing to challenge someone's ideas and another to attack their person. Do you consideryour ideas, Polanyi's and Newbigin's sacred Bill? judyt From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious If you had been respecting my request, you would not even have been asking questions, Judy. BT From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:52 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] jt saysLet me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? Judy, What's wrong with waiting until I have actually said what I wanted to say? I very explicitly and nicely asked you to please hold off judgment on this until I had actually written something.Why were you unwilling to do this? jt: I did not see that it all flowed together Bill and that this was the same as the other. In fact, I have a difficult time trying to figure out what you are saying most of the time.Do you consider asking a question the same as making a judgment? jt Glad we can agree on something Bill - would you say that language is part of our problem? bt: Yes I would. I want to respond to the language part, but in a separate post, one which takes into view some of the things others have been saying.I wonder if we have been doing this all along and this is why there is such confusion. bt: Perhaps, to some extent, I have been(in speaking only for myself). But I would like to ask you to hold off judgment on this one until I get a chance to share in greater detail later on.I'll be exploring the question, Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts betweenGod's spoken words and words spoken about God, still his but expressed in fresh language.Please be patient, Bill - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:03 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious jt: Let me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Kevin, Past, Kevin. Remember to look for the context. I'm being sarcastic here. Get it? - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 6:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Great wonderful bravo! You guys fawn over one apostate after another. James 2 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great, well said, wonderful, bravo. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
[TruthTalk] Re:Apostate
Not faithful to: religion, party, cause. Is this your meaning? - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 08:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Great wonderful bravo! You guys fawn over one apostate after another. James 2 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great, well said, wonderful, bravo. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
[TruthTalk] Re:Saying vs Meaning
No syntax contains its own semantics. Without overlapping meaning no "meaningful" communication takes place. - Original Message - From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 08:21 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Judy, if you will go back to yesterday's posts, you will find that yesterday was the first time since coming to this list thatwe were actually getting along with each other. I thought we had actually begun to get beyond whatever it was that had been putting me on one side of conversations and you on the other. Last night (in mytime zone) you involved yourself in two different conversations that I was having with John. Each time you took issue with something I had said. Each time you responded to something you did not understand -- you were hearing me say one thing; in actuality I was saying something quite different. Neither time did you have enough context to begin to grasp my thread of thought. I am not saying that you should keep your nose out of my discussions -- I welcome the intrusion (I am also aware of the format of TT). However, I would like to suggest that before you intrude upon my next discussion, you familiarize yourself with what it is that I am discussing. Maybe don't come in accusing, but inquiring, if you believe that there is some misunderstanding. This will help us to get along better, if we should ever get back to the point of having gotten along for almost a day. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 5:13 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Furthermore, Judy, if I am so difficult to understand, why aren't you being a little more cautious about jumping in the middle of conversations I am having with someone else? Why not stay away from those conversations? You obviously know there is a great potentialforgreater misunderstanding. Maybe the problem is not so much with the words I'm using, but the ones you use. jt: Maybe because it's a public list and it is about Truth which is somethingI am interested in. IMO private parties and private conversations should go off list along with demeaning and critical comments. It's one thing to challenge someone's ideas and another to attack their person. Do you consideryour ideas, Polanyi's and Newbigin's sacred Bill? judyt From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:45 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious If you had been respecting my request, you would not even have been asking questions, Judy. BT From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:52 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] jt saysLet me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? Judy, What's wrong with waiting until I have actually said what I wanted to say? I very explicitly and nicely asked you to please hold off judgment on this until I had actually written something.Why were you unwilling to do this? jt: I did not see that it all flowed together Bill and that this was the same as the other. In fact, I have a difficult time trying to figure out what you are saying most of the time.Do you consider asking a question the same as making a judgment? jt Glad we can agree on something Bill - would you say that language is part of our problem? bt: Yes I would. I want to respond to the language part, but in a separate post, one which takes into view some of the things others have been saying.I wonder if we have been doing this all along and this is why there is such confusion. bt: Perhaps, to some extent, I have been(in speaking only for myself). But I would like to ask you to hold off judgment on this one until I get a chance to share in greater detail later on.I'll be exploring the question, Is there room in the professing church for a convergence of sorts betweenGod's spoken words and
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
And I am talking about your love for one heretic after another. You still have not produced one shred of evidence that the men their thoughts thatyou idolizeare Christians. Except that Polyani attended church."Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, Past, Kevin. Remember to look for the context. I'm being sarcastic here. Get it? - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 6:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Great wonderful bravo! You guys fawn over one apostate after another. James 2 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great, well said, wonderful, bravo. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Apostate
Well I would hope that you could figure out God's cause and get behind it.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not faithful to: religion, party, cause. Is this your meaning? - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 08:20 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Great wonderful bravo! You guys fawn over one apostate after another. James 2 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great, well said, wonderful, bravo. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Drop it Kevin. Unless Iam confused about Who you are,I don't need to. Please stop trying to cause trouble. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 6:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI And I am talking about your love for one heretic after another. You still have not produced one shred of evidence that the men their thoughts thatyou idolizeare Christians. Except that Polyani attended church."Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, Past, Kevin. Remember to look for the context. I'm being sarcastic here. Get it? - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 6:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Great wonderful bravo! You guys fawn over one apostate after another. James 2 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great, well said, wonderful, bravo. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
[TruthTalk] Re: Saying vs Meaning
This is what is wrong with the professing Church and has been for generations; smart men (after the flesh) have taken over. God has not made it complicated. If little children can understand then so can we. The reason noone can understand what you say Bill is because your mind is full of the wisdom oftheologians rather than renewed by God's Word. Lance just mentioned books by two ppl who are professors at different Universities. Do you honestly think that ppl on this list willbuy these books and read theirramblings on theology and linguistics in order to understand what you are saying? Why not let God be God and depend on the Holy Spirit and His Word for understanding. He is no respector of any man's person. It's OK to be smart so long as one is humble and subjects his natural reasoning to God and His Word. judyt From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] No syntax contains its own semantics. Without overlapping meaning no "meaningful" communication takes place. From: Wm. Taylor Judy, if you will go back to yesterday's posts, you will find that yesterday was the first time since coming to this list thatwe were actually getting along with each other. I thought we had actually begun to get beyond whatever it was that had been putting me on one side of conversations and you on the other. Last night (in mytime zone) you involved yourself in two different conversations that I was having with John. Each time you took issue with something I had said. Each time you responded to something you did not understand -- you were hearing me say one thing; in actuality I was saying something quite different. Neither time did you have enough context to begin to grasp my thread of thought. I am not saying that you should keep your nose out of my discussions -- I welcome the intrusion (I am also aware of the format of TT). However, I would like to suggest that before you intrude upon my next discussion, you familiarize yourself with what it is that I am discussing. Maybe don't come in accusing, but inquiring, if you believe that there is some misunderstanding. This will help us to get along better, if we should ever get back to the point of having gotten along for almost a day. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Furthermore, Judy, if I am so difficult to understand, why aren't you being a little more cautious about jumping in the middle of conversations I am having with someone else? Why not stay away from those conversations? You obviously know there is a great potentialforgreater misunderstanding. Maybe the problem is not so much with the words I'm using, but the ones you use. jt: Maybe because it's a public list and it is about Truth which is somethingI am interested in. IMO private parties and private conversations should go off list along with demeaning and critical comments. It's one thing to challenge someone's ideas and another to attack their person. Do you consideryour ideas, Polanyi's and Newbigin's sacred Bill? judyt From: Wm. Taylor If you had been respecting my request, you would not even have been asking questions, Judy. BT From: Judy Taylor From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] jt saysLet me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? Judy, What's wrong with waiting until I have actually said what I wanted to say? I very explicitly and nicely asked you to please hold off judgment on this until I had actually written something.Why were you unwilling to do this? jt: I did not see that it all flowed together Bill and that this was the same as the other. In fact, I have a difficult time trying to figure out what you are saying most of the time.Do you consider asking a question the same as making a judgment? jt Glad we can agree on something Bill - would you say that language is part of our problem? bt: Yes I would. I want to respond to the language part, but in a separate post, one which takes into view some of the things others have been saying.I wonder if we have been doing this all along and this is why there is such confusion. bt: Perhaps, to some extent, I have been(in speaking only for myself). But
RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Academics
John, What is your sons specialty? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Academics In a message dated 3/26/2004 6:18:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My dear husband is in academic medicine. He (1) teaches residents at the university the facts he was taught in medical training, (2) he teaches residents the things he has learned by the experience of putting those facts into practice and (3) he does his own personal research to learn new facts, which he can publish and teach others in the future. May we all reach the research stage spiritually, where we actually receive new information from the Lord directly. But we can get bogged down, and stuck, at any stage along the way. Most never get beyond stage one. The reasons why are another post entirely. The short answer is unrepented sin. Izzy My son, my middle son, is just starting his residency. He went to S.F. He is now on Mount Everest doing a study on altitude sickness. Perhaps your husband could give him some direction when he returns from the mountain. John Smithson Izzy -- people like judyt mean well. She is doing the best she can do with her existing assumptions, education, limitations (we all have them) and the like. Her approach is as valuable as Bill's or Miller's or whoever. When she educates, the value is obvious. When she confronts, the value is found in a determined study to overcome her bias (we all have bias) This list is not a church -- thank God. In a church setting, none of us would be allowed to have these discussions. There is NO freedom within the limitations of the church. I attend church, but not for the purpose of learning more about God. I am there to be revisited by His Spirit and affirmed in my faith. That is more important to me, on the occasion that I attend, than the 8,331st sermon on John 3:16, if you get my drift. You stay within the list offers yet another point of view. I firmly believe that judyt gets a great deal out of belonging to the group that we might credit. Hang in there , A pen pal John Smithson
RE: [TruthTalk] Party Manners
G, I know Pollyanna better than I know Polanyi. And you are righttheology really doesnt interest me. However, Im very interested in Jesus and His Word. Izzy PS Its my brother who builds the bombs, and my son who flies the jet fightersnot me.:-) Been to any anti-war demonstrations lately? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Party Manners Hey, you're correct this time, Bill--theology (other than her own)doesn't really interest her.. BUT, it's interesting how much thought she say'sshe put into Polanyi (well, Ithinkthat's what shemeant:) Perhaps all you have to do to convert her, isto console her from Polanyi on the wisdom of building bomb (her)factories..well,perhaps one shouldn't jump the gun, so to speak:) (maybe Polanyi's opposed to war/s--eh?) G On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:35:27 -0700 Wm. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's your party, Izzy. Don't leave.
RE: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Once again, Judy, I would appreciate it if you would stop interjecting yourself into conversations I am having with other people. You are rudely interrupting at the party again. Surely you understand English, so please honor my request. Thank you again. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Everyone has stuff that just comes to them - where it comes from is the question. This is why believers should have spiritual discernment. There are lots of spirits talking all the time. jt Blaine: This is very interesting Izzy. I have had similar experiences. I thought Mormons were the only ones who did this. LOL And how would you define relationship with the Lord? Occasionally, during my running daily conversations/mental mullings with the Lord as Im going through whatever work I am doing, I am startled by an awareness of Him distinctly answering my question. I know the answer came from Him, because it is a thought that I know did not originate with me. It is always a surprising thought because of this. This never ceases to amaze me. I think this is just one example of being in relationship with Him. He is really there. He really interacts with you. And you are aware of it. Awesome! Izzy
[TruthTalk] Party Crashing
jt: I was not addressing you Izzy - this time you are interjecting yourself into a response I wrote to Blaine andpartof your post was needful for clarification. I'm not angry with you so the animosity is one sided. I'm not being rude or mean but it isgood for one to practice what they preach. judyt From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Once again, Judy, I would appreciate it if you would stop interjecting yourself into conversations I am having with other people. You are rudely interrupting at the party again. Surely you understand English, so please honor my request. Thank you again. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:37 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Everyone has stuff that "just comes to them" - where it comes from is the question. This is why believers should have spiritual discernment. There are lots of spirits talking all the time. jt Blaine: This is very interesting Izzy. I have had similar experiences. I thought Mormons were the only ones who did this. LOL And how would you define relationship with the Lord? Occasionally, during my running daily conversations/mental mullings with the Lord as Im going through whatever work I am doing, I am startled by an awareness of Him distinctly answering my question. I know the answer came from Him, because it is a thought that I know did not originate with me. It is always a surprising thought because of this. This never ceases to amaze me. I think this is just one example of being in relationship with Him. He is really there. He really interacts with you. And you are aware of it. Awesome! Izzy
[TruthTalk] Psst ... WILLIAM TAYLOR ...
