date:20050222









 They have proven to be of no value to me, on a
personal level, and even dangerous to the to the cause of
unity. Sectarian to the core, these people and grossly
against the prayer of unity by the Christ (John 17).
Water Dog --- out!!!





JD, I have never come across this cause
of unity in scripture. It is not a cause. It is a fact for
those who are truly in Christ. It isnt achieved by looking at each
other, or comparing to one another. It is achieved by just being in
Him. Izzy

Jn 17:20I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for
those also who believe in Me through their word;  
21that they may all be one; even
as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that
the world may believe that You sent Me.22The
glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just
as We are one; 23I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in
unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You
have loved Me.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

DM:Other than the occasional linguistic nuance or scientific reference, I
cannot recall a single point of substance, theologically, made by you since
my arrival on TT. Rather, one can't help but note your confusion as to the
nature of Christ and, the failure to distinguish between evangelical over
legal repentance.(see Bill Taylor in the archives for this) Formal logic,
rationalism and fundamentalism charactize your person and, style.John, Bill
and Jonathan have identified such to you on numerous occasions. Your
response has tended to be along the lines of a refrain from a song; 'to know
him is to love him'. I sense, David, that you do not know yourself.


- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 21, 2005 13:14
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers


 Lance wrote:
  'I truly would like to understand your
  experience' says David Miller -
  TRANSLATION 'I believe that I'm the
  best I've ever seen and I just want
  people like yourself and Bill to feel the effect
  of my rhetorical questions.' IMO

 LOL.  Lance, I know that I sometimes have trouble communicating, but this
 one truly is not my fault.  My questions are very plain and the purpose
 truly is to understand his experience with public preaching on campus.
How
 you interpret my post to be me saying that I believe that I'm the best
I've
 sever seen is truly ridiculous.  John said, I will be glad to share.
Why
 can't you have the same loving attitude?  Besides, I have always said that
I
 am not even among the top of public preachers.  I'm among the very least.
I
 don't even do it every weekend.  Now Kevin, he is another story.  I met
many
 preachers who pointed to him as their mentor in street preaching long
before
 I had ever met him.  He spends a lot more of his own money to travel to
 events and preach God's Word.  I'm not even close to being in his league.

 Lance wrote:
  David, do you ever believe that it might be
  wise for you to sit near the back of the class,
  silently, and learn from people like Bill and John?
  So many of your posts have an air of pomposity
  about them! IMO

 Well, Lance, if you see pomposity in my humble questions about John's
campus
 preaching experience, then the problem is you, not me.  Please read my
post
 again.  You have to try real hard to find anything pompous there.
 Furthermore, I believe that we are all adults on an equal footing here.
 There is no need for anyone to be singled out as THE TEACHER and everyone
 else as silent underage pupils sitting in the back of the class.  I prefer
 for us to speak to one another.  That's what a discussion list is all
about.
 This forum is more like a workshop of peers rather than a classroom of
 children with some older adult actively teaching the rest of us who are
 passively receiving.  Bill and John have certainly distinguished
themselves
 to be above me in many areas, but that does not mean that I need to be
 silent.  I try hard to see us as peers with different backgrounds.  Please
 don't try to force them into a position of preeminence above me.  Surely
 humble Bill would not be comfortable being thrust into such a position.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.


 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

2005-02-22 Thread Judy Taylor




What would cause you to think that post Barthians are 
any the wiser G? God states clearly that there is a vast
gulf between our thoughts and his thoughts and this 
would include Word-(Hebrew and Greek) sensitive scholarly
translators. God is funny about revealing Himself 
to whomsoever HE wills. Our opinions don't carry much 
weight. (see Isa 55:8,9) judyt

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:43:03 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  myth (your posts indicate that 
  you actuallybelievethe KJVis God's wordS, an extremely 
  arrogant assumption at best; God's Word is uniquely thejurisdiction of 
  postBarthians, e.g.,Word-sensitive scholarly translators suited to the 
  task of conceptualizing and communicatingGods thoughts humanly in modern 
  language)
  
  On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:35:12 -0800 
  (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
I believe the KJV is God's word for 
us
||

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

2005-02-22 Thread Judy Taylor

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:42:39 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

In a
message dated 2/21/2005 7:39:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Still waiting on
the supporting facts about KJ being a HOMOYou
do all that research on the Missionary Baptist bible , you
can do the research on queen James.

I've tried to find something to
support the "queen James" slander and haven't come up with much. I suspect the
online sites who agree with you
and Lance are most likely "gay" because they don't identify themselves.
In his own writings James 1 likened his love for these men to the love and loyalty between Jesus and John
the Beloved. I've seen "gays" online who claim that the covenant between
David and Jonathan was a
homosexual one. Sick and twisted thinking...
repentance is in order
here... whose side are you on anyway?By the way
-- to all -- some of my very best friends are
Baptist or attend a Baptist church. My daughter and her husband
are worship leaders there. After talking with Deegan, it is apparent
that the Baptist church really needs someone like me...so my wife and I
have decided to attend a Baptist fellowship near here. But I
am no friend of any who are aggressive legalist. They have proven
to be of no value to me, on a personal level, and even dangerous to the to the
cause of unity. Sectarian to the core, these people and
grossly against the prayer of unity by the Christ (John 17).Water
Dog --- out!!!

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

(your posts indicate that you actuallybelievethe KJV...conceptualizing and communicatingGods thoughts humanly in modern language)

Imagine that someone actually believes the word of God not some secular rock artistse, or ;ate night talk show host. Image there is no Rock concert in heaven
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


myth (your posts indicate that you actuallybelievethe KJVis God's wordS, an extremely arrogant assumption at best; God's Word is uniquely thejurisdiction of postBarthians, e.g.,Word-sensitive scholarly translators suited to the task of conceptualizing and communicatingGods thoughts humanly in modern language)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:35:12 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I believe the KJV is God's word for us
||
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

NOTICE to all on TT:
Please have all your critiques of all persons on TT posted before noon wed.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
DM:Other than the occasional linguistic nuance or scientific reference, Icannot recall a single point of substance, theologically, made by you sincemy arrival on TT. Rather, one can't help but note your confusion as to thenature of Christ and, the failure to distinguish between evangelical overlegal repentance.(see Bill Taylor in the archives for this) Formal logic,rationalism and fundamentalism charactize your person and, style.John, Billand Jonathan have identified such to you on numerous occasions. Yourresponse has tended to be along the lines of a refrain from a song; 'to knowhim is to love him'. I sense, David, that you do not know yourself.- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: February 21, 2005 13:14Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street
Preachers Lance wrote: 'I truly would like to understand your experience' says David Miller - TRANSLATION 'I believe that I'm the best I've ever seen and I just want people like yourself and Bill to feel the effect of my rhetorical questions.' IMO LOL. Lance, I know that I sometimes have trouble communicating, but this one truly is not my fault. My questions are very plain and the purpose truly is to understand his experience with public preaching on campus.How you interpret my post to be me saying that "I believe that I'm the bestI've sever seen" is truly ridiculous. John said, "I will be glad to share."Why can't you have the same loving attitude? Besides, I have always said thatI am not even among the top of public preachers. I'm among the very least.I don't even do it every weekend. Now Kevin, he
is another story. I metmany preachers who pointed to him as their mentor in street preaching longbefore I had ever met him. He spends a lot more of his own money to travel to events and preach God's Word. I'm not even close to being in his league. Lance wrote: David, do you ever believe that it might be wise for you to sit near the back of the class, silently, and learn from people like Bill and John? So many of your posts have an air of pomposity about them! IMO Well, Lance, if you see pomposity in my humble questions about John'scampus preaching experience, then the problem is you, not me. Please read mypost again. You have to try real hard to find anything pompous there. Furthermore, I believe that we are all adults on an equal footing here. There is no need for anyone to be singled out as THE TEACHER and
everyone else as silent underage pupils sitting in the back of the class. I prefer for us to speak to one another. That's what a discussion list is allabout. This forum is more like a workshop of peers rather than a classroom of children with some older adult actively teaching the rest of us who are passively receiving. Bill and John have certainly distinguishedthemselves to be above me in many areas, but that does not mean that I need to be silent. I try hard to see us as peers with different backgrounds. Please don't try to force them into a position of preeminence above me. Surely humble Bill would not be comfortable being thrust into such a position. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow 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 afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.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! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

Our opinions don't carry much weight. (see Isa 55:8,9)
Unless you are a liberal or scholar, then opinions hold all the weight
Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


What would cause you to think that post Barthians are any the wiser G? God states clearly that there is a vast
gulf between our thoughts and his thoughts and this would include Word-(Hebrew and Greek) sensitive scholarly
translators. God is funny about revealing Himself to whomsoever HE wills. Our opinions don't carry much 
weight. (see Isa 55:8,9) judyt

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:43:03 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

myth (your posts indicate that you actuallybelievethe KJVis God's wordS, an extremely arrogant assumption at best; God's Word is uniquely thejurisdiction of postBarthians, e.g.,Word-sensitive scholarly translators suited to the task of conceptualizing and communicatingGods thoughts humanly in modern language)

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 08:35:12 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I believe the KJV is God's word for us
||

		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

Prime example of "MODERNE" scholarship
David loved Jonathan therefore he was "gay"
Jesus loved John ...

No other data is forthcoming Convict the man on rumor. It is the Modern thing to do Maybe they can sell the story to a Tabloid.Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:42:39 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

In a message dated 2/21/2005 7:39:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Still waiting on the supporting facts about KJ being a HOMOYou do all that research on the Missionary Baptist bible , you can do the research on queen James.

I've tried to find something to support the "queen James" slander and haven't come up with much. I suspect the online sites who agree with you and Lance are most likely "gay" because they don't identify themselves. In his own writings James 1 likened his love for these men to the love and loyalty between Jesus and John the Beloved. I've seen "gays" online who claim that the covenant between David and Jonathan was a homosexual one. Sick and twisted thinking...
repentance is in order here... whose side are you on anyway?By the way -- to all -- some of my very best friends are Baptist or attend a Baptist church. My daughter and her husband are worship leaders there. After talking with Deegan, it is apparent that the Baptist church really needs someone like me...so my wife and I have decided to attend a Baptist fellowship near here. But I am no friend of any who are aggressive legalist. They have proven to be of no value to me, on a personal level, and even dangerous to the to the cause of unity. Sectarian to the core, these people and grossly against the prayer of unity by the Christ (John 17).Water Dog --- out!!!

Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! What will yours do?

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

In a message dated 2/21/2005 9:47:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

God's Word is uniquely the jurisdiction of postBarthians, e.g., Word-sensitive scholarly translators suited to the task of conceptualizing and communicating Gods thoughts humanly in modern language)

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

In a message dated 2/21/2005 11:21:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

DAVEH: OooopsI guess that is an end to our friendship, eh John! :-( 

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

 But I am no friend of any who are aggressive legalist. They have proven to be of no value to me, on a personal level, and even dangerous to the to the cause of unity. 

Water Dog --- out!!!


hope not

Jd

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

In a message dated 2/22/2005 1:04:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

JD, I have never come across this cause of unity in scripture. It is not a cause. It is a fact for those who are truly in Christ. It isnt achieved by looking at each other, or comparing to one another. It is achieved by just being in Him. Izzy



Christ's desire should be our cause, Linda. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

In a message dated 2/22/2005 6:02:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


In a message dated 2/21/2005 9:47:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

God's Word is uniquely the jurisdiction of postBarthians, e.g., Word-sensitive scholarly translators suited to the task of conceptualizing and communicating Gods thoughts humanly in modern language) 
 



Judy recently contrasted this statement with "the Word of God." The fact of the matter is this --- the "Word of God" comes to us via TRANSLATION and the process described above. There is no alternative (and I am talking aout "scripture"). 


JD

Re: [TruthTalk] False Critical text

2005-02-22 Thread bborrow26

BLAINE:  Actually, Dave H and I agree on ALMOST everything.  Nothing too
important do we disagree on, I believe.  This is true of most Mormons who
are up on church doctrines, which is the result of the BoM's influence in
this world of secular disagreement.  We would both agree, I believe, for
instance, that it would be great if we could teach you brethren the true
gospel, as we understand it.  (:  (No offense intended.) 

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:22:41 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  I am not the one who believes that FF Bruce and myself and anyone 
 else share brotherhood because we agree.No two people on this 
 list are in agreement.
 
  
 To tolerate everything is too teach nothing.
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 In a message dated 2/20/2005 4:30:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
 
 As a good Missionary Baptist, you are a faithful conveyor of The 
 Defense. 
   
 In order to refute an idea or set of beliefs it is good to have a 
 clear understanding of thse beliefs. If one is unable to define such 
 or to misapply beliefs that are not held to attack those beliefs not 
 held, is to destroy a straw man. Not always are straw men built as a 
 pretense to create a beatable opponent, sometimes they are built 
 because one does not care nor is able to correctly identify or 
 define those beliefs. well, you should know this up close and 
 personally  --sense you have tagged me with water dog 
 Campbellite  knowing full well that I have not been associated with 
 the Chruch of Christ for years.   Should you refute the Missionary 
 Baptist position what is that to me. Maybe you could give us all 
 the correct definition of a Missionary Baptist Maybe not; since 
 you have misapplied it to me, there is a good chance you would 
 misapply beliefs to them also! This is simply Slovenly Scholarship 
 at its worst.  And where did I criticize their teachings?   I am 
 critical
  of their attitude  --   negative and harsh has been my experience.  
  It is part of the reason why their membership is comparatively 
 small.   And    they teach this silly notion of an inspired KJV 
 along with thinking that pictures of Jesus will send you to hell.  
   
 What doctrinal issues are you in agreement with in the 54 who worked 
 on the Authorized Version? 
   
 Lets ask them, oh that won't work. Maybe you could fill us in what 
 were their beliefs? this is how nuts this conservation is.  You are 
 the one who insists that doctrinal sameness is critical to unity and 
 salvation.   And now you make fun of me for asking what unity exists 
 between you and the 54?   Go figure.  
 
 What doctrinal issues do you agree with Mollenkott?
 God is an abusive parent?
 We are all lesbians?
 God is a female?   You are the who lfted up the 54.   I do not even 
 know of Mollenkott.  
   
 What doctrinal issues do you agree with Kittel?
 The jews are not God's chosen people but vermin that should be 
 herded like cattle gassed?   I don't know if this is what Kittle 
 believed or if he was in fear for his life or his families life.  I 
 do know that he wrote 26 of the over 1500 articles in the the 
 Theological Dictionary   --- something you choose to 
 ignore.
   
 FF Bruce?
 The Bible contains fables?   What are you doing, Kevin.   I am not 
 the one who believes that FF Bruce and myself and anyone else share 
 brotherhood because we agree.No two people on this list are in 
 agreement.
 
 
 
 
   
 -
 Do you Yahoo!?
  Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

--
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] vessels meet for masters use

G whizes "God's Word is uniquely the jurisdiction of postBarthians"

As only a "Protestant" can know it Some good reading on the rantings of Neo's
Barth was a master of putting new ("MODERN") Heretical meanings into traditional language

http://www.datarat.net/DR/Lex-B.html
Barth, Karl(1888-1968) Neo-Orthodox theologian and heretic. 
Barth used traditional religious terminology to describe his heretical doctrines (much like modern Mormons). Underlying this, however, are concepts like the utter transcendence of God, the Bible as less than the voice of the Lord (i.e., God cannot be contained in human language), acceptance of Natural Evolution over the Genesis Creation Account, the so-called 'Higher Criticism' with it's denial of the historicity of Scripture, subscription to Universal
 Atonement and Universal Salvation, belief that God would need to correct His decrees, denial of the impassibility of God, etc. 
Strikingly similar to contemporary Post Modernism, Barth viewed paradox and uncertainty as theological virtues, esteemed doctrinal contradiction, and conceived of God as largely unknowable ! ( Explaining why much of what Barth wrote is pseudo-intellectual convoluted gibberish. ) 
While claiming to be against theological liberalism, Karl Barth had been heavily involved in Socialist politics in his native Switzerland.Which political philosophy he later recanted but is widely believed to have influenced his theology. 
Like Schleiermacher before him, Barth is declared by his proponents to be the "Father of Modern Protestantism".Similar to Schleiermacher, though, he can be best described as a corrupter of modern protestantism. 
( SEE:Barthian, Neo-Orthodoxy, Universal Atonement, Universal Salvation, Universalism, German Theology, Theopaschite Heresy, Post Modern. RELATED:Dialectical Theology.CONTRAST:Limited Atonment, Election, Immutability, Impassibility.SIMILAR:Brunner, Bultmann, Schleiermacher. ) 
http://www.godspointofview.com/public/articles/aboutbarth.html
It would be impossible to encapsulate the theology of Barth in any adequate way. I would, in broad terms, characterize the theology of Karl Barth as part Eastern Mysticism, part Hinduism, part Greek Gnosticism, part Platonism, part Aristotalanism and part Druidism. Was it also part Christian and part Judaism?
But no one deserves to take an undue portion of the blame for Barths mad rantings. He and he alone is guilty of inventing things that had never been known or taught before in heaven or in earth. One is tempted to add under the earth, but I will not, because that is possibly the very place from whence Barth fetched them.
Thinking Like a Protestant in the Humanistic, Evangelical Wilderness 
http://www.forerunner.com/puritan/PS.Reformed.html

Karl Barth alarmed at Nietzsche like liberalism with its resultant tyranny, felt compelled along with other 20th century theologians to reinvent orthodoxy (deemed neo-orthodoxy or new orthodoxy). Unfortunately, Barth and his colleagues borrowed heavily on the heretical presuppositions of their more militant liberal brothers, in that they rejected confessional creedal orthodoxy (like Nietzsche convinced such notions were outmoded). Additionally, the neo-orthodox roundly reject the inspiration, infallibility and immutable authority of the Scriptures, derogatorily calling it "the paper pope." Thus, while holding selected moral lessons of traditional Christianity, the neo-orthodox are essentially unitarian-universalists. Notwithstanding, because they have remolded God into man's image, they remain blaspheming heretics perhaps more dangerous than their frothing liberal counterparts in that neo-orthodox tyranny is
 kinder and gentler replete with a beguiling smile. 
The neo-orthodox have had a profound and deleterious effect on evangelicals, effectively eroding their ability and will to resist humanistic thought.When you combine the effects of Hegalian statism, Nietzsche like elitism, Darwinian dehumanization and Barth's anesthetizing universalism, you have a full orbed comprehensive world-life-view which like the builders of the tower of Babel are seeking to dethrone God and establish man as sovereign. It should also be plain and painfully clear that evangelicalism is not only unable to cope with this challenge, but for all intents and purposes has already been neutralized by adopting some if not all of humanism's presuppositions. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/22/2005 6:02:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a message dated 2/21/2005 9:47:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
God's Word is uniquely the jurisdiction of postBarthians, e.g., Word-sensitive scholarly translators suited to the task of conceptualizing and communicating Gods thoughts humanly in modern language) 
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

Since you have obviously read Barfh could you elaborate on "His view of Scripture was similar to that of Jesus."Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:




Karl Barth was probably the most important theologian since Athanasius. He was to theology what Einstein was to science. He brought together the patristic emphasis of God's acts in His being with the reformation emphasis of God's being in His acts. His view of Scripture was similar to that of Jesus.