\o/ !HALALUYah! \o/ Sabbath Greetings in the Matchless NameofYahShua!! Don't look now, but, EVERYONE on TT is going to hell (except for me) UNLESS the Saviour returns before they die since hell is the grave. Psst II: As for where hell will end up for those not granted life eternal? Well, nearly EVERYONE on TT (if not EVERYONE -- me excepted) will end up there ... except they repent of all the APOSTATE Talk on this list. It's very funny to me ... I was the first one to reveal Judy for what she was and was roundly and soundly castigated for it! Now just about EVERYBODY is at it! What is even FUNNIER is that she now writes about the closest to TRUTH of anybody on the list. On occasion she is even completely accurate (like at least a couple times this morning)! Ahava b' YahShua (Love in The SAVIOUR) Baruch YHVH, Bro. Chris a servant of YHVH - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03/27/2004 6:03 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: **Private Correspondence** Bill, My fellowship is with God's Word and those who love Him and tremble at His Word. I have no frame of reference for Polyani, Newbegin, andthe psychiatrists/psychologists along with themountains ofreligious folk wholived in times past. The world has no wisdom that is worth anything so far as God is concerned and I don't seeany Overcoming Church that has been passed on to our generation, so why repeatedly go over and overtheir mistakes? It's a new day. God mercies are new every morning. So why not learn from Him and give His Word the respect it is due? The flesh profits nothing. judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy says Newbigin must be an unbeliever also because the mind is not the home of faith. Oh really? Is this all it takes to send someone to hell? Well then brace yourself! Judy, Why are you so quick to judge? Do you want to be judged so hastily? How about if I say you're going to hell because you jumped in the middle of something you did not understand? Would that be right of me? Is that not what you did to Newbigin? You called him an unbeliever because he did not understand the place of faith. Worse yet, you did this before even trying to understand him yourself. You did thisbefore trying to grasp what he was saying, before even asking me for clarification. Are you willing to conclude, therefore, just as hastily that you are an unbeliever? Be careful, lest you send yourself to hell! I began my post to John with these words: "I suppose you got the point of Newbigin -- He was criticizing the dualisms present in the scientific model and not endorsing them." I then went on to show the fallacy of those dualisms: "Faith is inferior to knowledge only if there is indeed a gap between the mind (the home of faith [a charge originating in Enlightenment mentality*]) and the real world (the object of study, the place where certainty dwells [a charge originating in Enlightenment mentality*]). *You would have known this if you would have read the same quote that John was referencing. And you both would have known this if you had been following my posts on Polanyi's understanding of knowledge. There is no need to respond to this, Judy. You bring this stuff on yourself. You don't need to discuss it with me. This is between you and the Lord.He will help you see that thediscussion you need to have is with your own mind, not mine, not Newbigin's -- your own. Judy, this is sin; you need to repent. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:38 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I suppose you got the point of Newbigin -- He was criticizing the dualisms present in the scientific model and not endorsing them. Faith is inferior to knowledge only if there is indeed a gap between the mind (the home of faith) and the real world (the object of study, the place wherecertainty dwells). jt: Newbigin must be an unbeliever also because the mind is not the home of faith. Faith resides inthe heart... One may have a heart of faith or an evil heart of unbelief. If the gap is real, then "faith" is subjective and falls under the category of private opinion, and "knowledge" is objective, falling under the heading of public truth. jt: Would you say thatAbraham was full of "private opinion" and walked in public truth? This dualism disappears when we realize that the gap is itself an illusion of our mind, a trick played upon ourselves when we think of knowledge as a picture of reality. Faith and knowledge are compatible because both involve a
[TruthTalk] Response to JOHN
John Smithson writes:Izzy -- people like judyt mean well. She is doing the best she can do with her existing assumptions, education, limitations (we all have them) and the like. Her approach is as valuable as Bill's or Miller's or whoever. When she educates, the value is obvious. When she confronts, the value is found in a determined study to overcome her bias (we all have bias) This list is not a church -- thank God. In a church setting, none of us would be allowed to have these discussions. There is NO freedom within the limitations of the church. jt: Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty so what you are saying is that the Church you attend is sans Holy Spirit. I attend church, but not for the purpose of learning more about God. I am there to be revisited by His Spirit and affirmed in my faith. jt: No liberty, no Spirit. What are you being visited and affirmed by? Are you sure they are not religious spirits posing as the real thing? That is more important to me, on the occasion that I attend, than the 8,331st sermon on John 3:16, if you get my drift. You stay within the list offers yet another point of view. I firmly believe that judyt gets a great deal out of belonging to the group that we might credit. jt: Is the above conclusion the fruit of your existing assumptions, education, and limitations John? Are you writing this to overcome your own bias? I dont have a sense of belonging to a group because there is no unity here other than everyone names the name of Christ; we are not ONE in the Spiritand there certainly is no love. Until God and His Word have preeminenceI dont expect things to change in which case I may have to go the way of Vincent which should please Izzy. judyt
RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Judy, Since you are slandering me publicly, I must state I have NO IDEA what issue you are referring to. If there is something you are feeling guilty about from the past, please be assured that I dont even remember it. I would appreciate it if you would make your disparaging remarks about me off-line. Thank you, again. Izzy You recently posted an email that addressed both BillT and myself. I think this is what Izzy was talking about. She used the party scenario. jt: No Izzy has an issue that goes back a long. time Surely you don't accept Izzy's pronouncement about him. She is cryptic and critical
[TruthTalk] Re:Further on SvsM
It's not what you say but what you mean when you say it that I, for one, find disagreeable.Do you understand the distinction between syntax and semantics? Lance.- From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 08:41 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re: Saying vs Meaning This is what is wrong with the professing Church and has been for generations; smart men (after the flesh) have taken over. God has not made it complicated. If little children can understand then so can we. The reason noone can understand what you say Bill is because your mind is full of the wisdom oftheologians rather than renewed by God's Word. Lance just mentioned books by two ppl who are professors at different Universities. Do you honestly think that ppl on this list willbuy these books and read theirramblings on theology and linguistics in order to understand what you are saying? Why not let God be God and depend on the Holy Spirit and His Word for understanding. He is no respector of any man's person. It's OK to be smart so long as one is humble and subjects his natural reasoning to God and His Word. judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] No syntax contains its own semantics. Without overlapping meaning no "meaningful" communication takes place. From: Wm. Taylor Judy, if you will go back to yesterday's posts, you will find that yesterday was the first time since coming to this list thatwe were actually getting along with each other. I thought we had actually begun to get beyond whatever it was that had been putting me on one side of conversations and you on the other. Last night (in mytime zone) you involved yourself in two different conversations that I was having with John. Each time you took issue with something I had said. Each time you responded to something you did not understand -- you were hearing me say one thing; in actuality I was saying something quite different. Neither time did you have enough context to begin to grasp my thread of thought. I am not saying that you should keep your nose out of my discussions -- I welcome the intrusion (I am also aware of the format of TT). However, I would like to suggest that before you intrude upon my next discussion, you familiarize yourself with what it is that I am discussing. Maybe don't come in accusing, but inquiring, if you believe that there is some misunderstanding. This will help us to get along better, if we should ever get back to the point of having gotten along for almost a day. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Furthermore, Judy, if I am so difficult to understand, why aren't you being a little more cautious about jumping in the middle of conversations I am having with someone else? Why not stay away from those conversations? You obviously know there is a great potentialforgreater misunderstanding. Maybe the problem is not so much with the words I'm using, but the ones you use. jt: Maybe because it's a public list and it is about Truth which is somethingI am interested in. IMO private parties and private conversations should go off list along with demeaning and critical comments. It's one thing to challenge someone's ideas and another to attack their person. Do you consideryour ideas, Polanyi's and Newbigin's sacred Bill? judyt From: Wm. Taylor If you had been respecting my request, you would not even have been asking questions, Judy. BT From: Judy Taylor From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] jt saysLet me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? Judy, What's wrong with waiting until I have actually said what I wanted to say? I very explicitly and nicely asked you to please hold off judgment on this until I had actually written something.Why were you unwilling to do this? jt: I did not see that it all flowed together Bill and that this was the same as the other. In fact, I have a difficult time trying to figure out what you are saying most of the time.Do you consider asking a question
[TruthTalk] Prayer request.
Dear TruthTalkers, I suggest we spend the rest of this day praying for TruthTalk, and doing spiritual warfare against demonic spirits being sent to cause contention, strife, rudeness and accusations. There is something happening here to try to take our eyes off of Jesus Christ and His glory. May the Lord rebuke every demonic spirit and glorify Himself. TruthTalk belongs to the Lord, and not to the devil, in the name of Jesus. Izzy
[TruthTalk] Re:Further on SvsM
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not what you say but what you mean when you say it that I, for one, find disagreeable. Do you understand the distinction between syntax and semantics? Lance.- jt: You have no ideawhat I mean when I say things Lance. If you did then you would not have accused me of "sucker punching" Bill every time he wrote something to the list; and FTR, no I don't understand the distinction bettween SS Why do I need to? judyt From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 08:41 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re: Saying vs Meaning This is what is wrong with the professing Church and has been for generations; smart men (after the flesh) have taken over. God has not made it complicated. If little children can understand then so can we. The reason noone can understand what you say Bill is because your mind is full of the wisdom oftheologians rather than renewed by God's Word. Lance just mentioned books by two ppl who are professors at different Universities. Do you honestly think that ppl on this list willbuy these books and read theirramblings on theology and linguistics in order to understand what you are saying? Why not let God be God and depend on the Holy Spirit and His Word for understanding. He is no respector of any man's person. It's OK to be smart so long as one is humble and subjects his natural reasoning to God and His Word. judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] No syntax contains its own semantics. Without overlapping meaning no "meaningful" communication takes place. From: Wm. Taylor Judy, if you will go back to yesterday's posts, you will find that yesterday was the first time since coming to this list thatwe were actually getting along with each other. I thought we had actually begun to get beyond whatever it was that had been putting me on one side of conversations and you on the other. Last night (in mytime zone) you involved yourself in two different conversations that I was having with John. Each time you took issue with something I had said. Each time you responded to something you did not understand -- you were hearing me say one thing; in actuality I was saying something quite different. Neither time did you have enough context to begin to grasp my thread of thought. I am not saying that you should keep your nose out of my discussions -- I welcome the intrusion (I am also aware of the format of TT). However, I would like to suggest that before you intrude upon my next discussion, you familiarize yourself with what it is that I am discussing. Maybe don't come in accusing, but inquiring, if you believe that there is some misunderstanding. This will help us to get along better, if we should ever get back to the point of having gotten along for almost a day. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Furthermore, Judy, if I am so difficult to understand, why aren't you being a little more cautious about jumping in the middle of conversations I am having with someone else? Why not stay away from those conversations? You obviously know there is a great potentialforgreater misunderstanding. Maybe the problem is not so much with the words I'm using, but the ones you use. jt: Maybe because it's a public list and it is about Truth which is somethingI am interested in. IMO private parties and private conversations should go off list along with demeaning and critical comments. It's one thing to challenge someone's ideas and another to attack their person. Do you consideryour ideas, Polanyi's and Newbigin's sacred Bill? judyt From: Wm. Taylor If you had been respecting my request, you would not even have been asking questions, Judy. BT From: Judy Taylor From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] jt saysLet me try and get this straight. Bill are you asking if it is OK to add to or subtract from God's Word? I know you would not call it that but I've heard so much about wordsmithing in recent days - what's wrong with calling things what God has called them in His Words? Judy, What's wrong with waiting until I have actually said what I wanted to say? I very explicitly and nicely asked you to please hold off judgment on this until I had actually written something.Why were you unwilling to do this?
[TruthTalk] Re:Demonic vs Normal
For 16 years I've engaged Christians in conversation in our bookstore. Sadly, Izzy many sound just like TT. They'll "fight" at the drop of the proverbial hat. You name it and, they'll tell you what the correct understanding of Scripture is on "it". I wrote in an earlier post something like: "Oh ya? well my Dad (read Truth) can beat up your Dad(read Truth). The diversity that exists outside the church exists inside the church. I'm afraid that this side of eternity there will be no unity. Whatever John 17 is about it ain't about this. Lance From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 10:12 Subject: [TruthTalk] Prayer request. Dear TruthTalkers, I suggest we spend the rest of this day praying for TruthTalk, and doing spiritual warfare against demonic spirits being sent to cause contention, strife, rudeness and accusations. There is something happening here to try to take our eyes off of Jesus Christ and His glory. May the Lord rebuke every demonic spirit and glorify Himself. TruthTalk belongs to the Lord, and not to the devil, in the name of Jesus. Izzy
[TruthTalk] Re:MEANING
When your meaning is not apprehended no genuine communication takes place.Citing scripture even when both persons are Christians, is no guarantee of a "meaningful" exchange of truth. Neither need be described as dumb, intractible, malicious etc. Examples of this abound on TT. Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 10:28 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Further on SvsM From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not what you say but what you mean when you say it that I, for one, find disagreeable. Do you understand the distinction between syntax and semantics? Lance.- jt: You have no ideawhat I mean when I say things Lance. If you did then you would not have accused me of "sucker punching" Bill every time he wrote something to the list; and FTR, no I don't understand the distinction bettween SS Why do I need to? judyt From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 08:41 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re: Saying vs Meaning This is what is wrong with the professing Church and has been for generations; smart men (after the flesh) have taken over. God has not made it complicated. If little children can understand then so can we. The reason noone can understand what you say Bill is because your mind is full of the wisdom oftheologians rather than renewed by God's Word. Lance just mentioned books by two ppl who are professors at different Universities. Do you honestly think that ppl on this list willbuy these books and read theirramblings on theology and linguistics in order to understand what you are saying? Why not let God be God and depend on the Holy Spirit and His Word for understanding. He is no respector of any man's person. It's OK to be smart so long as one is humble and subjects his natural reasoning to God and His Word. judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] No syntax contains its own semantics. Without overlapping meaning no "meaningful" communication takes place. From: Wm. Taylor Judy, if you will go back to yesterday's posts, you will find that yesterday was the first time since coming to this list thatwe were actually getting along with each other. I thought we had actually begun to get beyond whatever it was that had been putting me on one side of conversations and you on the other. Last night (in mytime zone) you involved yourself in two different conversations that I was having with John. Each time you took issue with something I had said. Each time you responded to something you did not understand -- you were hearing me say one thing; in actuality I was saying something quite different. Neither time did you have enough context to begin to grasp my thread of thought. I am not saying that you should keep your nose out of my discussions -- I welcome the intrusion (I am also aware of the format of TT). However, I would like to suggest that before you intrude upon my next discussion, you familiarize yourself with what it is that I am discussing. Maybe don't come in accusing, but inquiring, if you believe that there is some misunderstanding. This will help us to get along better, if we should ever get back to the point of having gotten along for almost a day. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Furthermore, Judy, if I am so difficult to understand, why aren't you being a little more cautious about jumping in the middle of conversations I am having with someone else? Why not stay away from those conversations? You obviously know there is a great potentialforgreater misunderstanding. Maybe the problem is not so much with the words I'm using, but the ones you use. jt: Maybe because it's a public list and it is about Truth which is somethingI am interested in. IMO private parties and private conversations should go off list along with demeaning and critical comments. It's one thing to challenge someone's ideas and another to attack their person. Do you consideryour ideas, Polanyi's and Newbigin's sacred Bill? judyt From: Wm. Taylor If you had been respecting my request, you would not even have been asking questions, Judy. BT From: Judy Taylor From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] jt saysLet me try and get
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? What is your message of hope to the addicted? And the guy in South Africa who has never heard of Christ? And the gang banger who was molested by a minister and rejects "religion" out of hand because of that experience? Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things. Some people just do not have the smarts to understand sme things but can grasp others. Rather than answer all your objections, I have decided that our thread is better served to limit the discussion somewhat. I believe the above gets to the heart of our disagreement. Looking forward to your response. John Smithson
[TruthTalk] Re:Sequence: Forgiveness then repentance
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 11:03 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? What is your message of hope to the addicted? And the guy in South Africa who has never heard of Christ? And the gang banger who was molested by a minister and rejects "religion" out of hand because of that experience? Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things. Some people just do not have the smarts to understand sme things but can grasp others. Rather than answer all your objections, I have decided that our thread is better served to limit the discussion somewhat. I believe the above gets to the heart of our disagreement. Looking forward to your response. John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:04:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be Mormon/Christian any more than you can be Jew/Christian. Regarding the Jew/Christian thing: read Acts 21. More than that -- virtually all of Paul's problems in the church was caused by a brand of legalism called Judaism. Alexander the copper smith was probably a Jew/Christian. I personally believe that Alexander was yhe reason Paul was prosecuted unto death (Alexander has cause me much harm). Evidence of the Jewish church is abundant in both Romans and Hebrews. It is just very short sighted to NOT see the Jewish/Christian church in the biblical message. It is actually everywhere. Anyway -- I have to clean the pool. It is a great day here in Fresno. John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Academics
In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:59:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, What is your sons specialty? Izzy Right now he is hinking ER J
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. john: What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? jt: The preaching of the cross should convict the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come and God anoints/empowers His Words, not our substitutes. john: The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" jt: Faith without corresponding actions is dead. I know Luther didn't like this but it is so. Salvation is a faith walk, not a one time prayer and the blood only cleanses the conscience when we come to the throne of grace in time of need. john: And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? jt: God accepts faith with corresponding actions. Abraham is our example being the father of faith. He was willing to go to the mountain with firewood and the son of promise. God likes this kind of faith. Passive acceptance does not move Him and there is no way to make it without His empowerment. john: What is your message of hope to the addicted? jt: The truth will make the addicted free if they are willing to act on it. john: And the guy in South Africa who has never heard of Christ? jt: God is faithful and the Good News will be preached to the world before the end comes. john: And the gang banger who was molested by a minister and rejects "religion" out of hand because of that experience? jt: He may be better off than the dead 'religious' because he sees it for what it is. God's mercy is available to him also; the professing church is full of the wounded and walking dead. john: Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things. jt: IQ is fine when submitted to the word and the will of God, being smart after the flesh won't profit.Obedience is what counts. john: Some people just do not have the smarts to understand some things but can grasp others. jt: Noone has the whole loaf. Jesus keeps us dependent upon himself and this iswhy when he ascended he gave gifts to men which are dispensed by the Holy Spirit as HE WILLS. However, since the CofC is against music they are most likely closed to 1 Corinthians 12 also as are some other denominations so the professing church today is powerless and divided. All we can receiveare a few crumbs. judyt
[TruthTalk] Re: Sequence: Forgiveness then repentance
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sequence = forgiveness then repentance jt: Can we agree that Jesus came toforgive? So why was John the Baptist sent to prepare the way for him? What was the message of John the Baptist? I rest my case... judyt From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ot without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? What is your message of hope to the addicted? And the guy in South Africa who has never heard of Christ? And the gang banger who was molested by a minister and rejects "religion" out of hand because of that experience? Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things. Some people just do not have the smarts to understand sme things but can grasp others. Rather than answer all your objections, I have decided that our thread is better served to limit the discussion somewhat. I believe the above gets to the heart of our disagreement. Looking forward to your response. John Smithson
[TruthTalk] Re:Unconditional: God's Love God's forgiveness
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 11:43 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re: Sequence: Forgiveness then repentance From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sequence = forgiveness then repentance jt: Can we agree that Jesus came toforgive? So why was John the Baptist sent to prepare the way for him? What was the message of John the Baptist? I rest my case... judyt From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ot without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? What is your message of hope to the addicted? And the guy in South Africa who has never heard of Christ? And the gang banger who was molested by a minister and rejects "religion" out of hand because of that experience? Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things. Some people just do not have the smarts to understand sme things but can grasp others. Rather than answer all your objections, I have decided that our thread is better served to limit the discussion somewhat. I believe the above gets to the heart of our disagreement. Looking forward to your response. John Smithson
[TruthTalk] Re:MEANING
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] When your meaning is not apprehended no genuine communication takes place.Citing scripture even when both persons are Christians, is no guarantee of a "meaningful" exchange of truth. jt: Wouldn't you say it makes more sense for us to gather around God's Word than the thoughts of these university professors and theologians? Especially since there is just ONE mediator between God and man. Neither need be described as dumb, intractible, malicious etc. Examples of this abound on TT. Lance jt: Are you saying that examples of ungodly behavior abound on TT Lance? I ask because I am not sure what you mean? judyt From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 10:28 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Further on SvsM From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not what you say but what you mean when you say it that I, for one, find disagreeable. Do you understand the distinction between syntax and semantics? Lance.- jt: You have no ideawhat I mean when I say things Lance. If you did then you would not have accused me of "sucker punching" Bill every time he wrote something to the list; and FTR, no I don't understand the distinction bettween SS Why do I need to? judyt From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 08:41 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re: Saying vs Meaning This is what is wrong with the professing Church and has been for generations; smart men (after the flesh) have taken over. God has not made it complicated. If little children can understand then so can we. The reason noone can understand what you say Bill is because your mind is full of the wisdom oftheologians rather than renewed by God's Word. Lance just mentioned books by two ppl who are professors at different Universities. Do you honestly think that ppl on this list willbuy these books and read theirramblings on theology and linguistics in order to understand what you are saying? Why not let God be God and depend on the Holy Spirit and His Word for understanding. He is no respector of any man's person. It's OK to be smart so long as one is humble and subjects his natural reasoning to God and His Word. judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] No syntax contains its own semantics. Without overlapping meaning no "meaningful" communication takes place. From: Wm. Taylor Judy, if you will go back to yesterday's posts, you will find that yesterday was the first time since coming to this list thatwe were actually getting along with each other. I thought we had actually begun to get beyond whatever it was that had been putting me on one side of conversations and you on the other. Last night (in mytime zone) you involved yourself in two different conversations that I was having with John. Each time you took issue with something I had said. Each time you responded to something you did not understand -- you were hearing me say one thing; in actuality I was saying something quite different. Neither time did you have enough context to begin to grasp my thread of thought. I am not saying that you should keep your nose out of my discussions -- I welcome the intrusion (I am also aware of the format of TT). However, I would like to suggest that before you intrude upon my next discussion, you familiarize yourself with what it is that I am discussing. Maybe don't come in accusing, but inquiring, if you believe that there is some misunderstanding. This will help us to get along better, if we should ever get back to the point of having gotten along for almost a day. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Furthermore, Judy, if I am so difficult to understand, why aren't you being a little more cautious about jumping in the middle of conversations I am having with someone else? Why not stay away from those conversations? You obviously know there is a great potentialforgreater misunderstanding. Maybe the problem is not so much with the words I'm using, but the ones you use. jt: Maybe because it's a public list and it is about Truth which is somethingI am interested in. IMO private parties and private conversations should go off list along with demeaning and critical comments. It's one thing to challenge someone's ideas and another to attack their person. Do you consideryour ideas, Polanyi's and Newbigin's sacred Bill? judyt
[TruthTalk] Re:Unconditional: God's Love God's forgiveness
- Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 11:43 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re: Sequence: Forgiveness then repentance From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sequence = forgiveness then repentance jt: Can we agree that Jesus came toforgive? So why was John the Baptist sent to prepare the way for him? What was the message of John the Baptist? I rest my case... judyt From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ot without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? What is your message of hope to the addicted? And the guy in South Africa who has never heard of Christ? And the gang banger who was molested by a minister and rejects "religion" out of hand because of that experience? Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things. Some people just do not have the smarts to understand sme things but can grasp others. Rather than answer all your objections, I have decided that our thread is better served to limit the discussion somewhat. I believe the above gets to the heart of our disagreement. Looking forward to your response. John Smithson
Fw: [TruthTalk] Re:Unconditional: God's Love God's forgiveness
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unconditional: God's Love God's forgiveness jt: If the above is so then why did Jesus tell those he healed to "Go and sin no more lest a worse thing come upon you?" and why is the professing Church dressed in the curse and no different from the world in outward appearance. judyt From: Judy Taylor From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sequence = forgiveness then repentance jt: Can we agree that Jesus came toforgive? So why was John the Baptist sent to prepare the way for him? What was the message of John the Baptist? I rest my case... judyt From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ot without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? What is your message of hope to the addicted? And the guy in South Africa who has never heard of Christ? And the gang banger who was molested by a minister and rejects "religion" out of hand because of that experience? Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things. Some people just do not have the smarts to understand sme things but can grasp others. Rather than answer all your objections, I have decided that our thread is better served to limit the discussion somewhat. I believe the above gets to the heart of our disagreement. Looking forward to your response. John Smithson
[TruthTalk] Re:Billy Crystal in Mr Saturday Night