Anyone critiquing Barth, before Wednesday anyway, hasn't read him, Kevin.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 22, 2005 11:03
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

G whizes "God's Word is uniquely the jurisdiction of postBarthians"

As only a "Protestant" can know it Some good reading on the rantings of Neo's
Barth was a master of putting new ("MODERN") Heretical meanings into traditional language

http://www.datarat.net/DR/Lex-B.html
Barth, Karl(1888-1968) Neo-Orthodox theologian and heretic. 
Barth used traditional religious terminology to describe his heretical doctrines (much like modern Mormons). Underlying this, however, are concepts like the utter transcendence of God, the Bible as less than the voice of the Lord (i.e., God cannot be contained in human language), acceptance of Natural Evolution over the Genesis Creation Account, the so-called 'Higher Criticism' with it's denial of the historicity of Scripture, subscription to Universal
 Atonement and Universal Salvation, belief that God would need to correct His decrees, denial of the impassibility of God, etc. 
Strikingly similar to contemporary Post Modernism, Barth viewed paradox and uncertainty as theological virtues, esteemed doctrinal contradiction, and conceived of God as largely unknowable ! ( Explaining why much of what Barth wrote is pseudo-intellectual convoluted gibberish. ) 
While claiming to be against theological liberalism, Karl Barth had been heavily involved in Socialist politics in his native Switzerland.Which political philosophy he later recanted but is widely believed to have influenced his theology. 
Like Schleiermacher before him, Barth is declared by his proponents to be the "Father of Modern Protestantism".Similar to Schleiermacher, though, he can be best described as a corrupter of modern protestantism. 
( SEE:Barthian, Neo-Orthodoxy, Universal Atonement, Universal Salvation, Universalism, German Theology, Theopaschite Heresy, Post Modern. RELATED:Dialectical Theology.CONTRAST:Limited Atonment, Election, Immutability, Impassibility.SIMILAR:Brunner, Bultmann, Schleiermacher. ) 
http://www.godspointofview.com/public/articles/aboutbarth.html
It would be impossible to encapsulate the theology of Barth in any adequate way. I would, in broad terms, characterize the theology of Karl Barth as part Eastern Mysticism, part Hinduism, part Greek Gnosticism, part Platonism, part Aristotalanism and part Druidism. Was it also part Christian and part Judaism?
But no one deserves to take an undue portion of the blame for Barths mad rantings. He and he alone is guilty of inventing things that had never been known or taught before in heaven or in earth. One is tempted to add under the earth, but I will not, because that is possibly the very place from whence Barth fetched them.
Thinking Like a Protestant in the Humanistic, Evangelical Wilderness 
http://www.forerunner.com/puritan/PS.Reformed.html

Karl Barth alarmed at Nietzsche like liberalism with its resultant tyranny, felt compelled along with other 20th century theologians to reinvent orthodoxy (deemed neo-orthodoxy or new orthodoxy). Unfortunately, Barth and his colleagues borrowed heavily on the heretical presuppositions of their more militant liberal brothers, in that they rejected confessional creedal orthodoxy (like Nietzsche convinced such notions were outmoded). Additionally, the neo-orthodox roundly reject the inspiration, infallibility and immutable authority of the Scriptures, derogatorily calling it "the paper pope." Thus, while holding selected moral lessons of traditional Christianity, the neo-orthodox are essentially unitarian-universalists. Notwithstanding, because they have remolded God into man's image, they remain blaspheming heretics perhaps more dangerous than their frothing liberal counterparts in that neo-orthodox tyranny is
 kinder and gentler replete with a beguiling smile. 
The neo-orthodox have had a profound and deleterious effect on evangelicals, effectively eroding their ability and will to resist humanistic thought.When you combine the effects of Hegalian statism, Nietzsche like elitism, Darwinian dehumanization and Barth's anesthetizing universalism, you have a full orbed comprehensive world-life-view which like the builders of the tower of Babel are seeking to dethrone God and establish man as sovereign. It should also be plain and painfully clear that evangelicalism is not only unable to cope with this challenge, but for all

Re: [TruthTalk] Judaism and Theology

2005-02-22 Thread Bill Taylor

Judy wrote This is one disjointed
stream of "consciousness" Please explain tome what "beatle mania"
and/or an unbelieving Jewish Rabbi at a Religious tolerance meeting have to
do with "living in the moment?"

I did, Judy: thatwas the purpose of my
response.You refused to accept it.

I was at that "meeting" as a representative
for the Colorado Association of School Boards. I served on the CASB board of
directors for seven years, right in the heat of the Outcomes-Based-Education
movement. This meeting was sponsored by the University of Denver in an attempt
to moderate the rhetoric between religious conservatives on one side and liberal
activists on the other (you will notice that the panel was weighted heavily in
favor of the "progressives"). I would not have driven 170 miles to take in the
event, had it not been to perform my duties as a director. But you didn't know
that, did you?

I bring this up to point out the way in which our
unguarded biases present themselves in the "rhetoric" of our language. Why, for
instance, did you choose to includethe phrase "at a Religious tolerance
meeting" in your statement? The substance of your question is this: "Please
explain tome what 'beatle mania' and/or an unbelieving Jewish
Rabbihave to do with 'living in the moment'?" Absent the rhetorical thrust
of your prepositional phrase,your question is quite benign. In fact, it
has a ring of credibility to it: in other words, you may be saying that you
realize I attempted to address this already, butyou havemissed my
point and are now seeking clarification. Ah but add the rhetoric and your
unguarded bias bursts forth: You are not seeking clarification at all; instead
you are questioning our veracity to even address the issue, let alone speak
authoritatively to it.

Perhaps, Judy, this was not your intent. If
youwill tell me itwas not, I will take your word for it. BUT
if it was not your intent, then you would do well to consider what I
have just denoted. You will certainly benefit in terms of the way you are
received if you can learn to tone down the rhetoric.

Sincerely,

Bill

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 7:24
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judaism and
Theology

Trusting God along withliving in the moment is
basically obeying Jesus who pointed out that "without Him we can do nothing"
anyway and who said that we are unable to turn one hair white or black (now
remember we are talking about reality rather than to conceal and cover
up). It's pride and unbelief to plan even a year ahead according to
James who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

I don't agree that Judaism's concern with living in
the now is what is sad. It is their bitterness and unbelief.
judyt

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:17:55 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I was at a panel discussion one time about
fifteen years ago. The topic was religious
tolerance and the panel was made up of an evangelical Christian, a
liberal Christian, a Catholic priest, and a Jewish Rabbi. At one point during
the discussion a very well-meaning and elderly Christian woman stood up and
told the rabbi that she would be praying for his eternal salvation. His
response to herwas something on the order of, "Please do not pray for me
my eternal destiny; I know you mean well, but pray,instead, for me now. I can tell you what
willhappen after I die: Nothing. What I need is prayers for the here and
now."

Wow, that really floored me! I realized with that
statement that I was looking at a man who held out no hope for the future. In
his mind there is no salvation apart from the (first) coming of Messiah, or
the restoration of the Temple, or something,and none of these are
present realities; hence when he's dies, that's all there is; it is over; he
will just cease to exist.

While I do not buy the idea that the Jews are
theological disinterested (after all the above was this man's theology), I do
think they are much more oriented to the present than we are, and not nearly
so inclined to forward thinking. The comment, "Judaism is
concerned primarily with living now,"is therefore a sad commentary --
and, I believe, more sadly true. Bill

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
thenotion belowsounds likethe essence of
beatle-mania*, the perfect way todeal with the reality of a two year
old whose mind set, apparently, corresponds precisely to the mind set of
Judaism

*related to
the concept 'focus and center life on philosophy rather than
theology'

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:30:23 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:Judaism is concerned primarily with living now.

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

In a message dated 2/22/2005 8:36:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Karl Barth was probably the most important theologian since Athanasius. He was to theology what Einstein was to science. He brought together the patristic emphasis of God's acts in His being with the reformation emphasis of God's being in His acts. His view of Scripture was similar to that of Jesus. 
 
Anyone critiquing Barth, before Wednesday anyway, hasn't read him, Kevin.


AMEN TO THAT and only Lance will fully understand by revival type attitude on that!

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] False Critical text

In a message dated 2/22/2005 8:06:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Here you go TOTAL UNITY of the Faith The BoM solves "diversity"
 Why not join up JD?



See if you can find a dumber question to ask me, Kevin. I am asking you to do just one thing, and I bet you can't even do that.

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

David Miller wrote to Lance:
 John said, I will be glad to share.  Why
 can't you have the same loving attitude?

John wrote:
 John also said something about your
 questioning as being transparent.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and took this statement of 
yours in a positive sense.  I considered it to mean that you had found me 
honest and open in my dialogue, and, therefore, you were glad to share.  Now 
you make it clear that you meant to malign me with this comment.  You 
disappoint me, John.

John wrote:
 I answered your initial questioning about my
 the steet preaching issue

No, you did not.  You answered only a few of the questions.  This is why I 
followed up with some other questions, hoping you would answer.

John wrote:
 You and the FMO ...

What is FMO?

John wrote:
 ... are no more involved with successful ministry
 than a host of others  --   including myself.

What do you mean?  Are you implying that none of us are involved in 
successful ministry, or are you trying to imply that everyone here is 
involved with successful ministry?

John wrote:
 As far as pursuing the discussion further
 really,  I am not interested.

I retract what I said about your attitude of love.  You are undeserving of 
the benefit of the doubt.  I expressed an interest in you and your ministry 
experience, but you don't care about anybody but yourself.

John wrote:
 I have my opinion about SP and the problems
 they cause for the remaining Christian community.

And you don't care to share that opinion?  I am very interested in both your 
opinion and your experiential background in this area.  Why are you so 
secretive about it?

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer 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] Mormons and Street Preachers

2005-02-22 Thread Terry Clifton

Lance Muir wrote:
DM:Other than the occasional linguistic nuance or scientific reference, I
cannot recall a single point of substance, theologically, made by you since
my arrival on TT. Rather, one can't help but note your confusion as to the
nature of Christ and, the failure to distinguish between evangelical over
legal repentance.(see Bill Taylor in the archives for this) Formal logic,
rationalism and fundamentalism charactize your person and, style.John, Bill
and Jonathan have identified such to you on numerous occasions. Your
response has tended to be along the lines of a refrain from a song; 'to know
him is to love him'. I sense, David, that you do not know yourself.
- Original Message - 
 

Wake up Lance.  Time to get back in touch with reality.  John, Jonathan 
and Bill are hardly a panel of experts, and your setting yourself up as 
being worthy to judge others would be funny if it were not such a 
serious sin.  Try to remember that you will be held resposible for every 
idle word you speak, whether you speak as a pretend authority or as a 
voice for the liberals.

Terry
--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you 
ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

No! I'd be happy to recommend titles should you
wish to do some research.

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

Sent: February 22, 2005 11:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for
masters use

Since you have obviously read Barfh could you elaborate on "His
view of Scripture was similar to that of Jesus."Lance
Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

Karl Barth was probably the most important
theologian since Athanasius. He was to theology what Einstein was to
science. He brought together the patristic emphasis of God's acts in His
being with the reformation emphasis of God's being in His acts. His view of
Scripture was similar to that of Jesus.

Anyone critiquing Barth, before Wednesday
anyway, hasn't read him, Kevin.

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

Sent: February 22, 2005 11:03
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet
for masters use

G whizes "God's Word is
uniquely the jurisdiction of postBarthians"

As only a "Protestant" can know it Some good reading on the
rantings of Neo's
Barth was a master of putting new
("MODERN") Heretical meanings into traditional language

http://www.datarat.net/DR/Lex-B.html
Barth, Karl(1888-1968) Neo-Orthodox
theologian and heretic.
Barth
used traditional religious terminology to describe his
heretical doctrines (much like modern Mormons).
Underlying this, however, are concepts like the utter
transcendence of God, the Bible as
less than the voice of the Lord (i.e., God cannot be contained in
human language), acceptance of Natural Evolution
over the Genesis Creation Account, the so-called 'Higher
Criticism' with it's denial of the historicity of Scripture, subscription to
Universal Atonement and Universal Salvation, belief that God would need to
correct His decrees, denial of the impassibility of God,
etc.
Strikingly similar to
contemporary Post Modernism, Barth
viewed paradox and uncertainty
as theological virtues, esteemed doctrinal
contradiction, and
conceived of God as largely unknowable !
( Explaining why
much of what Barth wrote is pseudo-intellectual convoluted gibberish.
)
While claiming to be
against theological liberalism, Karl Barth had been
heavily involved in
Socialist politics in his native Switzerland.Which political philosophy he later recanted but is widely
believed to have influenced his theology.
Like Schleiermacher
before him, Barth is declared by his proponents to be the "Father of Modern
Protestantism".Similar to
Schleiermacher, though, he can be best described as a corrupter of
modern protestantism.
( SEE:Barthian,
Neo-Orthodoxy,
Universal
Atonement, Universal
Salvation, Universalism,
German
Theology, Theopaschite
Heresy, Post
Modern. RELATED:Dialectical
Theology.CONTRAST:Limited
Atonment, Election,
Immutability,
Impassibility.SIMILAR:Brunner,
Bultmann,
Schleiermacher.
)
http://www.godspointofview.com/public/articles/aboutbarth.html
It would be impossible to encapsulate the theology of
Barth in any adequate way. I would, in broad terms, characterize
the theology of Karl Barth as part Eastern Mysticism,
part Hinduism, part Greek Gnosticism,
part Platonism, part Aristotalanism and
part Druidism. Was it also part Christian and part
Judaism?
But no one deserves to take an undue portion of the blame for Barths
mad rantings. He and he alone is guilty of inventing things that
had never been known or taught before in heaven or in earth. One
is tempted to add under the earth, but I will not, because that is
possibly the very place from whence Barth fetched them.
Thinking Like a Protestant in the
Humanistic, Evangelical Wilderness
http://www.forerunner.com/puritan/PS.Reformed.html

Karl Barth alarmed at Nietzsche like liberalism with its resultant
tyranny, felt compelled along with other 20th century theologians to
reinvent orthodoxy (deemed neo-orthodoxy or new orthodoxy). Unfortunately,
Barth and his colleagues borrowed heavily on the heretical presuppositions
of their more militant liberal brothers, in that they rejected
confessional creedal orthodoxy (like Nietzsche convinced such notions were
outmoded). Additionally, the neo-orthodox roundly reject the inspiration,
infallibility and immutable authority of the Scriptures,
derogatorily calling it "the

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

The 'interloper' believes there to be nothing 'secretive' on the part of the
'bishop'. I see it rather as a matter of not wanting to have a further
conversation with YOU on this issue. I CAN SEE THAT, CAN'T YOU? John's
character is undiminished, David.
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 22, 2005 12:59
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

 David Miller wrote to Lance:
  John said, I will be glad to share.  Why
  can't you have the same loving attitude?

 John wrote:
  John also said something about your
  questioning as being transparent.

 I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and took this statement
of
 yours in a positive sense.  I considered it to mean that you had found me
 honest and open in my dialogue, and, therefore, you were glad to share.
Now
 you make it clear that you meant to malign me with this comment.  You
 disappoint me, John.

 John wrote:
  I answered your initial questioning about my
  the steet preaching issue

 No, you did not.  You answered only a few of the questions.  This is why I
 followed up with some other questions, hoping you would answer.

 John wrote:
  You and the FMO ...

 What is FMO?

 John wrote:
  ... are no more involved with successful ministry
  than a host of others  --   including myself.

 What do you mean?  Are you implying that none of us are involved in
 successful ministry, or are you trying to imply that everyone here is
 involved with successful ministry?

 John wrote:
  As far as pursuing the discussion further
  really,  I am not interested.

 I retract what I said about your attitude of love.  You are undeserving of
 the benefit of the doubt.  I expressed an interest in you and your
ministry
 experience, but you don't care about anybody but yourself.

 John wrote:
  I have my opinion about SP and the problems
  they cause for the remaining Christian community.

 And you don't care to share that opinion?  I am very interested in both
your
 opinion and your experiential background in this area.  Why are you so
 secretive about it?

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

I speak NOT as an authority, Terry. Just 'walk around' my remarks and,
accept DM as you find him. I know that you, Izzie and, Judy esteem him
highly. I'd not wish for you to do otherwise.

 - Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 22, 2005 13:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

 Lance Muir wrote:

 DM:Other than the occasional linguistic nuance or scientific reference, I
 cannot recall a single point of substance, theologically, made by you
since
 my arrival on TT. Rather, one can't help but note your confusion as to
the
 nature of Christ and, the failure to distinguish between evangelical over
 legal repentance.(see Bill Taylor in the archives for this) Formal logic,
 rationalism and fundamentalism charactize your person and, style.John,
Bill
 and Jonathan have identified such to you on numerous occasions. Your
 response has tended to be along the lines of a refrain from a song; 'to
know
 him is to love him'. I sense, David, that you do not know yourself.

 - Original Message - 

 Wake up Lance.  Time to get back in touch with reality.  John, Jonathan
 and Bill are hardly a panel of experts, and your setting yourself up as
 being worthy to judge others would be funny if it were not such a
 serious sin.  Try to remember that you will be held resposible for every
 idle word you speak, whether you speak as a pretend authority or as a
 voice for the liberals.

 Terry
 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Judaism and Theology

Bill wrote:
 ... Hence both groups are in effect stationed very
 much in the now, having not the theological framework
 to sustain an optimistic outlook upon future -- and this
 even though their theologies vary quite distinctively one
 from the other.  More to the point, this, it seems to me,
 is all quite unrelated to the deliberately Hebrew mindset
 of my interpretive hermeneutic.

You seem to be using a rather broad brush.  You offered an example of a Jew 
you met who does not believe in the resurrection, and you use that anecdote 
to characterize the Jewish mindset.  I was trying to point out that this is 
not a representative view in Judaism.  I was trying to be kind here, but now 
feel compelled to put the concept forth a little stronger. [Where is Slade 
when we need him? :-)] One of the thirteen articles of faith of Maimonides 
is the resurrection of the dead.  He taught this based upon the book of 
Daniel and claimed that no Jew could interpret this other than literally. 
He taught that there was no Jewish faith nor attachment to Jewish faith 
without the belief in the resurrection of the dead.  In addition, other 
articles of the Jewish faith that he outlined include the belief in divine 
judgment (reward and retribution), and the belief in the arrival of Messiah 
which precipitates the resurrection of the dead.  There is a plethora of 
Jewish writing that concerns an optimistic outlook on the future, but 
because the outcome of that judgment is viewed to be dependent upon what we 
do in the here and now, Judaism takes a more practical approach than much of 
modern Christianity does.  Modern Christianity tends to emphasize grace to 
such an extreme that most theological frameworks seem to focus more on 
rhetoric concerning an optimism of the future than on how we should now 
live.  Historical Christianity is another matter.

Your interpretive hermeneutic that invokes the Hebrew mindset appears to 
me to be something called upon to bat down ideas that come from Hellenistic 
Judaism or Greek thought.  If there is something more than this to your 
interpretations of Scripture, please explain it to me.  I tend to consider 
this hermeneutic principle to be faulty in the way that it has been used by 
Tom Wright and others in this forum.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer 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] vessels meet for masters use

Lance wrote:
 Karl Barth was probably the most important
 theologian since Athanasius. He was to theology
 what Einstein was to science.

What you don't seem to grasp, Lance, is that for most of us on this forum, 
Karl Barth is about as irrelevant to everyday living in Jesus Christ as 
Einstein is.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer 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] Mormons and Street Preachers

Lance wrote:
 I see it rather as a matter of not wanting
 to have a further conversation with YOU
 on this issue. I CAN SEE THAT, CAN'T
 YOU?

Of course I can see it.  That is my point.  God sees my heart and my pure 
motives for asking the questions which I did.  The Lord above sees when my 
goodness is returned with selfishness and evil.  This is what you cannot 
see.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer 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] Mormons and Street Preachers









Well, Kevin, its free theo-psychotherapy
(for what its worth). J Izzy











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005
7:06 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons
and Street Preachers







NOTICE to all on TT:





Please have all your critiques of all persons on TT
posted before noon wed.

Lance Muir
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:





DM:Other than the occasional linguistic nuance or scientific reference,
I
cannot recall a single point of substance, theologically, made by you since
my arrival on TT. Rather, one can't help but note your confusion as to the
nature of Christ and, the failure to distinguish between evangelical over
legal repentance.(see Bill Taylor in the archives for this) Formal logic,
rationalism and fundamentalism charactize your person and, style.John, Bill
and Jonathan have identified such to you on numerous occasions. Your
response has tended to be along the lines of a refrain from a song; 'to know
him is to love him'. I sense, David, that you do not know yourself.


- Original Message - 
From: David Miller 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
Sent: February 21, 2005 13:14
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers


 Lance wrote:
  'I truly would like to understand your
  experience' says David Miller
-
  TRANSLATION 'I believe that I'm the
  best I've ever seen and I just want
  people like yourself and Bill to feel the effect
  of my rhetorical questions.' IMO

 LOL. Lance, I know that I sometimes have trouble communicating, but this
 one truly is not my fault. My questions are very plain and the purpose
 truly is to understand his experience with public preaching on campus.
How
 you interpret my post to be me saying that I believe that I'm the
best
I've
 sever seen is truly ridiculous. John said, I will be glad to
share.
Why
 can't you have the same loving attitude? Besides, I have always said that
I
 am not even among the top of public preachers. I'm among the very least.
I
 don't even do it every weekend. Now Kevin, he is another story. I met
many
 preachers who pointed to him as their mentor in street preaching long
before
 I had ever met him. He spends a lot more of his own money to travel to
 events and preach God's Word. I'm not even close to being in his league.