His recurring question was "did you see what I did there"? This was when he took something and turned it on its head thus making convoluted that which was essentially clear prior to his doing his "thing". Not only did I see what you did there, Judy, but anyone capable of reading also saw. Comic relief, even when unintended (or whas it?) can be pleasant can it not?? Thanks for the smile. Lance From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 11:53 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:MEANING From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] When your meaning is not apprehended no genuine communication takes place.Citing scripture even when both persons are Christians, is no guarantee of a "meaningful" exchange of truth. jt: Wouldn't you say it makes more sense for us to gather around God's Word than the thoughts of these university professors and theologians? Especially since there is just ONE mediator between God and man. Neither need be described as dumb, intractible, malicious etc. Examples of this abound on TT. Lance jt: Are you saying that examples of ungodly behavior abound on TT Lance? I ask because I am not sure what you mean? judyt From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 10:28 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Further on SvsM From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not what you say but what you mean when you say it that I, for one, find disagreeable. Do you understand the distinction between syntax and semantics? Lance.- jt: You have no ideawhat I mean when I say things Lance. If you did then you would not have accused me of "sucker punching" Bill every time he wrote something to the list; and FTR, no I don't understand the distinction bettween SS Why do I need to? judyt From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 08:41 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re: Saying vs Meaning This is what is wrong with the professing Church and has been for generations; smart men (after the flesh) have taken over. God has not made it complicated. If little children can understand then so can we. The reason noone can understand what you say Bill is because your mind is full of the wisdom oftheologians rather than renewed by God's Word. Lance just mentioned books by two ppl who are professors at different Universities. Do you honestly think that ppl on this list willbuy these books and read theirramblings on theology and linguistics in order to understand what you are saying? Why not let God be God and depend on the Holy Spirit and His Word for understanding. He is no respector of any man's person. It's OK to be smart so long as one is humble and subjects his natural reasoning to God and His Word. judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] No syntax contains its own semantics. Without overlapping meaning no "meaningful" communication takes place. From: Wm. Taylor Judy, if you will go back to yesterday's posts, you will find that yesterday was the first time since coming to this list thatwe were actually getting along with each other. I thought we had actually begun to get beyond whatever it was that had been putting me on one side of conversations and you on the other. Last night (in mytime zone) you involved yourself in two different conversations that I was having with John. Each time you took issue with something I had said. Each time you responded to something you did not understand -- you were hearing me say one thing; in actuality I was saying something quite different. Neither time did you have enough context to begin to grasp my thread of thought. I am not saying that you should keep your nose out of my discussions -- I welcome the intrusion (I am also aware of the format of TT). However, I would like to suggest that before you intrude upon my next discussion, you familiarize yourself with what it is that I am discussing. Maybe don't come in accusing, but inquiring, if you believe that there is some misunderstanding. This will help us to get along better, if we should ever get back to the point of having gotten along for almost a day. Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor From: "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Furthermore, Judy, if I am so difficult to understand, why aren't you being a little more cautious about jumping in the middle of conversations I am having with someone else? Why not stay
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:04:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jt: Where would you come up with an idea like that? You can not be Mormon/Christian any more than you can be Jew/Christian. john: Regarding the Jew/Christian thing: read Acts 21. jt: I just recently went over all this with DavidM; Agabus prophesied by the Spirit of God and in spite of Paul listening to the elders and going to the temple the Jews bound him anyway. john: More than that -- virtually all of Paul's problems in the church was caused by a brand of legalism called Judaism. Alexander the copper smith was probably a Jew/Christian. I personally believe that Alexander was the reason Paul was prosecuted unto death (Alexander has cause me much harm). jt: I agree with you about Paul's problems but these Jews were not 'in the faith' Look at what Paul writes to the church at Galatia who had come under their influence. "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him who called you into the grace of Christ unto ANOTHER GOSPEL which is not another; but there would be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ" and in Chapter 3 "O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you that you should not obey the truth" john: Evidence of the Jewish church is abundant in both Romans and Hebrews. It is just very short sighted to NOT see the Jewish/Christian church in the biblical message. It is actually everywhere. jt: There are Jews who say they are Christian. However, if they have put themselves back under the Levitical law their faith is in vain. It's obeying the truth that get's one into the right Kingdom. Jesus now has the covenant and he is the mediator, not the law of Moses.john: Anyway -- I have to clean the pool. It is a great day here in Fresno. jt: It's nice in Virginia today also, spring is in the air. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/27/2004 8:40:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Wow. There are so many things we disagree on. Pick ONE of the following and stay with it, judy. I will respond to all your commits -- which I never do. But to illustrate just how far apart we are, here I go. My current remarks are in caps. John From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. john: What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? jt: The preaching of the cross should convict the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come and God anoints/empowers His Words, not our substitutes. YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION UNLESS YOU THINK THAT PETER ON PENTECOST DAY SOLVED ALL THE DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS OF THE THOUSANDS OF JEWS WHO WERE SAVED ON THAT DAY -- A RATHER SILLY IDEA, I MUST ADD. john: The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" jt: Faith without corresponding actions is dead. I know Luther didn't like this but it is so. Salvation is a faith walk, not a one time prayer and the blood only cleanses the conscience when we come to the throne of grace in time of need. I DON'T CARE ABOUT LUTHER AT THIS JUNCTURE. READ ROMANS THREE AND FOUR AND TELL ME HOW WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH APART FROM OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMANDMENS OF GOD. THAT IS WHAT PAUL SAID. JAMES IS TALKING ABOUT THE _expression_ OF FAITH IN BENEVOLENT ACTIVITY AND ALL OF HIS EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATE THAT SPECIFIC POINT. BUT DO NOT ARGUE THAT MATTER. LET'S JUST STICK WITH WHAT PAUL SAID. john: And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? jt: God accepts faith with corresponding actions. Abraham is our example being the father of faith. He was willing to go to the mountain with firewood and the son of promise. God likes this kind of faith. Passive acceptance does not move Him and there is no way to make it without His empowerment. EXCEPT FOR THE GUY IN ROMANS 2:12FF. AND YOUR EXAMPLE OF ABRAHAM IS NOT THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENT PAUL IS MAKING. GO BACK AND READ ROMANS 4. THE POINT IS THAT ABRAHAM COULD DO NOTHING BUT ACCEPT WHAT GOD SAID ABOUT HIS (ABRAHAM'S) OFFSPRING -- THAt IS THE BIBLICAL EXAMPLE. john: What is your message of hope to the addicted? jt: The truth will make the addicted free if they are willing to act on it. ROMANS 7 DESCRIBES THE ADDICTED -- TO A TEE. VERSE 25 CLEARLY SAYS THAT HIS PROBLEM CONTINUES BUT (8:1) WITHOUT CONDEMNATION. tHE GLORY OF THE GOSPEL BY GRACE IS THAT THE ADDICT HAS ALL THE TIME HE NEEDS TO OVERCOME HIS PROBLEM. YOU SAY THAT HE HAS NO TIME. NONSENSE. john: And the guy in South Africa who has never heard of Christ? jt: God is faithful and the Good News will be preached to the world before the end comes. THE GUY DIED YESTERDAY. NOW WHAT. john: And the gang banger who was molested by a minister and rejects "religion" out of hand because of that experience? jt: He may be better off than the dead 'religious' because he sees it for what it is. God's mercy is available to him also; the professing church is full of the wounded and walking dead. APPARENTLY NOT IN YOUR CHURCH. AS I READ YOUR GOSPEL, ALL THEIR SIN PROBLEMS HAVE VANIISHED. john: Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things. jt: IQ is fine when submitted to the word and the will of God, being smart after the flesh won't profit. Obedience is what counts. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE WALKING DUMB. THE BORDERLINE GUYS. MY POST IS CLEAR ON THAT. YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY READ THE POST BEFORE YOU START YOUR RESPONSE. john: Some people just do not have the smarts to understand some things but can grasp others. jt: Noone has the whole loaf. Jesus keeps us dependent upon himself and this is why when he ascended he gave gifts to men which are dispensed by the Holy Spirit as HE WILLS. However, since the CofC is against music they are most likely closed to 1 Corinthians 12 also as are some other denominations so the professing church today is powerless and divided. All we can receive are a few crumbs. NOT SURE WHY YOU THREW IN THE SLAM AGAINST THE C OF C. I AM FOURSQUARE BY DENOMINATIONAL CHOICE. SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT ONE OF GOD'S GIFTS IS A SMART PILL TO THE EFFECTUAL DUMB? judyt ACTUALLY, THE ONLY THING HAT I WANT TO DISCUSS WITH YOU IS THE ISSUE OF SALVATION BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH APART FROM OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW OF GOD. THAT'S IT. GRACE TO YOU JOHN
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:23:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Get over it John Be nice, Kevin. I am. John, a brother in Christ
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: **Private Correspondence**
In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:35:40 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You would have known this if you would have read the same quote that John was referencing. Amen John
[TruthTalk] Re: Billy Crystal in Mr Saturday Night
From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] His recurring question was "did you see what I did there"? This was when he took something and turned it on its head thus making convoluted that which was essentially clear prior to his doing his "thing". jt: Are you describing sleight of hand? I'm not familiar with Mr. Saturday Night. Not only did I see what you did there, Judy, but anyone capable of reading also saw. Comic relief, even when unintended (or whas it?) can be pleasant can it not?? Thanks for the smile. Lance jt: I have no idea what you are talking about or for that matter what you are smiling about. Would you let me in on the joke? Whether you believe it or notI am serious about these things; I am not out to to engender strife, nor is my motiveto get the best of anyone. So what did I do??? From: Judy Taylor From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] When your meaning is not apprehended no genuine communication takes place.Citing scripture even when both persons are Christians, is no guarantee of a "meaningful" exchange of truth. jt: Wouldn't you say it makes more sense for us to gather around God's Word than the thoughts of these university professors and theologians? Especially since there is just ONE mediator between God and man. Neither need be described as dumb, intractible, malicious etc. Examples of this abound on TT. Lance jt: Are you saying that examples of ungodly behavior abound on TT Lance? I ask because I am not sure what you mean? judyt From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 10:28 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Further on SvsM From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not what you say but what you mean when you say it that I, for one, find disagreeable. Do you understand the distinction between syntax and semantics? Lance.- jt: You have no ideawhat I mean when I say things Lance. If you did then you would not have accused me of "sucker punching" Bill every time he wrote something to the list; and FTR, no I don't understand the distinction bettween SS Why do I need to? judyt From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 08:41 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re: Saying vs Meaning This is what is wrong with the professing Church and has been for generations; smart men (after the flesh) have taken over. God has not made it complicated. If little children can understand then so can we. The reason noone can understand what you say Bill is because your mind is full of the wisdom oftheologians rather than renewed by God's Word. Lance just mentioned books by two ppl who are professors at different Universities. Do you honestly think that ppl on this list willbuy these books and read theirramblings on theology and linguistics in order to understand what you are saying? Why not let God be God and depend on the Holy Spirit and His Word for understanding. He is no respector of any man's person. It's OK to be smart so long as one is humble and subjects his natural reasoning to God and His Word. judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] No syntax contains its own semantics. Without overlapping meaning no "meaningful" communication takes place. From: Wm. Taylor Judy, if you will go back to yesterday's posts, you will find that yesterday was the first time since coming to this list thatwe were actually getting along with each other. I thought we had actually begun to get beyond whatever it was that had been putting me on one side of conversations and you on the other. Last night (in mytime zone) you involved yourself in two different conversations that I was having with John. Each time you took issue with something I had said. Each time you responded to something you did not understand -- you were hearing me say one thing; in actuality I was saying something quite different. Neither time did you have enough context to begin to grasp my thread of thought. I am not saying that you should keep your nose out of my discussions -- I welcome the intrusion (I am also aware of the format of TT). However, I would like to suggest that before you intrude upon my next discussion, you familiarize yourself with what it is that I am discussing. Maybe don't come in accusing, but inquiring, if you believe that there is some misunderstanding. This will help us to get along better, if we should ever get back to the point of having gotten along for almost a day. Bill Taylor - Original Message -
[TruthTalk] Re:SADLY, I DO BELIEVE YOU
I think you're speaking straight from the heart. Like I said the comic relief you provide is probably unintended. Lance - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 12:41 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re: Billy Crystal in Mr Saturday Night From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] His recurring question was "did you see what I did there"? This was when he took something and turned it on its head thus making convoluted that which was essentially clear prior to his doing his "thing". jt: Are you describing sleight of hand? I'm not familiar with Mr. Saturday Night. Not only did I see what you did there, Judy, but anyone capable of reading also saw. Comic relief, even when unintended (or whas it?) can be pleasant can it not?? Thanks for the smile. Lance jt: I have no idea what you are talking about or for that matter what you are smiling about. Would you let me in on the joke? Whether you believe it or notI am serious about these things; I am not out to to engender strife, nor is my motiveto get the best of anyone. So what did I do??? From: Judy Taylor From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] When your meaning is not apprehended no genuine communication takes place.Citing scripture even when both persons are Christians, is no guarantee of a "meaningful" exchange of truth. jt: Wouldn't you say it makes more sense for us to gather around God's Word than the thoughts of these university professors and theologians? Especially since there is just ONE mediator between God and man. Neither need be described as dumb, intractible, malicious etc. Examples of this abound on TT. Lance jt: Are you saying that examples of ungodly behavior abound on TT Lance? I ask because I am not sure what you mean? judyt From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 10:28 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Further on SvsM From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's not what you say but what you mean when you say it that I, for one, find disagreeable. Do you understand the distinction between syntax and semantics? Lance.- jt: You have no ideawhat I mean when I say things Lance. If you did then you would not have accused me of "sucker punching" Bill every time he wrote something to the list; and FTR, no I don't understand the distinction bettween SS Why do I need to? judyt From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 08:41 Subject: [TruthTalk] Re: Saying vs Meaning This is what is wrong with the professing Church and has been for generations; smart men (after the flesh) have taken over. God has not made it complicated. If little children can understand then so can we. The reason noone can understand what you say Bill is because your mind is full of the wisdom oftheologians rather than renewed by God's Word. Lance just mentioned books by two ppl who are professors at different Universities. Do you honestly think that ppl on this list willbuy these books and read theirramblings on theology and linguistics in order to understand what you are saying? Why not let God be God and depend on the Holy Spirit and His Word for understanding. He is no respector of any man's person. It's OK to be smart so long as one is humble and subjects his natural reasoning to God and His Word. judyt [EMAIL PROTECTED] No syntax contains its own semantics. Without overlapping meaning no "meaningful" communication takes place. From: Wm. Taylor Judy, if you will go back to yesterday's posts, you will find that yesterday was the first time since coming to this list thatwe were actually getting along with each other. I thought we had actually begun to get beyond whatever it was that had been putting me on one side of conversations and you on the other. Last night (in mytime zone) you involved yourself in two different conversations that I was having with John. Each time you took issue with something I had said. Each time you responded to something you did not understand -- you were hearing me say one thing; in actuality I was saying something quite different. Neither time did you have enough context to begin to grasp my thread of thought. I am not saying that you should keep
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:Demonic vs Normal
In a message dated 3/27/2004 7:42:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Whatever John 17 is about it ain't about this. Lance Exactly. But there is unity among many on this list. Focus on that. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer request.