 Lance wrote:
  David, do you ever believe that it might be
  wise for you to sit near the back of the class,
  silently, and learn from people like Bill and John?
  So many of your posts have an air of pomposity
  about them! IMO

 Well, Lance, if you see pomposity in my humble questions about John's
campus
 preaching experience, then the problem is you, not me. Please read my
post
 again. You have to try real hard to find anything pompous there.
 Furthermore, I believe that we are all adults on an equal footing here.
 There is no need for anyone to be singled out as THE TEACHER and everyone
 else as silent underage pupils sitting in the back of the class. I prefer
 for us to speak to one another. That's what a discussion list is all
about.
 This forum is more like a workshop of peers rather than a classroom of
 children with some older adult actively teaching the rest of us who are
 passively receiving. Bill and John have certainly distinguished
themselves
 to be above me in many areas, but that does not mean that I need to be
 silent. I try hard to see us as peers with different backgrounds. Please
 don't try to force them into a position of preeminence above me. Surely
 humble Bill would not be comfortable being thrust into such a position.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.


 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
may
know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he
will be subscribed.


--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and he will be subscribed.









Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib
Jab's 'Second Term'

RE: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use









I guess that makes them Queens, too? Iz











From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Kevin Deegan
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005
7:12 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] vessels
meet for masters use







Prime example of MODERNE scholarship





David loved Jonathan therefore he was gay





Jesus loved John ...











No other data is forthcoming Convict the man on rumor. It is the Modern
thing to do Maybe they can sell the story to a Tabloid.

Judy Taylor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



















On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 23:42:39 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:







In a message dated 2/21/2005 7:39:47
PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Still waiting on the supporting facts about KJ being a HOMO

You do all that research on the Missionary Baptist bible , you can do the research on queen James.












I've tried to find
something to support the queen James slander and haven't come up
with much. I suspect the online sites who agree with you and Lance are most
likely gay because they don't identify themselves. In his own
writings James 1 likened his love for these men to the love and loyalty between
Jesus and John the Beloved. I've seen gays online who claim
that the covenant between David and Jonathan was a homosexual one. Sick and
twisted thinking...





repentance is in order
here... whose side are you on anyway?

By the way -- to all -- some of my very
best friends are Baptist or attend a Baptist church. My daughter
and her husband are worship leaders there. After talking with Deegan, it
is apparent that the Baptist church really needs someone like me...so my
wife and I have decided to attend a Baptist fellowship near
here. But I am no friend of any who are aggressive
legalist. They have proven to be of no value to me, on a personal
level, and even dangerous to the to the cause of unity.
Sectarian to the core, these people and grossly against the prayer of unity by
the Christ (John 17).

Water Dog --- out!!! 



















Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! What will yours
do?

RE: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use









JD, I have never come across this cause of unity in
scripture. It is not a cause. It is a fact for those who are truly
in Christ. It isnt achieved by looking at each other, or comparing to one
another. It is achieved by just being in Him. Izzy



Christ's desire should be our cause, Linda. 
JD



Jesus commissioned us to win souls for
Christ. That, in itself, takes care of the unity thingy. There are not two
different causes. Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] False Critical text









We would both agree, I believe, for

instance, that it would be great if we could teach you brethren the
true

gospel, as we understand it. (: (No offense intended.) 





All the proof we need to confirm that
Mormons have a different gospel. Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

Right Only the Elite can understand, all the rest to the back row.
No amount of Mystical Belly Button inspection will accomplish Unity[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/22/2005 8:36:43 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Karl Barth was probably the most important theologian since Athanasius. He was to theology what Einstein was to science. He brought together the patristic emphasis of God's acts in His being with the reformation emphasis of God's being in His acts. His view of Scripture was similar to that of Jesus.  Anyone critiquing Barth, before Wednesday anyway, hasn't read him, Kevin.AMEN TO THAT and only Lance will fully understand by revival type attitude on that!JD 
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

Read the book, then try the Mystical belly button approachLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

No! I'd be happy to recommend titles should you wish to do some research.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 22, 2005 11:56
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

Since you have obviously read Barfh could you elaborate on "His view of Scripture was similar to that of Jesus."Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

Karl Barth was probably the most important theologian since Athanasius. He was to theology what Einstein was to science. He brought together the patristic emphasis of God's acts in His being with the reformation emphasis of God's being in His acts. His view of Scripture was similar to that of Jesus.

Anyone critiquing Barth, before Wednesday anyway, hasn't read him, Kevin.

- Original Message - 
From: Kevin Deegan 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
Sent: February 22, 2005 11:03
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

G whizes "God's Word is uniquely the jurisdiction of postBarthians"

As only a "Protestant" can know it Some good reading on the rantings of Neo's
Barth was a master of putting new ("MODERN") Heretical meanings into traditional language

http://www.datarat.net/DR/Lex-B.html
Barth, Karl(1888-1968) Neo-Orthodox theologian and heretic. 
Barth used traditional religious terminology to describe his heretical doctrines (much like modern Mormons). Underlying this, however, are concepts like the utter transcendence of God, the Bible as less than the voice of the Lord (i.e., God cannot be contained in human language), acceptance of Natural Evolution over the Genesis Creation Account, the so-called 'Higher Criticism' with it's denial of the historicity of Scripture, subscription to Universal
 Atonement and Universal Salvation, belief that God would need to correct His decrees, denial of the impassibility of God, etc. 
Strikingly similar to contemporary Post Modernism, Barth viewed paradox and uncertainty as theological virtues, esteemed doctrinal contradiction, and conceived of God as largely unknowable ! ( Explaining why much of what Barth wrote is pseudo-intellectual convoluted gibberish. ) 
While claiming to be against theological liberalism, Karl Barth had been heavily involved in Socialist politics in his native Switzerland.Which political philosophy he later recanted but is widely believed to have influenced his theology. 
Like Schleiermacher before him, Barth is declared by his proponents to be the "Father of Modern Protestantism".Similar to Schleiermacher, though, he can be best described as a corrupter of modern protestantism. 
( SEE:Barthian, Neo-Orthodoxy, Universal Atonement, Universal Salvation, Universalism, German Theology, Theopaschite Heresy, Post Modern. RELATED:Dialectical Theology.CONTRAST:Limited Atonment, Election, Immutability, Impassibility.SIMILAR:Brunner, Bultmann, Schleiermacher. ) 
http://www.godspointofview.com/public/articles/aboutbarth.html
It would be impossible to encapsulate the theology of Barth in any adequate way. I would, in broad terms, characterize the theology of Karl Barth as part Eastern Mysticism, part Hinduism, part Greek Gnosticism, part Platonism, part Aristotalanism and part Druidism. Was it also part Christian and part Judaism?
But no one deserves to take an undue portion of the blame for Barths mad rantings. He and he alone is guilty of inventing things that had never been known or taught before in heaven or in earth. One is tempted to add under the earth, but I will not, because that is possibly the very place from whence Barth fetched them.
Thinking Like a Protestant in the Humanistic, Evangelical Wilderness 
http://www.forerunner.com/puritan/PS.Reformed.html

Karl Barth alarmed at Nietzsche like liberalism with its resultant tyranny, felt compelled along with other 20th century theologians to reinvent orthodoxy (deemed neo-orthodoxy or new orthodoxy). Unfortunately, Barth and his colleagues borrowed heavily on the heretical presuppositions of their more militant liberal brothers, in that they rejected confessional creedal orthodoxy (like Nietzsche convinced such notions were outmoded). Additionally, the neo-orthodox roundly reject the inspiration, infallibility and immutable authority of the Scriptures, derogatorily calling it "the paper pope." Thus, while holding selected moral lessons of traditional Christianity, the neo-orthodox are essentially unitarian-universalists. Notwithstanding, because they have remolded God into man's image, they remain blaspheming heretics perhaps more dangerous than their frothing liberal counterparts in that neo-orthodox tyranny is
 kinder and gentler replete with a beguiling smile. 
The neo-orthodox have had a profound and deleterious effect on evangelicals, effectively eroding their ability and will to resist humanistic thought.When you combine the effects of Hegalian statism, Nietzsche like elitism, Darwinian

RE: [TruthTalk] False Critical text









Here you go TOTAL UNITY of the Faith
The BoM solves diversity
Why not join up JD?

See if you can find a dumber question to ask me, Kevin. I am
asking you to do just one thing, and I bet you can't even do that.JD



I hear
the Muslim fundamentalists are a pretty tight group, toomaybe JD would
go for that? Iz

RE: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers













-Original Message-
John wrote:

 As far as pursuing the discussion further

  really, I am not interested.



An example of striving for the cause of
Unity??? Iz

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

When one has nothing to say, they have nothing to say even when they open their mouth.
You can't post mystical feelings on TT
Another words No substance - No factsLance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 'interloper' believes there to be nothing 'secretive' on the part of the'bishop'. I see it rather as a matter of not wanting to have a furtherconversation with YOU on this issue. I CAN SEE THAT, CAN'T YOU? John'scharacter is undiminished, David.- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: February 22, 2005 12:59Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers David Miller wrote to Lance: John said, "I will be glad to share." Why can't you have the same loving attitude? John wrote: John also said something about your questioning as being transparent. I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and took this statementof yours in a positive sense. I considered
it to mean that you had found me honest and open in my dialogue, and, therefore, you were glad to share.Now you make it clear that you meant to malign me with this comment. You disappoint me, John. John wrote: I answered your initial questioning about my the steet preaching issue No, you did not. You answered only a few of the questions. This is why I followed up with some other questions, hoping you would answer.. John wrote: You and the FMO ... What is FMO? John wrote: ... are no more involved with successful ministry than a host of others -- including myself. What do you mean? Are you implying that none of us are involved in successful ministry, or are you trying to imply that everyone here is involved with successful ministry? John wrote: As
far as pursuing the discussion further really, I am not interested. I retract what I said about your attitude of love. You are undeserving of the benefit of the doubt. I expressed an interest in you and yourministry experience, but you don't care about anybody but yourself. John wrote: I have my opinion about SP and the problems they cause for the remaining Christian community. And you don't care to share that opinion? I am very interested in bothyour opinion and your experiential background in this area. Why are you so secretive about it? Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you mayknow 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 afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.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!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

More than Irrelevant:
I avoid Barth's NEOism like the plagueDavid Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lance wrote: Karl Barth was probably the most important theologian since Athanasius. He was to theology what Einstein was to science.What you don't seem to grasp, Lance, is that for most of us on this forum, Karl Barth is about as irrelevant to everyday living in Jesus Christ as Einstein is.Peace be with you.David Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer 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!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

Well, Kevin, its free theo-psychotherapy (for what its worth). J Izzy

Well if it's FREE what is it really Worth?ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:









Well, Kevin, its free theo-psychotherapy (for what its worth). J Izzy





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin DeeganSent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 7:06 AMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers


NOTICE to all on TT:

Please have all your critiques of all persons on TT posted before noon wed.Lance Muir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

DM:Other than the occasional linguistic nuance or scientific reference, Icannot recall a single point of substance, theologically, made by you sincemy arrival on TT. Rather, one can't help but note your confusion as to thenature of Christ and, the failure to distinguish between evangelical overlegal repentance.(see Bill Taylor in the archives for this) Formal logic,rationalism and fundamentalism charactize your person and, style.John, Billand Jonathan have identified such to you on numerous occasions. Yourresponse has tended to be along the lines of a refrain from a song; 'to knowhim is to love him'. I sense, David, that you do not know yourself.- Original Message - From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: Sent: February 21, 2005 13:14Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
 Mormons and Street Preachers Lance wrote:  'I truly would like to understand your  experience' says David Miller -  TRANSLATION 'I believe that I'm the  best I've ever seen and I just want  people like yourself and Bill to feel the effect  of my rhetorical questions.' IMO LOL. Lance, I know that I sometimes have trouble communicating, but this one truly is not my fault. My questions are very plain and the purpose truly is to understand his experience with public preaching on campus.How you interpret my post to be me saying that "I believe that I'm the bestI've sever seen" is truly ridiculous. John said, "I will be glad to share."Why can't you have the same loving attitude? Besides, I have always said thatI am not even among the top of public preachers. I'm among the very
 least.I don't even do it every weekend. Now Kevin, he is another story. I metmany preachers who pointed to him as their mentor in street preaching longbefore I had ever met him. He spends a lot more of his own money to travel to events and preach God's Word. I'm not even close to being in his league. Lance wrote:  David, do you ever believe that it might be  wise for you to sit near the back of the class,  silently, and learn from people like Bill and John?  So many of your posts have an air of pomposity  about them! IMO Well, Lance, if you see pomposity in my humble questions about John'scampus preaching experience, then the problem is you, not me. Please read mypost again. You have to try real hard to find anything pompous there. Furthermore, I believe that we are all adults on an equal footing here. There
 is no need for anyone to be singled out as THE TEACHER and everyone else as silent underage pupils sitting in the back of the class. I prefer for us to speak to one another. That's what a discussion list is allabout. This forum is more like a workshop of peers rather than a classroom of children with some older adult actively teaching the rest of us who are passively receiving. Bill and John have certainly distinguishedthemselves to be above me in many areas, but that does not mean that I need to be silent. I try hard to see us as peers with different backgrounds. Please don't try to force them into a position of preeminence above me. Surely humble Bill would not be comfortable being thrust into such a position. Peace be with you. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with
 salt, that you mayknow 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 afriend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.--"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.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! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers









-Original Message-



I know that you, Izzie and, Judy esteem him

highly. I'd not wish for you to do otherwise.



And thats why you went out of your
way to demean him? 

Excuse my disbelief. Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

Maybe the ONE True Church UNITED under the Pope?
Never trust papa that dresses like mama...ShieldsFamily [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:







-Original Message-John wrote:
 As far as pursuing the discussion further
  really, I am not interested.

An example of striving for the cause of Unity??? Iz

		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

RE: [TruthTalk] Judaism and Theology









-Original Message-
You seem to be using a rather broad brush. You offered an example of a Jew 

you met who does not believe in the resurrection, and you use that
anecdote 

to characterize the Jewish mindset. I was trying to point out that
this is 

not a representative view in Judaism. 



FWIW, all the Jews that I know definitely
believe in an afterlife. They are also SO into community, having friends Everywhere, and they visit each others
homes as a constant way of life, whether related or not(especially when
traveling over the Sabbath). They could give networking seminars! They also
have a beautiful way of living life to the fullest in the moment. Izzy

Maybe JD could join them in his quest for
the Cause of Unity???

RE: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use









Wasnt that Karl Barf??? Iz



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David
 Miller
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 12:48 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use



Lance wrote:

 Karl Barth was probably the most important

 theologian since Athanasius. He was to theology

 what Einstein was to science.



What you don't seem to grasp, Lance, is that for most of us on this
forum, 

Karl Barth is about as irrelevant to everyday living in Jesus Christ as


Einstein is.



Peace be with you.

David Miller. 





--

Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that
you may know how you ought to answer 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] Judaism and Theology

2005-02-22 Thread Bill Taylor

David,

I included a disclaimer going into this discussion, that my account of the
Jewish rabbi should not be given the weight of a case study. You can choose
to ignore that fact if you like. Nevertheless, I have since learned enough
about the state of contemporary Judaism to feel justified in having used
this man as an example of what I perceive to be problematic in a greater
Jewish mindset.

You will receive no defense from me in regards to your comments pertaining
to my hermeneutic. I am very happy to be included in the same company as
Tom Wright.

Bill

- Original Message -
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judaism and Theology


 Bill wrote:
  ... Hence both groups are in effect stationed very
  much in the now, having not the theological framework
  to sustain an optimistic outlook upon future -- and this
  even though their theologies vary quite distinctively one
  from the other.  More to the point, this, it seems to me,
  is all quite unrelated to the deliberately Hebrew mindset
  of my interpretive hermeneutic.

 You seem to be using a rather broad brush.  You offered an example of a
Jew
 you met who does not believe in the resurrection, and you use that
anecdote
 to characterize the Jewish mindset.  I was trying to point out that this
is
 not a representative view in Judaism.  I was trying to be kind here, but
now
 feel compelled to put the concept forth a little stronger. [Where is Slade
 when we need him? :-)] One of the thirteen articles of faith of Maimonides
 is the resurrection of the dead.  He taught this based upon the book of
 Daniel and claimed that no Jew could interpret this other than literally.
 He taught that there was no Jewish faith nor attachment to Jewish faith
 without the belief in the resurrection of the dead.  In addition, other
 articles of the Jewish faith that he outlined include the belief in divine
 judgment (reward and retribution), and the belief in the arrival of
Messiah
 which precipitates the resurrection of the dead.  There is a plethora of
 Jewish writing that concerns an optimistic outlook on the future, but
 because the outcome of that judgment is viewed to be dependent upon what
we
 do in the here and now, Judaism takes a more practical approach than much
of
 modern Christianity does.  Modern Christianity tends to emphasize grace to
 such an extreme that most theological frameworks seem to focus more on
 rhetoric concerning an optimism of the future than on how we should now
 live.  Historical Christianity is another matter.

 Your interpretive hermeneutic that invokes the Hebrew mindset appears to
 me to be something called upon to bat down ideas that come from
Hellenistic
 Judaism or Greek thought.  If there is something more than this to your
 interpretations of Scripture, please explain it to me.  I tend to consider
 this hermeneutic principle to be faulty in the way that it has been used
by
 Tom Wright and others in this forum.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.


 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.




--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers




Not at all! I'm not distressed over people 
esteeming persons that I don't. I trust that the same is true of 
all.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: February 22, 2005 14:16
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Mormons and 
  Street Preachers
  
  
  -Original Message-
  I know that you, Izzie and, Judy esteem 
  him
  highly. I'd not wish for you to do 
  otherwise.
  
  And thats why you went out of your way 
  to demean him? 
  Excuse my disbelief. 
  Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers















Well, Kevin, its free
theo-psychotherapy (for what its worth). J Izzy











Well if it's FREE what is it really Worth?



Id
say that, plus a buck, will buy you a cup of coffee.

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

I've always believed ignorance to provide a solid foundation for criticism,
David. You too, huh?
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 22, 2005 13:48
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

 Lance wrote:
  Karl Barth was probably the most important
  theologian since Athanasius. He was to theology
  what Einstein was to science.

 What you don't seem to grasp, Lance, is that for most of us on this forum,
 Karl Barth is about as irrelevant to everyday living in Jesus Christ as
 Einstein is.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

RE: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers









Then why demean them?











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005
1:19 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons
and Street Preachers







Not at all! I'm not distressed over people esteeming persons
that I don't. I trust that the same is true of all.







- Original Message - 





From: ShieldsFamily






To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: February 22, 2005
14:16





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Mormons and Street Preachers









-Original Message-

I know that you, Izzie and, Judy esteem him

highly. I'd not wish for you to do otherwise.



And thats why you went out of your
way to demean him? 

Excuse my disbelief. Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

There was no EVIL directed your way, David. Paranoia anyone?

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: February 22, 2005 13:53
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

 Lance wrote:
  I see it rather as a matter of not wanting
  to have a further conversation with YOU
  on this issue. I CAN SEE THAT, CAN'T
  YOU?

 Of course I can see it.  That is my point.  God sees my heart and my pure
 motives for asking the questions which I did.  The Lord above sees when my
 goodness is returned with selfishness and evil.  This is what you cannot
 see.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 --
 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org

 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know 
how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org

If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed.  If you have a friend who wants to 
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.

RE: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use









Is that why youre feeling so
critical today, Lance? Iz



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 1:22 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use



I've always believed ignorance to provide a solid foundation for
criticism,

David. You too, huh?

- Original Message -

RE: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers









Evil is the opposite of loveit is
hateful, ill-will, spiteful, etc. (You aint paranoid if theyre
really out to get you.) Izzy



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance Muir
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 1:23 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers



There was no EVIL directed your way, David. Paranoia anyone?