In a message dated 3/27/2004 7:14:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear TruthTalkers, I suggest we spend the rest of this day praying for TruthTalk, and doing spiritual warfare against demonic spirits being sent to cause contention, strife, rudeness and accusations. There is something happening here to try to take our eyes off of Jesus Christ and His glory. May the Lord rebuke every demonic spirit and glorify Himself. TruthTalk belongs to the Lord, and not to the devil, in the name of Jesus. Izzy Agreed. But let's not allow our emotions to get the best of us (mostly I am talking to me). Judy and Kevin and G and whoever -- well if they don't want to be either civil or stay on track, they can be ignored and the list survives. Grace to us all John
[TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] John: Wow. There are so many things we disagree on. Pick ONE of the following and stay with it, judy. I will respond to all your commits -- which I never do. But to illustrate just how far apart we are, here I go. My current remarks are in caps. John From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. john: What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? jt: The preaching of the cross should convict the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come and God anoints/empowers His Words, not our substitutes. YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION UNLESS YOU THINK THAT PETER ON PENTECOST DAY SOLVED ALL THE DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS OF THE THOUSANDS OF JEWS WHO WERE SAVED ON THAT DAY -- A RATHER SILLY IDEA, I MUST ADD. jt: On the day of Pentecost it was God adding to the Church and Peter preached truth did he not? Do you understand the new covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:34 (and other places) that becomes activated by faith in Christ?john: The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" jt: Faith without corresponding actions is dead. I know Luther didn't like this but it is so. Salvation is a faith walk, not a one time prayer and the blood only cleanses the conscience when we come to the throne of grace in time of need. I DON'T CARE ABOUT LUTHER AT THIS JUNCTURE. READ ROMANS THREE AND FOUR AND TELL ME HOW WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH APART FROM OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMANDMENS OF GOD. jt: Whatsoever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law that every mouth should be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God (Rom 3:19) V.20 Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight for by the law is the knowledge of sin. THAT IS WHAT PAUL SAID. JAMES IS TALKING ABOUT THE _expression_ OF FAITH IN BENEVOLENT ACTIVITY AND ALL OF HIS EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATE THAT SPECIFIC POINT. BUT DO NOT ARGUE THAT MATTER. LET'S JUST STICK WITH WHAT PAUL SAID. jt: OK, when Paul spoke about becoming all things to all men so that he might win some he spoke about being under the law to winJews and without the law forGentiles; andhe goes on to explain that he was not an entire anarchist because he was under the law of Christ (this is where believers are to walk). He gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. john: And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? jt: God accepts faith with corresponding actions. Abraham is our example being the father of faith. He was willing to go to the mountain with firewood and the son of promise. God likes this kind of faith. Passive acceptance does not move Him and there is no way to make it without His empowerment. EXCEPT FOR THE GUY IN ROMANS 2:12FF. AND YOUR EXAMPLE OF ABRAHAM IS NOT THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENT PAUL IS MAKINGGO BACK AND READ ROMANS 4. THE POINT IS THAT ABRAHAM COULD DO NOTHING BUT ACCEPT WHAT GOD SAID ABOUT HIS (ABRAHAM'S) OFFSPRING -- THAt IS THE BIBLICAL EXAMPLE. jt: Only if you are a Calvinist. Abraham BELIEVED God and that was counted to him for righteousness. He willingly left all he had known in Ur to depart for the unknown - looking for a city whose builder and maker was God and God called him 'his friend'. It's not God's way to force His will; we choose whom we will serve and that way if we spend eternity in the wrong place that is also our choice. john: What is your message of hope to the addicted? jt: The truth will make the addicted free if they are willing to act on it. ROMANS 7 DESCRIBES THE ADDICTED -- TO A TEE. VERSE 25 CLEARLY SAYS THAT HIS PROBLEM CONTINUES BUT (8:1) WITHOUT CONDEMNATION. jt: You must be reading the non-inspired version (NIV); the second part of that verse is also important. "there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." tHE GLORY OF THE GOSPEL BY GRACE IS THAT THE ADDICT HAS ALL THE TIME HE NEEDS TO OVERCOME HIS PROBLEM. YOU SAY THAT HE HAS NO TIME. NONSENSE. jt: When did I say he had 'no time?' I've never said anything like that. However, those not walking after the Spirit in Christ are in the flesh and still under condemnation.john: And the guy in South Africa who has never heard of Christ? jt: God is faithful and the Good News will be preached to the world before the end comes. THE GUY DIED YESTERDAY. NOW WHAT. jt: Not your problem or mine, God is big enough to deal with it.john: And the gang banger who was molested by a minister and rejects "religion" out of hand because of that experience? jt: He may be better off than the dead 'religious' because he sees it for what
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
No! Judy. This is what John wrote Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things.Some people just do not have the smarts to understand some things but can grasp others. john: Where does I.Q. fit into your scheme of things.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .jt: IQ is fine when submitted to the word and the will of God, being smart after the flesh won't profit. Obedience is what counts. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE WALKING DUMB. THE BORDERLINE GUYS. MY POST IS CLEAR ON THAT. YOU NEED TO ACTUALLY READ THE POST BEFORE YOU START YOUR RESPONSE. jt: I responded to the one line you wrote John. How am I supposed to know what you have not written. I can't read your mind. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. Some people just do not have the smarts to understand some things but can grasp others. Judy, You are the onewho caused the ambiguity. The one line that John wrote was actually two before you destroyed the context. The second line qualifies thefirst and gives it meaning.His wordsbecome vague only after the two lines are separated. You did this to yourself, Judy. Please stop the non-sense. You say that you are not trying to be contentious. FINE. I will take your word for it.Please consider some simple suggestions. Read the whole post before responding to any of it. Read for understanding NOT for an opening to attack. Do not look for excuses to rebuke. Read to learn first and disagree only after seeking clarification. Hold off on the rebuke until after you have exhausted all possibility that you too may be part of the problem.Please observethese simple rules of etiquette and see if we do not all experience an amazingchange of climate. Respectfully, Bill Taylor - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 11:25 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] John: Wow. There are so many things we disagree on. Pick ONE of the following and stay with it, judy. I will respond to all your commits -- which I never do. But to illustrate just how far apart we are, here I go. My current remarks are in caps. John From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 3/27/2004 4:36:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Not without repentance which means the sinner must consciously repent of and turn from their sin. john: What happens to the fellow who is not aware of his sin? jt: The preaching of the cross should convict the world of sin, righteousness, and the judgment to come and God anoints/empowers His Words, not our substitutes. YOU DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION UNLESS YOU THINK THAT PETER ON PENTECOST DAY SOLVED ALL THE DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS OF THE THOUSANDS OF JEWS WHO WERE SAVED ON THAT DAY -- A RATHER SILLY IDEA, I MUST ADD. jt: On the day of Pentecost it was God adding to the Church and Peter preached truth did he not? Do you understand the new covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:34 (and other places) that becomes activated by faith in Christ?john: The flow of the blood doesn't work until he, the sinner, does the right thing? How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" jt: Faith without corresponding actions is dead. I know Luther didn't like this but it is so. Salvation is a faith walk, not a one time prayer and the blood only cleanses the conscience when we come to the throne of grace in time of need. I DON'T CARE ABOUT LUTHER AT THIS JUNCTURE. READ ROMANS THREE AND FOUR AND TELL ME HOW WE ARE SAVED BY FAITH APART FROM OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMANDMENS OF GOD. jt: Whatsoever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law that every mouth should be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God (Rom 3:19) V.20 Therefore by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight for by the law is the knowledge of sin. THAT IS WHAT PAUL SAID. JAMES IS TALKING ABOUT THE _expression_ OF FAITH IN BENEVOLENT ACTIVITY AND ALL OF HIS EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATE THAT SPECIFIC POINT. BUT DO NOT ARGUE THAT MATTER. LET'S JUST STICK WITH WHAT PAUL SAID. jt: OK, when Paul spoke about becoming all things to all men so that he might win some he spoke about being under the law to winJews and without the law forGentiles; andhe goes on to explain that he was not an entire anarchist because he was under the law of Christ (this is where believers are to walk). He gives the Holy Spirit to those who obey Him. john: And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? jt: God accepts faith with corresponding actions. Abraham is our
[TruthTalk] Getting to know you.
It occurred to me today during an off line conversation that though we are almost all brothers and sisters in Christ, we at the same time are strangers. I know a little more about some of you who have been on TT longer, and I know David Miller from spending part of a weekend in his company, but I still do not know any of you well. I suspect that most of you have the same problem. I picture the more educated among us as standing around in a gown and miter board with an armload of books, maybe some horn rimmed glasses thrown in. They probably picture me as the redneck dropout who can barely sign his name. Got the straw between my teeth and the pickup truck on blocks in the front yard. Trailer trash. I know I have to love you all whether you are my brother or my sister or my enemy. That is a command, not an option. Seeing that is so, I am going to love you all, BUT.. there exists in my opinion, a responsibility on the other party's part to not make it harder than necessary to carry out this command. Again, my opinion; I think it is much easier to love someone you know rather than someone who is just a face in the crowd or a voice from the podium. With that in mind, at the risk of appearing bossy, let me suggest that we stop criticizing for one week, and concentrate for the same length of time on revealing ourselves to others in an effort to get to know one another more intimately, like brothers and sisters are supposed to. Let's start with something easy, like what do you find awesome about your Lord? Just to get it going, I will open up first, sharing a thought that started the idea of this post. When I walk outside on a sunny cloudless day, I look up and see a beautiful blue sky. Then I become aware that this is not a canopy or a ceiling. I am actually looking light years into space. Looking through the blue, not at it. At night it is even more wondrous. You can look at the same sky that was blue, but now it has a billion twinkling stars. So many that no one has been able to name them all or even count them. They are God's creation!. All He had to do was speak, and they were. Then I think that I am observing all this from a platform called earth that is not anchored to anything. It is held in place only by God's will . It is a giant ball of dirt, one planet among who knows how many, and I, a very temporary, very insignificant speck on one ball of dirt, am not only recognized by the most powerful being in the universe. I am loved by Him, so much that He sacrificed His own son to save me. THAT is awesome! Who's next? Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Prayer request.