- Original Message - 

From: David Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: February 22, 2005 13:53

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers





 Lance wrote:

  I see it rather as a matter of not wanting

  to have a further conversation with YOU

  on this issue. I CAN SEE THAT, CAN'T

  YOU?



 Of course I can see it. That is my point. God sees my heart and
my pure

 motives for asking the questions which I did. The Lord above sees
when my

 goodness is returned with selfishness and evil. This is what you
cannot

 see.



 Peace be with you.

 David Miller.





 --

 Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt,
that you may

know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6)

http://www.InnGlory.org



 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email
to

[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have
a

friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and he will be subscribed.





--

Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that
you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6)
http://www.InnGlory.org



If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend
who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and he will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

2005-02-22 Thread Terry Clifton





ShieldsFamily wrote:

  
  
  

  
  
  
  -Original Message-
John wrote:
   As far as pursuing the discussion further
    really, I am not interested.
  
  An example of striving for the
cause of
Unity??? Iz
  

=
Numerous guffaws.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use






On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 05:00:38 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  [g:]..your posts indicate that 
  you actuallybelievethe KJV [is God's wordS, an extremely arrogant 
  assumption at best]

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use




editorial 
suggestion:

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:10:27 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  ['evangelism'] 
  More than Irrelevant: ..avoid Barth's NEOism like the 
  plague||

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use





understood--this is why the 
KJV-only dudes are evangelically irrelevant; regardless, the purpose of the 
forum involves adjusting our mind/s to certain truths in which (e.g.)both 
Einstein and Barth are instrumentally originators..succinctly: it's impossble 
sailin' in the 20-21st centuriesstuck to the shorelineof the 
18-19thcenturies--hoisteth ferththine anchors 
mateys!

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:48:02 -0500 
"David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:tomost of us on this forum, 
Karl Barth is about as irrelevant to everyday living in 
Jesus Christ as Einstein 
is.

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use




correction/notes

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:00:04 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  who's wise/rain't the 
  issue--neither is 'beatle mania' per se [e.g., Lennon's 
  'Let It Be']; someonementioned it quite 
  effectivelywhilecomparing the existential rabbi's mind [set] to that of a two year old (both)'living in the 
  moment'
  
  On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 07:04:42 -0500 
  Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
||
..that post Barthians are any the 
wiser..

Re: [TruthTalk] Judaism and Theology

2005-02-22 Thread Bill Taylor




"fwiw, 
rabbisaren't'unbelieving'..their 'beliefs' are potent ... 
"

Yeah, I'm not saying they don't have "beliefs"; 
when the rabbi said that he knew what would happen after he died, which was 
"nothing," hewas most definitely expressing his belief. The "agnostic" 
aspect to which I referred, is multi-facetted and finds _expression_ in various 
forms, depending on the Jew or Jewishcontext to whichwe 
speak.This isdue to a combination of factors, the axiomatic of 
which, I believe,finds its roots in the OT idea of the "hiddenness" of 
God: unbelieving Jews (and I mean in Jesus the Messiah), if they have not lost 
hope in the promises altogether, are still waiting for"God with 
us."The unintended consequence of their, in many ways, admirable 
exaltation of Yahweh as Wholly Other, has had the negative effect of abstracting 
him away from immanence and therefore intimacyin their circadian lives. 
With no Tabernacle or Temple tohouse him, and this for nearly two 
millennia,God has become in many ways a vague realityto them. 
Precisely and firstly because he is so distant from them, they are agnostic in 
their beliefs pertaining to both his act and being. I get the impression from 
many of themthat when he decides to re-establish himselfin their 
presence, that will be fine and hope will return to their future; until then 
they will live existentially in his absence.

Tell me, are we anywhere close to the same page, or 
should I have just let it be? :)


how can ppl be certainnow 
abt whathappened in the 'past'?

History as a compilation of 
"evidentiaryaccounts" is intrinsicallyuncertain. This is where the 
post-critical in mefinds its greatest contention with the "absolutes" of 
Modernity. In contrast to its idealism, I believe we know the "past" 
eschatologically or wehave no "assurance" or certainty of knowingit 
at all. We have our best estimations to be sure, but no more than that.In 
history someone is always pickingup the 
task of speaking for others; hence history is inherently "open" to 
interpretation.Try tothink my thoughts forbut a moment and you 
will know that there is no "certainty" in that :) 

To the contrary, it is faith 
which is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 
Because of the eschatological hope we have in Christ 
Jesus, wehave both a basis and an interpretive framework for knowing what 
happened in the past -- not indubitably, of course, but truly. And so, g, we know the past the same way we 
know the future: by faith. It is Christ who makes it true. 


Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:25 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Judaism and 
  Theology
  
  fwiw, 
  rabbisaren't'unbelieving'..their 'beliefs' are potent asare 
  (e.g.)John Lennon's
  
  suppose 'let it be' and 'living 
  in the 
  moment'areintertwinedinEnglishinEastern 
  Std Time, Describethe temporalrelationship
  
  something less 
  difficult?try categorizing it, e.g.,describe EST succinctly in 
  terms of therelationship betw 'be' and 'moment'
  
  then, once that's clearer to 
  you,considerhowtheir 'time frame' (as you'd describe it)relates 
  tothe Eternal (as distinguished from eternity and/or the idea of 
  'everlasting')
  
  then,try setting 
  forththe implications of yourcommentsfor history--e.g., what 
  happens to the 'past'--where doe sit fit(?); how can ppl be 
  certainnow abt whathappened in the 
  'past'?
  
  or, try asking "what does 
  'future' mean"--is it any clearer than 
  (the?)'past'?
  
  if not, ask 'what remains to 
  question?'
  
  G
  
  
  On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:47:50 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
Jews may very well have a different set of 
reasons for living in the moment than you and I do 

||
[jt:]
.."beatle mania" and/or an unbelieving Jewish 
Rabbi.. "living in the 
moment?"

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

Those that need Mind Adjustment should get to a clinic ASAP
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



understood--this is why the KJV-only dudes are evangelically irrelevant; regardless, the purpose of the forum involves adjusting our mind/s to certain truths in which (e.g.)both Einstein and Barth are instrumentally originators..succinctly: it's impossble sailin' in the 20-21st centuriesstuck to the shorelineof the 18-19thcenturies--hoisteth ferththine anchors mateys!

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:48:02 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:tomost of us on this forum, Karl Barth is about as irrelevant to everyday living in 
Jesus Christ as Einstein is.
__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Judaism and Theology




bullseye! 


+/- acrumb (of food) for 
thot,FTR,as noted, below

..reiterated, pushing to the 
extreme, your word 'it' may be tantamount to the word 
'anything'

G

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 15:07:28 -0700 "Bill 
Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  we know the "past" eschatologically or 
  wehave [perhaps 
  nothing].*
  
  * BTs wording: ||no "assurance" 
  or certainty of knowingit at 
all||

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

One purpose of the BIBLE is to help us discern that which is worthy  that which is just Dross

Firmly planted on a SURE Foundation, not on the shifting seas on Humanism.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



understood--this is why the KJV-only dudes are evangelically irrelevant; regardless, the purpose of the forum involves adjusting our mind/s to certain truths in which (e.g.)both Einstein and Barth are instrumentally originators..succinctly: it's impossble sailin' in the 20-21st centuriesstuck to the shorelineof the 18-19thcenturies--hoisteth ferththine anchors mateys!

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:48:02 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:tomost of us on this forum, Karl Barth is about as irrelevant to everyday living in 
Jesus Christ as Einstein is.

		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use




you're welcome at this 
one

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:29:04 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Those that need Mind Adjustment should get to a clinic ASAP
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  


understood--this is why the 
KJV-only dudes are evangelically irrelevant; regardless, the purpose of the 
forum involves adjusting our mind/s to certain truths in which 
(e.g.)both Einstein and Barth are instrumentally 
originators..succinctly: it's impossble sailin' in the 20-21st 
centuriesstuck to the shorelineof the 
18-19thcenturies--hoisteth ferththine anchors 
mateys!

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 13:48:02 -0500 
"David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:tomost of us on this 
forum, Karl Barth is about as irrelevant to everyday living in 

Jesus Christ as Einstein 
is.

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Anti Antinomian Version

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, The merit legalists sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell youbut not what they do. For they preach merit legalism, but do not practice it.
Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other merit legalists, he cried out in the council, Brothers, I am a merit legalist, a son of merit legalist."
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

In a message dated 2/22/2005 2:29:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Karl Barth is about as irrelevant to everyday living in 
Jesus Christ as Einstein is.


The correct parallel is this: Barth is to the Christian world what Einstein is to the secular world. If you see no practicality in Barth, it is because you are not a pastor. 


JD

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

If you see no practicality in Barth, it is because you are not a pastor. 
Therefore all Pastors agree Barfh is practical for the ministry?
Are you a pastor?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/22/2005 2:29:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Karl Barth is about as irrelevant to everyday living in Jesus Christ as Einstein is.The correct parallel is this: Barth is to the Christian world what Einstein is to the secular world. If you see no practicality in Barth, it is because you are not a pastor.
 JD __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

In a message dated 2/22/2005 10:01:08 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

David Miller wrote to Lance:
John said, "I will be glad to share." Why
can't you have the same loving attitude?

John wrote:
John also said something about your
questioning as being transparent.

I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and took this statement of
yours in a positive sense. I considered it to mean that you had found me
honest and open in my dialogue, and, therefore, you were glad to share. I said something to this effect: "You are so transparent but I will be glad to share ... When this word "but" is used in the context of my statement, no reasonable person would fail to understand the contrast being made, David. You should get out of the reading business if this is not clear to you. " ... you are transparent but I will share [anyway] " is the contextual situation. I would have let it go except that you seemed to be quoting me against Lance in order to make your point. That is what you were doing. Gathering evidence against Lance. And you made the big mistake of including me -- the man of logic and practical argumentation. Perhaps you will think twice next time :-) Now
you make it clear that you meant to malign me with this comment. Not true. I was merely acknowledging what is obvious. You disappoint me, John. Back acha long ago, David.

One additional comment, David. When you used my comment against Lance, you conveniently misquoted the comment. You do this often -- misquoting, changing the order of statements -- that sort of thing, like we will not notice. My sentence began with the contrasting "But." You dropped it intentionally to make a very different point. Sad indeed.