Truth Talk thou art loosed![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/27/2004 7:14:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear TruthTalkers, I suggest we spend the rest of this day praying for TruthTalk, and doing spiritual warfare against demonic spirits being sent to cause contention, strife, rudeness and accusations. There is something happening here to try to take our eyes off of Jesus Christ and His glory. May the Lord rebuke every demonic spirit and glorify Himself. TruthTalk belongs to the Lord, and not to the devil, in the name of Jesus. Izzy Agreed. But let's not allow our emotions to get the best of us (mostly I am talking to me). Judy and Kevin and G and whoever -- well if they don't want to be either civil or stay on track, they can be ignored and the list survives. Grace to us all John Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
What is the problem? Judy knows what she believes and believes it firmly. Does that bother you?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:23:26 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Get over it John Be nice, Kevin. I am. John, a brother in Christ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
These guys are not even Christians, why pant after every word of thiers? Wish you guys were so excited about Jesus' words!"Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Drop it Kevin. Unless Iam confused about Who you are,I don't need to. Please stop trying to cause trouble. Bill - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 6:30 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI And I am talking about your love for one heretic after another. You still have not produced one shred of evidence that the men their thoughts thatyou idolizeare Christians. Except that Polyani attended church."Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, Past, Kevin. Remember to look for the context. I'm being sarcastic here. Get it? - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 6:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Great wonderful bravo! You guys fawn over one apostate after another. James 2 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. "Wm. Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great, well said, wonderful, bravo. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The Problem: Private Thesaurus
Recommend: The Holy BibleLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Recommended: Faith Thinking:The Dynamics of Christian Theology-Trevor Hart-IVP 1995; That's Not What I Meant-Deborah Tannen, You Just Don't Understand-Deborah Tannen. For discussion: "Each living person draws upon two quite distinct sources of meaning..current and commonly understood..(this makes communication possible)..hidden beneath this lies a "private thesaurus" which each of us possesses, and which has been compiled through the radically individual set of experiences and associations which go to make up our unique human personality, and which lurks in our subconscious. When we communicate with others we do so only at the surface. What any two people "mean" when they utter or hear the same words, therefore will overlap only to a certain extent. One of the last things to be grasped when learning a new language is humour (the importance of getting the joke). This elusive matter of "meaning" might be a worthwhile pursuit. Language, any language is an aggregate of symbols. These symbols are not the meaning themselves but they point away from themselves to MEANING. Bill cited a couple of passages from another book I'd commend along with him (I sell books) Proper Confidence.Blessings, Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 26, 2004 13:28 Subject: [TruthTalk] Party Manners TruthTalk reminds me of attending a cocktail party. You walk into a roomful of people who are enjoying pleasant conversations in various groups of two or more. You listen for a while before deciding which group youd like to participate in, and then join in the exchange of ideas. Occasionally someone comes along who is a bit too inebriated to make much sense, but that is usually easy to ignore. But sometimes there is the problem of the one who enjoys a party by interrupting every conversation, not to pleasantly participate in the exchange of ideas, but to challenge every statement made, and to correct every opinion. It is a tragic example of poor party manners. At first you try to ignore the unpleasant interruptions, but at some point you must decide whether the distractions are worth it. When you are provoked to the point of no longer being able to enjoy the conversation, the polite thing to do is to quietly leave the party. Obviously, you conclude, your presence there is not appreciated. Shall I leave the party again now, Judy? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:54 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] M. Scott Peck, FYI M. Scott Peck's books are a tragic example of the means by which professing Christians are being deceived. See Four Ways Christians Are Being Deceived 1. M. Scott Peck, M.D. a. "Educated at Harvard (B.A.) and Case Western Reserve (M.D.), Dr. M. Scott Peck has served in administrative posts in the government during his career as a psychotherapist. He has been the Medical Director of the New Milford Hospital Mental Health Clinic and a psychiatrist in private practice in New Milford, Connecticut." (The Road Less Traveled) b. "After many years of vague identification with Buddhist and Islamic mysticism, I ultimately made a firm Christian commitment - signified by my non-denominational baptism on the ninth of March 1980..." (People of the Lie) 2. Books a. The Road Less Traveled - 1978 A Touchstone Book by Simon Schuster, Inc. "A New Psychology of Love, Traditional Values and Spiritual Growth" (See quotes in section 4) b. People of the Lie - 1983 A Touchstone Book by Simon Schuster, Inc. "The Hope For Healing Human Evil" (See quotes in section 7) c. The Different Drum - 1987 A Touchstone Book by Simon Schuster, Inc. "Community Making and Peace: A Spiritual Journey Toward Self-Acceptance, True Belonging, and New Hope for the World" (See quotes in sections 5, 6, 8, and 9) Back to the top 3. M. Scott Peck's books can be found in both Christian and New Age bookstores. 4. Evolving to god-hood a. "God wants us to become Himself (or Herself or Itself). We are growing toward godhood. God is the goal of evolution." b. "To put it plainly, our unconscious is God. God within us." c. "I am indebted for this analogy to [Carl] Jung, who, [described] himself as 'a splinter of the infinite deity'..." d. M. Scott Peck has never refuted or modified in subsequent books the views expressed in The Road Less Traveled. In fact, his later books continue to express the same metaphysical world-view. 5. Mystical Transformation a. "Patterns of Transformation" - "Stages of Spiritual Growth" Stage I : Chaotic, Anti-social Stage II : Formal, Institutional Stage III: Skeptic, Individual Stage IV: Mystic, Communal b. Stage II Conversion "But for most, the institution to which they submit themselves "But for most, the institution to which they submit themselves for governance is the Church." "There are several things
Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
Finding cement being used in a REAL civilization,is as much a proof as finding a horse in some other civilization. Find ONE city, one coin, one person or event "NAMED" in the BoM.Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Kevin Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:02 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america Discovery of just ONE senum or ONE shiblon should do it. With many coins in circulation this should be easy as we have many discovered coins from the Bible era. Blaine: I don't know about coins, but what about cement? The Book of Mormon mentions cement being used extensively: Helaman 3:7-11 "The people who went forth became exceedingly expert in the working of cement." ". . .they did build houses of cement." ". . . all manner of their buildings," and many of their cities "both of wood and cement." The temple complex at Teotihuacan, north of present day Mexico City, uses cement mucho mas! It dates back to the time indicated in the BoM. After 200 years, it still exceeds present day building code requirements. Cement as a building material is also found in the Valley of Mexico, and in the Maya regions of Southern Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras. Use of cement is not found in other Indian buildings, only the Maya seem to have used it. It was basically a lime cement, according to the writers of my source article, "Concrete Evidence for the book of Mormon," by Matthew G. Wells, and John C. Welch. More about this can be found in chapter 61 of Reexploring the Book of Mormon, edited by John C. Welch. Thousands of Biblical sites have been discovered. Just one Nephite city will do. Blaine You keep saying one site will do--what about the Nahom site on the Arabian Peninsula? That has yet to be explained away.(:) The alledged discovery of barley proves nothing about the BoM a senum would there is not other explanation for a senum than the BoM. Blaine: The Book of Mormon also tells of thedownfall and ultimate destruction of the entire civilization and legal system of the Nephites, of which the coins and their grain equivalents were a part. I would be very surprised if much survived at all. The final destruction took place less than 400 yrs after the visitation of Jesus Christ to these people. Isn't the Hohokam site the same one later settled by LDS? How do you know the barley was not planted in the mid 1800's? Blaine: That seems to be a way-out possibility to me. The Hohokam Indians raised many crops besides Barley, in a huge area of thousands of acres, as indicated in info below: "Salting" such a huge area with a few barley seeds would be pretty difficult, and time consuming. Those Mormon settlers would have to have been far more motivated than any Mormon settlers I ever heard of--I doubt they even knew barley was a controversial subject. They were more likely preoccupied with surviving in a hostile environment. (:) "The Hohokam utilised extensive and ingenious canal systems to irrigate thousands of acres of their farmland; more than three hundred miles of major canals, and nearly three times that number of smaller canals, have been recorded in the lower Salt River valley alone (Houk 1992: 8). As well as their irrigated crops of maize, lima and tepary beans, squash, tobacco, cotton, barley and amaranth, the Hohokam gathered saguaro cactus fruit, prickly pear pads, cholla cactus buds, plantain, mesquite beans and agave from the wild desert. Maize kernels recovered from Hohokam dwelling sites have been dated to 300 B.C., or the time of the earliest Hohokam settlements." More on this subject can be found at: http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/westweb/ancient/hohokam/farming.html Blaine is this where you get your FACTS from FAIR?http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/anach2.pdf Blaine: I have a book titled Reexploring the book of Mormon, edited by John Welch. It has FARMS research in it. See you at conference! Charles Perry Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine,I offered the challenge a week or so ago:"If you cannot find even one proven fact in the BoM that is not from the Bible, then my assertion about it's fictional nature stands."That is interesting about the barley, but it hardly consitutes a proof. There is no linkage between the barley the BoM other than in name only.PerryFrom: "Blaine Borrowman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of americaDate: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 18:54:40 -0700Blaine: Sorry, but I got so far behind, I started deleting posts without reading them--it was the only way I could catch up and get current. (:) I even deleted DavidM's posts, which I am usually careful to read, so don't ! gt;take it personally. In fact, I unsubscribed for a couple of days while I was gone to Richfield to take my son there for a job. But thanks for letting me know the challenge is there--who put it there?Just to remind you--maybe you didn't
RE: [TruthTalk] M Scott Peck a christian LOL
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves," (Matthew 7:15). The following is a interview with M Scott Peck: "Door: It is interesting that you describe your writing as a calling. Is this a calling from God? "Peck: I hesitate using the word `God' in that simplistic kind of way. My books are not `channeled' materials "Door: There are a number of writers and others who are convinced that you are part of the New Age Movement. "Peck: Really? Well, we can come back to that subject if you'd like My spiritual director, who is a nun, says that God never calls you to do something that doesn't feel right in your heart. Jesus went to the cross, which wasn't something He felt like doing, but the cross felt much better than the only alternative which was to retire on His pension plan "Door: When we interviewed you last, you had become a Christian three years previously. Now that it has been 10 years, could you comment on how your own personal faith has changed over the decade? "Peck: I don't like the term `became a Christian.' ...I hope to God that I'm going to continue to be converted until I die and perhaps well after that, which is what I think purgatory is all about "Door: Why do we have this feeling of impending doom? "Peck: God knows when I'll ever write about this, so you might as well write about it. "Door: Uh - thanks. "Peck: I have had some dealings with evil spirits, but I have never given any thought to possibility of good spirits. One night while I was in the midst of my depression, my Dark Night of the Senses, I went to bed. I had not fallen asleep and this was not a dream. I was accosted by a spirit. "Door: A spirit? "Peck: ...Almost as instantly, I asked what kind of spirit this was and I immediately knew it was a good spirit rather than a bad spirit. But I also knew I could either confront this spirit or shake it off. I wondered what kind of good spirit it was. The answer came to me immediately. It was a spirit of mirth. "Door: A spirit of mirth? "Peck: That was when the battle began. Just because this seemed to be a spirit of mirth, how did I know for sure? If I let it in - "Door: - You mean like a possession or something? "Peck: Yes So I gave in to this spirit and I giggled myself to sleep. "Door: Since we are talking about the bizarre, we hear a lot of people - who act like they know what they're talking about - claiming that you are `New Age.' What are your feelings about the New Age Movement? "Peck: I am and I am not New Age. ...there are some things about the New Age Movement that are very godly, and some things that are potentially evil. "Door: What is it that you like about the New Age Movement? "Peck: I wouldn't use the word `like.' The New Age Movement is a reaction to the sins of the Christian Church, the sins of technology, and the excesses of science. "Door: What sins? "Peck: ...Computers. "Door: Computers? "Peck: ...These sins are very real. I think there is something potentially holy about the New Age movement because of their openness to new ideas The New Age Movement, in reaction to the sins of the Christian Church, moved to the East - to Oriental philosophy and theology - and attempted to throw all of Christian theology out," (Interview, May/June 1990, pp. 5-15). ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill, In later books Peck makes it clear that when he wrote The Road Less Traveled he was just about to come to know the Lord. He wasnt quite there yet, but very close. (Amazing how much wisdom he wrote at that point, before knowing Christ personally). I was just wondering if Pecks unconscious is the same as your spiritual instinct.. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:50 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious "Then he goes on to explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy Spirit." Izzy, I am not familiar enough with Peck to have much more than an elementary appreciation for what he is saying. If he goes on to nuancehis words and attach them to a biblical-language type indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I would be able to say, Oh I get it. Right on. As they appear in this short quote, if I were being brutally honest and forthcoming, I would have to say that his words move me closer to a feeling of pantheism than I am happy going. Again, though, before I should want to conclude that this is indeed what he is doing or saying, I would want to know how he nuances this language with Scripture. Is that okay? Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 6:53 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Bill, The picture you drew about Gods beauty brought tears to my eyesso true! What do you think of M. Scott Pecks words in The Road Less Traveled?--- If you want to know the closest
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
But they consider you (LDS) the dead trunk that has departed from the faith. They all say they have the True Restored Gospel. Who is right? The caucaphony from all these splinter groups makes it so hard to tell which divergant path is the true restoration.Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine: That's easy Kevin--the splinter groups are not accepted by the Church of JC of LDS as just another living branch broken off the main olive tree, as is the case when breaks occur from Protestant churches. If a branch breaks off the LDS main trunk, it is considered a dead branch, and no longer part of the true church. Deegan To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:46 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus. With over 200 LDS Splinter groups claiming to be a "restoration" and followers of JoE Smith, how does this equate to ONE faith?David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blaine wrote: You didn't finish the passage, which reads, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Eph 4:5 I am curious, in your opinion, does modern Christianity fulfill this scripture?At least as good as Mormonism, eh? LOL.Peace be with you.David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.--"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.orgIf 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. Do you Yahoo!?Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
That is what happens to the Lost. Blind follow Blind both fall in the ditch. Peck is on the Broadway. Hope you get on the narrow way.ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So well put, Bill. You have a gift for that. I think your theological instinct is what I mean by direct revelation from the Holy Spirit. He gives you this thought/idea/concept and then elaborates upon it. Then you realize that it was stated, in one way or another, in scripture all alongyou just never saw it quite that way before. And you are also rightwords fail to express the fullness of the meaning. One thing I like about Scott Peck is his absolute transparency about his own spiritual quest. For him, Buddhism was one step along the path to real Truth. He says if he hadnt learned the concept of paradox from Buddhism, he could never have ultimately embraced Christianity, which is full of paradox. I enjoy watching spiritual growthat whatever point it is. Peck has not yet arrived, just like the rest of us. We Believers are all on our own spiritual paths towards Jesus, helping each other as we go along, cheering one another on, gently helping each other up when we stumble. (If we are walking in love.) I really like Pecks explanation of the Stages of Faith. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Friday, March 26, 2004 11:45 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Izzy, Have you ever treaded glass so as to stay away from stickers? I did not really know what to do with Peck. As I said, I am not all that familiar with him. I wasn't aware of what Judy shared, for instance. However, I have been misunderstood enough times to know that I should extend to others, whether it be Peck or pelicans, the opportunity to plea. Nuance is necessary if we are going to actually have a living language. Without nuance words become redundant and reductive; they lose there punch. Context is so important, too. I just can't stress enough (nor with you do I feelthe need to) that words mean things imbedded incontext. They're loose and perverted when flopped and hopped from bed to bed. Sherrie used the word "contextualized" to make a very valid point. I appreciated her for that. And so I did not want to fall out of bed, nor did I feel happy snuggling up to what he said. Thank you for giving me something more through which to begin to understand him. I appreciate that. Theological instinct is kind of like what happens when you begin to know things about God that are not explicitly stated in Scripture. Yet they are as true as if they were. An example of this is in the Greekword perichoresis. The word itself means something like "about the dance" or "concerning the dance." The early churchborrowed this word to speak to the interaction between the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit. The Bible never actually or explicitly describes that interaction in terms of a dance, but the churchsaw the give and take, the lead and follow, the love and appropriateness of the closeness of the Father - Son relationship, and likened it to the beauty of dance. That's pretty cool I think. Perichoresis can also mean something like "about the choir." Think of the beauty and the harmony of voices coming together make a distinct sound; thenthink of the equally beautiful sound of distinct voices emerging to take the lead from time to time. They saw this in that Triune relationship. I think that's helpful; I think that's saying something as true as if it were Written. I think that's pretty cool. That's theological instinct -- knowing more than we can say. Thanks, Bill - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 9:44 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious Bill, In later books Peck makes it clear that when he wrote The Road Less Traveled he was just about to come to know the Lord. He wasnt quite there yet, but very close. (Amazing how much wisdom he wrote at that point, before knowing Christ personally). I was just wondering if Pecks unconscious is the same as your spiritual instinct.. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wm. TaylorSent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:50 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious "Then he goes on to explain that this is what we term the presence of the Holy Spirit." Izzy, I am not familiar enough with Peck to have much more than an elementary appreciation for what he is saying. If he goes on to nuancehis words and attach them to a biblical-language type indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I would be able to say, Oh I get it. Right on. As they appear in this short quote, if I were being brutally honest and forthcoming, I would have to say that his words move me closer to a feeling of pantheism than I am happy going. Again, though, before I should want to conclude that this is indeed what he is doing or saying,
Re: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus.
Who kept the "Restored faith"? The RLDS proved in a court of law that the LDS church had departed from the faith and on account of this the first temple in Kirtland was given to th RLDS (now called Community of Christ)Blaine Borrowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 9:23 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] All truth leads to Jesus. Blaine wrote: You didn't finish the passage, which reads, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Eph 4:5 I am curious, in your opinion, does modern Christianity fulfill this scripture? At least as good as Mormonism, eh? LOL. Blaine: The way I see it, there is a fundamental error in making the comparison you are making in your above comment.The problem seems to be that modern Christianity comes across (at least to me) as aconglomerate of mostly Protestant religions lumped together to form an entity known as "the Church," which seems to have several disparate and often contradictory doctrines, as well as a degree of commonconsensus centeredupon grace by Jesus Christ. On the other hand, Mormonism as seen by Mormons is one church only--The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Within the framwork of that church, there is a high degree of doctrinal agreement--so much so that it is difficult if not impossible to find disagreement on basic issues such as faith, the nature of God, the relationship of man to God, baptism, priesthood authority, what constitutes scripture or the word of God, fixed prayers, even individual prayer patterns. When disagreement does occur, those who insist on teaching the doctrines upon which consensus does not exist are either asked to repent, or are cut off from membership. Once disfellowshipped, although they may still consider themselves to represent Mormonism, they actually do not do so in the eyes of the church. Breakoffs from the Church of JC of LDS broke off from the main tree, so to speak, and therefore became dead branches. If the same were to happen in Protestanism, the newly formed branch with one or two (or more) dissenting ideas would still be considered alive and well and still a part of "the Church." Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- "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. Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
Re: [TruthTalk] Getting to know you.
Who's next? Terry My family just spent the evening with other brethren singing praises to God. As far as mind games and endless argumentation, it never ends. I can easily get involved and say something if I feelled to do so. I love to enjoy the creation also. But, what is most important to my life is the relationship developing betweenmy family and God. We are applying his word in our lives to the best of our ability. I marvel at the way the holy spirit is leading my wife and children as we struggle together tomake ends meet. Tomorrow beginssix more days of hard work, growing beautiful plants and sending them to market. We sing together when we can. We need each other. --Marlin
Re: [TruthTalk] Re:The Problem: Private Thesaurus
Lance, below: Bill cited a couple of passages from another book I'd commend along with him (I sell books) Now we're actually gettin' to the bottom of this mess, Layman; you guys don't (plan or haveto) read any of thisPollyanna drivel you/'ve post/ed(!)--that Izzy in ignorance irrationally adores You guys are salesman(!)--her heart throbs, no doubt TTis not becoming a commercial/ized endeavor, is it? Mr. Moderator, please think about this question; haven't you noticed how Bill, et. al.,insist thattheir valid, thoughtful, poignant critics "(wa wa wa) don't write to me any more, please", "do you get? honor my request to shut up please", etc.(?)--it sounds like the introit toa Walmart worship service As below, as the evidence suggests, they, like DaveH, who said he isn't here for "truth",wanna purvey their star gazer myths and peddletheir airheaded erudition here insteadof at (e.g.)amazon.com, an actualmarketing forumfor marketing all sorts of novel and novice philosophy, or at an Evangelical booksellers conventionfor contrite, Passionate,and politically correct consumers FTR, How does Lance's salesman agenda (below)square with the TT charter, goals, and objectives? Do we have toopen a PayPal! acct to be here? G On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 17:57:25 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Recommend: The Holy BibleLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Recommended: Faith Thinking:The Dynamics of Christian Theology-Trevor Hart-IVP 1995; That's Not What I Meant-Deborah Tannen, You Just Don't Understand-Deborah Tannen. For discussion: "Each living person draws upon two quite distinct sources of meaning..current and commonly understood..(this makes communication possible)..hidden beneath this lies a "private thesaurus" which each of us possesses, and which has been compiled through the radically individual set of experiences and associations which go to make up our unique human personality, and which lurks in our subconscious. When we communicate with others we do so only at the surface. What any two people "mean" when they utter or hear the same words, therefore will overlap only to a certain extent. One of the last things to be grasped when learning a new language is humour (the importance of getting the joke). This elusive matter of "meaning" might be a worthwhile pursuit. Language, any language is an aggregate of symbols. These symbols are not the meaning themselves but they point away from themselves to MEANING. Bill cited a couple of passages from another book I'd commend along with him (I sell books) Proper Confidence.Blessings, Lance - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily ||
[TruthTalk] Courtesy of Terry
Cowboy Goes To Church! One Sunday morning an old cowboy entered a church just before services were to begin. Although the old man and his clothes were spotlessly clean, he wore jeans, a denim shirt and boots that were very worn and ragged. In his hand he carried a worn out old hat and an equally worn out bible. The church he entered was in a very upscale and exclusive part of the city. It was the largest and most beautiful church the old cowboy had ever seen. The people of the congregation were all dressed with expensive clothes and accessories. As the cowboy took a seat, the others moved away from him. No one greeted, spoke to, or welcomed him. They were all appalled at his appearance and did not attempt to hideit. The preacher gave a long sermon about Hellfire and brimstone and a stern lecture on how much money the church needed to do God's work. As the old cowboy was leaving the church, the preacher approached him and asked the cowboy to do him a favor. "Before you come back in here again, have a talk with God and ask him what He thinks would be appropriate attire for worship." The old cowboy assured the preacher he would. The next Sunday, he showed back up for the services wearing the same ragged jeans, shirt, boots, and hat. Once again he was completely shunned and ignored. The preacher approached the man and said, "I thought I asked you to speak to God before you came back to our church." "I did," replied the old cowboy. "If you spoke to God, what did he tell you the proper attire should befor worshiping in here?" asked the preacher. "Well sir, God told me that He didn't have a clue what I should wear. He says He's never been in this church..." -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
[TruthTalk] Chat Session Thursday, 9:00 pm Eastern Time
I am tentatively planning on doing a chat session via PalTalk for TruthTalk on Thursday night (April 1) at 9:00 pm Eastern Time. This would be a time to exchange in real time some of the topics that we have been discussing. To participate, you need to download and install PalTalk software from www.PalTalk.com. I recommend you get a headset (headphones with mic) but if you have speakers and no mic, you can still participate. The PalTalk software lets you type messages as well as use a mic to speak. PalTalk also supports video, but we will not be doing that. So if you do not have PalTalk, please download the software (it's free) right away and test it before Thursday. Send email to the list letting us know your handle on PalTalk so we can invite you to the chat room. The room will be called TruthTalk. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Getting to know you.
Terry wrote: I picture the more educated among us as standing around in a gown and miter board with an armload of books, maybe some horn rimmed glasses thrown in. Uh, what's a miter board? Terry wrote: ... what do you find awesome about your Lord? I find it awesome that the Lord is always right. I know, that sounds a little corny, but really, I mean, he is ALWAYS right. His wisdom is far beyond any of the most learned men. A simple, uneducated man can read the Holy Scriptures, walk in simple faith and confidence toward God, and receive more wisdom and insight than 1,000 professors who labor at understanding the secrets of the universe. I find that to be just awesome. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
RE: [TruthTalk] Getting to know you.
I think he meant mortarboard...graduation cap. From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Getting to know you. Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 23:59:50 -0500 Terry wrote: I picture the more educated among us as standing around in a gown and miter board with an armload of books, maybe some horn rimmed glasses thrown in. Uh, what's a miter board? Terry wrote: ... what do you find awesome about your Lord? I find it awesome that the Lord is always right. I know, that sounds a little corny, but really, I mean, he is ALWAYS right. His wisdom is far beyond any of the most learned men. A simple, uneducated man can read the Holy Scriptures, walk in simple faith and confidence toward God, and receive more wisdom and insight than 1,000 professors who labor at understanding the secrets of the universe. I find that to be just awesome. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- 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. _ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/ -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] astrology
Blaine: The stars fortell, but do not compel. God Knows us, and what choices we will make, but we need to make them nevertheless, and thus prove all things, in order that God may alone be glorified. There is no evil in reading the stars, but only evil in thinking they compel us. We are indeed free by way of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the sure foundation. Few if any men nowadays can accurately read the stars well enough to be certain what is written there. Inspiration is needed, and if that fails, then we are left unto ourselves. The Magi were not just astrologers, but wise and holy men of God, who listened to the promptings of the spirit, which is the only real key to reading the stars. ALL things testify of Christ--even the stars. Take Venus, the bright and morning star at times, but the evening star at other times. Sometimes it is neither, as it cannot be seen because it has moved behind the sun. It signifies the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as it moves from being the evening star, to being unseen, to being "born again" as the morning star. As Jesus said, "I am the offspring of David and the bright and morning star." (Rev 22:16 Also, look up some evening and see the Big Dipper--it has seven stars in it, and they all point to the fixed star, called the North Star. As the earth turns on its axis, the Big Dipper appears to revolve around the North Star,which itselfnever appears to move. The seven stars signify the seven churchesof Asia (Revelation, chapter 1), or, in other words, the Church! The North Star, which never moves, signifies Jesus Christ. - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:50 PM Subject: [TruthTalk] astrology From: "Blaine Borrowman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hmmm, can you give me your exact time and place of birth? I can't predict much without being able to place your sun, moon and planets in houses with reference to your rising sign.You were born with the Sun in Saggitarius, Moon in Taurus, Mercury and Venus in Capricornus, Mars in Aquarius, Jupiter in Pices, and Saturn in Libra. You might want to consult astrology books on those placements yourself. The problem with astrolgy nowadays is that ithas no central school or authority, much like thetraditional Christian religion. jt: Of course it does. Astrology is part of the lie and it's central authority is the father of lies. Christianity's authority is the Lord Jesus Christ who is presently seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven. This means anyone who wants can presume to be an authority on the subject-- even worse, there is no "Bible" or Book of Mormon to go to for settling disagreements. I personally believe in ancient times it may have been a real science, at least in sense that it used math and only pretty smart men were able to read it. jt: Must have been "deceived" smart men. Let's face it, the astrologers or wise men from the East in Christ's time were able to employ it to locate the Lord's place and time of birth. There is evidence the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob used it, and taught it to their children jt: Where do you find this evidence? I've studied scripture for a long time and all I've ever seen is God's warnings and cautions against it. It's a good way to inherit the curse rather than blessing. How did it get started? It's actual origins seem to have been lost in the dim past. It may have originally been given to man as a revelation from God, but has obviously become corrupted, and consequently today is looked upon as a despicable psuedo-science. jt: It is idolatrous and heretical with men looking to the creation for answers rather than to the Creator. Also it locks people into certain personality traits - when God sent His own Son (before the foundation of the worlds) to make them free. judyt
Re: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI
Why scary? B - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:58 PM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Very scary, Blaine. Iz Blaine: This is very interesting Izzy. I have had similar experiences. I thought Mormons were the only ones who did this. LOL
Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
David Miller wrote: Perry wrote: "If you cannot find even one proven fact in the BoM that is not from the Bible, then my assertion about it's fictional nature stands." That is interesting about the barley, but it hardly consitutes a proof. There is no linkage between the barley the BoM other than in name only. I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for, Perry. If you would accept the lack of barley in the New World as evidence of the Book of Mormon being false, then it seems to me that you should accept its documentation of having existed here in a previous time as evidence of support for the Book of Mormon. Exactly what are you looking for? You know that I think the Book of Mormon is bogus, but I'm trying to understand the nature of the proof you seek. It seems to me that the best approach is not to look for proofs within the book, but to show one falsehood. Blaine, if we could prove one passage as being false, would you accept the notion that the whole book is untrustworthy? That is not to say that it would not contain some truth, but if we know one passage is false, then that means anything it says needs to be tested and the book as a whole cannot be purported as being trustworthy to others. Blaine, would you agree with this approach? DAVEH: Hope you don't mind me interjecting a thought here, DavidM. (I just returned and am now sorting through 1306 emails...Wish I had unsubscribed like Blaine does when he leaves town!) Anyway..Would you suggest unbelievers use your test (to show one falsehood) as a way to determine whether one should believe the Bible to be true or false? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Academics
Blaine: Who is John Smithson? He sure seems to be on top of it. - Original Message - From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 6:58 AM Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Academics John, What is your sons specialty? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 7:59 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Academics In a message dated 3/26/2004 6:18:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My dear husband is in academic medicine. He (1) teaches residents at the university the facts he was taught in medical training, (2) he teaches residents the things he has learned by the experience of putting those facts into practice and (3) he does his own personal research to learn new facts, which he can publish and teach others in the future. May we all reach the research stage spiritually, where we actually receive new information from the Lord directly. But we can get bogged down, and stuck, at any stage along the way. Most never get beyond stage one. The reasons why are another post entirely. The short answer is unrepented sin. Izzy My son, my middle son, is just starting his residency. He went to S.F. He is now on Mount Everest doing a study on altitude sickness. Perhaps your husband could give him some direction when he returns from the mountain. John Smithson Izzy -- people like judyt mean well. She is doing the best she can do with her existing assumptions, education, limitations (we all have them) and the like. Her approach is as valuable as Bill's or Miller's or whoever. When she educates, the value is obvious. When she confronts, the value is found in a determined study to overcome her bias (we all have bias) This list is not a church -- thank God. In a church setting, none of us would be allowed to have these discussions. There is NO freedom within the limitations of the church. I attend church, but not for the purpose of learning more about God. I am there to be revisited by His Spirit and affirmed in my faith. That is more important to me, on the occasion that I attend, than the 8,331st sermon on John 3:16, if you get my drift. You stay within the list offers yet another point of view. I firmly believe that judyt gets a great deal out of belonging to the group that we might credit. Hang in there , A pen pal John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america
Glad you are back! I was beginning to worry you had hung up on us. Blaine - Original Message - From: Dave To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 11:16 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Blaines Lost sheep of america David Miller wrote: Perry wrote: "If you cannot find even one proven fact in the BoM that is not from the Bible, then my assertion about it's fictional nature stands." That is interesting about the barley, but it hardly consitutes a proof. There is no linkage between the barley the BoM other than in name only. I'm not sure I understand what you are looking for, Perry. If you would accept the lack of barley in the New World as evidence of the Book of Mormon being false, then it seems to me that you should accept its documentation of having existed here in a previous time as evidence of support for the Book of Mormon. Exactly what are you looking for? You know that I think the Book of Mormon is bogus, but I'm trying to understand the nature of the proof you seek. It seems to me that the best approach is not to look for proofs within the book, but to show one falsehood. Blaine, if we could prove one passage as being false, would you accept the notion that the whole book is untrustworthy? That is not to say that it would not contain some truth, but if we know one passage is false, then that means anything it says needs to be tested and the book as a whole cannot be purported as being trustworthy to others. Blaine, would you agree with this approach? DAVEH: Hope you don't mind me interjecting a thought here, DavidM. (I just returned and am now sorting through 1306 emails...Wish I had unsubscribed like Blaine does when he leaves town!) Anyway..Would you suggest unbelievers use your test (to show one falsehood) as a way to determine whether one should believe the Bible to be true or false? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
Re: [TruthTalk] Party Crashing
As I said before, Judy often shows more true Christian spirit than most. She at least tries, huh? I like Judy, even though I have to admit she is, as Izzy said, "contentious!!" LOL - Original Message - From: Judy Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 7:27 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Party Crashing jt: I was not addressing you Izzy - this time you are interjecting yourself into a response I wrote to Blaine andpartof your post was needful for clarification. I'm not angry with you so the animosity is one sided. I'm not being rude or mean but it isgood for one to practice what they preach. judyt From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Once again, Judy, I would appreciate it if you would stop interjecting yourself into conversations I am having with other people. You are rudely interrupting at the party again. Surely you understand English, so please honor my request. Thank you again. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy TaylorSent: Friday, March 26, 2004 10:37 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [TruthTalk] POLYANYI Everyone has stuff that "just comes to them" - where it comes from is the question. This is why believers should have spiritual discernment. There are lots of spirits talking all the time. jt Blaine: This is very interesting Izzy. I have had similar experiences. I thought Mormons were the only ones who did this. LOL And how would you define relationship with the Lord? Occasionally, during my running daily conversations/mental mullings with the Lord as Im going through whatever work I am doing, I am startled by an awareness of Him distinctly answering my question. I know the answer came from Him, because it is a thought that I know did not originate with me. It is always a surprising thought because of this. This never ceases to amaze me. I think this is just one example of being in relationship with Him. He is really there. He really interacts with you. And you are aware of it. Awesome! Izzy
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
judyt writes: Do you understand the new covenant promise in Jeremiah 31:34 (and other places) that becomes activated by faith in Christ? No. What "activated" the New Covenant was the blood of Christ. Perhaps you should read Jeremiah 31:31-34. The New is totally different from the Old. Sins will not be a part of God's consideration. God will be known in a personal and individual way, not through the art form of preaching. Preaching can only tell you ABOUT God. With he new covenant, God is experiencially known. The law will become an inward passion (faith) as opposed to the Old and overt system of commands. That is what this Jeremiah passasges says. This passage is absolutely the most important Old Covenant scripture regarding the New Covenant. We should all read it, memorize it, and study the new scriptures in the context of this passage. The following is quoted from the New Living Bible, a translation of the Billy Graham people (and others). " The day will come, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. This covenant will not be like the one I made wih their ancestors when I took them by the hand and brought them out of he land of Egypt. They broke that covenant, though I loved them as a husband loves his wife, says the Lord. But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day, says the Lord. I will put my laws in heir minds, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God and they will be my people And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to each their family saying "You should know the Lord," for everyone, from he least to the greatest, will already know me, says the Lord. And I will forgive their wickedness and will never again remember their sins. How in the world do you explain "salvation by faith apart from works?" I asked this question in the previous email. You did not deal with it at all. john: And why is it necessary for God to continue accepting our faith IN THE PLACE OF righteousness? The biblical reference is Romans 4:5: But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. (Nestle/Aland English translation). Another question you decided to ignore. You must be reading the non-inspired version (NIV); the second part of that verse is also important. "there is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Here, you completely misuse the reference. But, first, your characterization of the NIV -- actually you are right. It is uninspired as are all the other translation. Back Romans 8:1. Lets start with "therefore" shall we? That word means " in view of what I have just said." And what was that -- that we are involved in a war between good and evil. For a Christian, we serve the law of sin in our flesh and the law of God (faith) in our minds (Ro 7:25). All of this is present tense. Verse 25 is a problem, because death is the deserved consequence, so Paul solves the problem in 8:1 by saying "there is no problem (condemnation)," but this promise is offered to those who walk in the spirit, as you so aptly point out. And what is walking in the spirit? Your teaching would have us believe that "walking in the spirit" is a contradiction to the words of 7:25 -- that it is doing the right thing. Simply an impossible conclusion in view of the fact that Paul has JUST concluded that this warfare, the doing of sin, continues for all Christians. So what is "walking in the spirit?" Well, just read 8:5. Walking in the flesh is having YOUR MIND SET ON THINGS OF THE FLESH and walking in the spirit is HAVING YOUR MIND SET ON THINGS OF THE SPIRIT. Notice how this ties in with Jere 31 "I will put it in their minds and write it on their hearts." Ro 8:5 defines flesh and spirit in terms of a state of mind as opposed to an act of righteousness (or right living). God Bless John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] Getting to know you.
In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:32:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: concentrate for the same length of time on revealing ourselves to others in an effort to get to know one another more intimately, like brothers and sisters are supposed to. Let's start with something easy, like what do you find awesome about your Lord? Pretty good idea for a hayseed. Give me a few hours and I will narrow it down to one thing --- seriously. Actually, now that I think about it -- no contest. For me, it is God's ability to fill me up to overflowing. I had been a child of God for 40 years when I was first filled. I was single at the time and had dated a gal from the United Pentecostal Church of God. We had gone to church and left separately. If you are not familiar with that church, it is a tough place to go if you are not sure of who you are in the Lord. They might as well pass out 8x11 pictures of a target, pin it to your chest as they smile and welcome you into the sanctuary. God has often used the emotion of the song service to fill me since that time, but on that occasion, there was no emotion. I had left the worship service that night feeling like I had just escaped a witch hunt. The filling occurred in my car, no tongues, an obvious statement from God that filling can occur any time and any where and that it is not the result of simple emotionalism. Anyway, "church" for me is an occasion for that filling, a confirmation of who I am (a child of God) and the relationship I share with a partner God. Praise the Lord John Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:46:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does that bother you? Come on Kevin. You are not being nice. John
RE: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious
Judy, This is the last time I am writing back to you. I have no recollection of you sending me an email offline in December. Sorry if that bothers you. I did look at the last statement I emailed to you on 12/22/03 before I left TT which was: Since you dont seem to be happy unless I am ensnared in your pointless bickering, you will have to enjoy your grace and peace without me. I wrote to you yesterday that I find you to be impossibly contentious. I failed to add that I also find you to be terribly controlling and meddlesome. (I honestly dont mind if you have those qualities, as long as you do not impose them on me, personally.) To answer your question, THAT IS THE PROBLEM. I am only angry when you wont leave me alone. You make me feel like I am being stalked. So please do both of us a favor: Dont talk about me or to me, either on-line or off-line, and please stay out of my conversations. That way we wont bother each other, and I can enjoy TT without feeling harassed to the point of leaving. I enjoyed many friends on TT for many years before you arrived, and I would prefer to stay a while longer. I am sure you have many wonderful qualities, most of which elude me. I am sure that is my failing and not yours. May God bless you richly, and fulfill your every hearts desire. I hate confrontations, and this has been quite a growth experience for me. Thanks very much. Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy Taylor Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] God in our unconscious From: ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] Judy, Since you are slandering me publicly, I must state I have NO IDEA what issue you are referring to. If there is something you are feeling guilty about from the past, please be assured that I dont even remember it. jt: Normal ppl are not hostile as you are toward me without a reason. I believe this goes back to sometime before Christmas when I asked you not to interject 'cute one-liners' in emails between me and the Mormon boys. I was new to the list at the time and so didn't know what you had learned already. As you are aware I havewritten to you off-line to apologize in the event that my request was offensiveand received no response from you. Izzy: I would appreciate it if you would make your disparaging remarks about me off-line. Thank you, again. Izzy. jt: I've already done the off-line thing Izzy; scripture teaches thatwhen we go to the altar to pray and we know a brother or sister has something against usto go tothat one which is what I did. However just recently you wrote: I find you to be impossibly contentious. Therefore I do not enjoy interacting with you. In fact, Id rather spend the day eating worms. I appreciate your acute willingness to offer your opinion and advice, but please rest assured that I will ask for it if I want it jt: I don't always agree with you and others but it's not my heart to be 'contentious' for contention' sake. This list is called Truth Talk isn't it? I find the above sarcastic and mean spirited which is hardly Christian Love I am not angry with you. You are the one with the anger so if I am wrong then what IS the problem? You recently posted an email that addressed both BillT and myself. I think this is what Izzy was talking about. She used the party scenario. jt: No Izzy has an issue that goes back a long. time Surely you don't accept Izzy's pronouncement about him. She is cryptic and critical
RE: [TruthTalk] Re:Demonic vs Normal
Lance, Thanks for the comments. I agree completely, sadly enough. I have no hope of unity either. Sinfulness/selfishness/flesh is a fact of life on earth. We can only try to keep our eyes on our own failings, and try to avoid toxic relationships that drag us down. I guess thats why I tend to avoid the subject of doctrineeveryone has a different opinion about everything. Infinite hairsplitting. If you were looking at Jesus, face to face, right now I am sure that doctrine would be the LAST thing on your mind. So I just keep trying to look at Him. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is. (I John 3:2) Seems to me that the important thing is what kind of relationship we have with the Lord, and how that is reflected in our everyday life. I assume you have a Christian bookstore? I guess dealing with Christians in that capacity must be very trying at times. Do you get constant flak because you carry books with authors/subjects/opinions that someone objects to? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [TruthTalk] Re:Demonic vs Normal For 16 years I've engaged Christians in conversation in our bookstore. Sadly, Izzy many sound just like TT. They'll fight at the drop of the proverbial hat. You name it and, they'll tell you what the correct understanding of Scripture is on it. I wrote in an earlier post something like: Oh ya? well my Dad (read Truth) can beat up your Dad(read Truth). The diversity that exists outside the church exists inside the church. I'm afraid that this side of eternity there will be no unity. Whatever John 17 is about it ain't about this. Lance From: ShieldsFamily To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 27, 2004 10:12 Subject: [TruthTalk] Prayer request. Dear TruthTalkers, I suggest we spend the rest of this day praying for TruthTalk, and doing spiritual warfare against demonic spirits being sent to cause contention, strife, rudeness and accusations. There is something happening here to try to take our eyes off of Jesus Christ and His glory. May the Lord rebuke every demonic spirit and glorify Himself. TruthTalk belongs to the Lord, and not to the devil, in the name of Jesus. Izzy
RE: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Academics
John, Is he doing a residency in trauma care? How many years? I cant imagine what he is enduring to do his research right now. Are you able to keep in touch with him there? Izzy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 10:18 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Spiritual Academics In a message dated 3/27/2004 5:59:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John, What is your sons specialty? Izzy Right now he is hinking ER J