John wrote:
I answered your initial questioning about my
the steet [sic] preaching issue

No, you did not. Yes I did. Those questions left unanswered had no answer. I actually know a lot of people. None of them know you. So, no point in going over names. In fact, I answered more questions than you are willing to answer. Need I remind you of your comment to the effect that you were not going to be answering questions about your spiritual gifts (prophecy, healing, out of body experiences and raising the dead)? You answered only a few of the questions. This is why I followed up with some other questions, hoping you would answer. David, I know when one is concerned for me and when one is only interested in inquistion.

John wrote:
You and the FMO ...

What is FMO? [the] foul mouthed one

John wrote:
... are no more involved with successful ministry
than a host of others -- including myself.

What do you mean? Are you implying that none of us are involved in
successful ministry, or are you trying to imply that everyone here is
involved with successful ministry? I do not regard this as an honest question. You offer an option when, in fact, my question can be understood in only one way, by reasonable people. Your first "option" would reflect poorly on me, as a minister of the gospel of Grace as well as my friends..not much of an option.

John wrote:
As far as pursuing the discussion further
really, I am not interested.

I retract what I said about your attitude of love. You are undeserving of
the benefit of the doubt. Fair enough. I have made the same decision about you some time ago. I expressed an interest in you and your ministry experience, but you don't care about anybody but yourself. Just because my first wife would agree doesn't make it so.

John wrote:
I have my opinion about SP and the problems
they cause for the remaining Christian community.

And you don't care to share that opinion? I am very interested in both your
opinion and your experiential background in this area. You come closer to this with Lance and Bill than with me. So, good try but no sale. Why are you so
secretive about it? Secretive ??!! I told you about my ministry, where it took place, and the several ministries I have or am involved with -- no secrets here David. But, once again, you are so very transparent.

David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

In a message dated 2/22/2005 6:37:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

If you see no practicality in Barth, it is because you are not a pastor. 

Therefore all Pastors agree Barfh is practical for the ministry? 
 Are you a pastor?


De uh.

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

In a message dated 2/22/2005 6:42:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Maybe you meant most NEO pastors enjoy the Mystical Barfh.


And maybe I meant what I said.

Re: [TruthTalk] UNITY

The first step to True unity is PURITY
Neo unity is of the basist - lowest common denominator in order to widen the gate so that all sorts of heterodoxy might passundiscovered. It is Rebellion against God yet the brotherhood of Man.
"On all hands we hear cries for unity in this and unity in that; but in our mind the main need of this age is not compromise but conscientiousness. First pure, then peaceable... It is easy to cry, A confederacy, but that union that is not based on the truth of God is rather a conspiracy than a communion. Charity by all means: but honesty also. Love of course, but love to God as well as love to men, and love of truth as well as love of union. It is exceedingly difficult in these times to preserve ones fidelity before God and ones fraternity among men. Should not the former be preferred to the latter if both cannot be maintained? We think so" (C.H. Spurgeon).__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

In a message dated 2/22/2005 6:37:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


If you see no practicality in Barth, it is because you are not a pastor. 

Therefore all Pastors agree Barfh is practical for the ministry? 
 Are you a pastor?


I will try this once again. The answer is is arguably "yes" to the first and "absolutely" to the second. 


JD

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

But I am no friend of any who are aggressive legalist. They have proven to be of no value to me, on a personal level, and even dangerous to the to the cause of unity. Sectarian to the core, these people and grossly against the prayer of unity by the Christ (John 17).
I have Unity with those that are IN the Faith IN Christ. The Fudamentalist Movement was founded by Baptists Presbyterians Methodists. They agreed on the Fundamentals, they had unity. When it came to the Modernists they also agreed, that they were the ENEMIES of the Cross of Christ. Unity with error is conspiracy against God. To agree with liberals Modernists antinomianNothings is to betray Christ. These groups are Humanist to the core. They are concerned with man and not with God.

Do you mean Merit Legalist? Or is some private usage being observed here?
Legalist has many meanings to many people but the true meaning is one who teaches salvation is merited by behavior.
Are you trying to draw a distintion between your antinomianism and those that have standards?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/21/2005 7:39:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Still waiting on the supporting facts about KJ being a HOMOYou do all that research on the Missionary Baptist bible , you can do the research on queen James. By the way -- to all -- some of my very best friends are Baptist or attend a Baptist church. My daughter and her husband are worship leaders there. After talking with Deegan, it is apparent that the Baptist church really needs someone like me...so my wife and I have decided to attend a Baptist fellowship near here. But I am no friend of any who are aggressive legalist. They have proven to be of no value to me, on a personal level, and even dangerous to the to the cause of unity. Sectarian to the core, these people and grossly against the prayer of unity by the
Christ (John 17).Water Dog --- out!!! __Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [TruthTalk] False Critical text

If the suit fits wear it![EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/22/2005 11:05:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I hear the Muslim fundamentalists are a pretty tight group, too—maybe JD would go for that? IzI don't mind the banter, Izzy. It is just that if I had said this, you would have been all over me like a very cheap suit. JD 
		Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

In a message dated 2/22/2005 7:19:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I have Unity with those that are IN the Faith IN Christ. I doubt it. You list will not match up with anybodies and to date, you have not denied that unity is based upon doctrinal (all blbical doctrine) agreement. The Fudamentalist Movement was founded by Baptists Presbyterians Methodists. This is not true, either. You forget that King James 1 was an "Evangelical Christian" [apparently] many moons ago. They agreed on the Fundamentals, they had unity. When it came to the Modernists they also agreed, that they were the ENEMIES of the Cross of Christ. Unity with error is conspiracy against God. To agree with liberals Modernists antinomianNothings is to betray Christ. These groups are Humanist to the core. They are concerned with man and not with God.

Do you mean Merit Legalist? I pretty much say what I mean to say, Kevin. A legalist, to me, is anyone who believes that right action is the accountable issue God looks to in determining salvation. We do not fear those legalist who hold this as a personal view. But those leaders in the church who hold and teach this view really are anarchists and enemies of the risen Christ. [there really is no other of talking to the right wing elitests] Or is some private usage being observed here? My view is a very commonly held view.
Legalist has many meanings to many people but the true meaning is one who teaches salvation is merited by behavior.
Are you trying to draw a distintion between your antinomianism and those that have standards? are you trying to be insulting or does it just come natually?

Re: [TruthTalk] False Critical text

In a message dated 2/22/2005 7:19:35 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

If the suit fits wear it!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
In a message dated 2/22/2005 11:05:23 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I hear the Muslim fundamentalists are a pretty tight group, toomaybe JD would go for that? Iz



I don't mind the banter, Izzy. It is just that if I had said this, you would have been all over me like a very cheap suit. 

JD 



 :-)

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

My view is a very commonly held view.
That makes it true.

YOU MUST HAVE MISREAD THIS the movement was founded in the late 1800's KJ was dead by then!
The Fudamentalist Movement was founded by Baptists Presbyterians Methodists. This is not true, either. You forget that King James 1 was an "Evangelical Christian"
So you use the merit legalist definition. Might as well apply it to me since you can't get the Baptist portion correct either. You are not trying to frame my beliefs you are throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/22/2005 7:19:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have Unity with those that are IN the Faith IN Christ. I doubt it. You list will not match up with anybodies and to date, you have not denied that unity is based upon doctrinal (all blbical doctrine) agreement. The Fudamentalist Movement was founded by Baptists Presbyterians Methodists. This is not true, either. You forget that King James 1 was an "Evangelical Christian" [apparently] many moons ago. They agreed on the Fundamentals, they had unity. When it came to the Modernists they also agreed, that they were the ENEMIES of the Cross of Christ. Unity with error is conspiracy against God. To agree with liberals Modernists antinomianNothings is to betray Christ. These groups are Humanist to the core. They are concerned with man and not with God. Do you mean Merit
Legalist? I pretty much say what I mean to say, Kevin. A legalist, to me, is anyone who believes that right action is the accountable issue God looks to in determining salvation. We do not fear those legalist who hold this as a personal view. But those leaders in the church who hold and teach this view really are anarchists and enemies of the risen Christ. [there really is no other of talking to the right wing elitests] Or is some private usage being observed here? My view is a very commonly held view. Legalist has many meanings to many people but the true meaning is one who teaches salvation is merited by behavior.Are you trying to draw a distintion between your antinomianism and those that have standards? are you trying to be insulting or does it just come natually?
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.

RE: [TruthTalk] False Critical text

















From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005
9:17 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] False
Critical text





In a message dated 2/22/2005 11:05:23 AM Pacific Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




I hear the Muslim
fundamentalists are a pretty tight group, toomaybe JD would go for that?
Iz



I don't mind the banter, Izzy. It is just that if I had said
this, you would have been all over me like a very cheap suit.


JD



The point IS: you seem to think that Unity
is more important than Truth. (I hope not, but thats how its
looking.) Seeking Unity is the path to compromise and humanism. Seeking
Truth will (incidentally) bring us into unity with other true Believers.
(The God-kind of unity.) Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers









John wrote:
As far as pursuing the discussion further
 really, I am not interested.
 

An example of striving for
the cause of Unity??? Iz


Sometimes, a move
away from strife is a
move in the right direction, Izzy. 
JD





Sometimes it looks more like a slap in the
face. Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use

In a message dated 2/22/2005 8:13:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

My view is a very commonly held view. 

That makes it true.
 
YOU MUST HAVE MISREAD THIS the movement was founded in the late 1800's KJ was dead by then!
 The Fudamentalist Movement was founded by Baptists Presbyterians Methodists. This is not true, either. You forget that King James 1 was an "Evangelical Christian" 
So you use the merit legalist definition. Might as well apply it to me since you can't get the Baptist portion correct either. You are not trying to frame my beliefs you are throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks.

Not real sure what the point of the above is. "Merit legalism" is not a term I use. Nothing wrong with redundency; it is just not necessary. As far as including you in my definition of legalism -- most definitely. At least from what you have said on this forum. 
The notion that doctrinal agreement is necessary to continued fellowship (unity) is central to legalism. You are a legalist. Is this something you deny? If so, what is the difference between your views and the general views of a legalist? 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] False Critical text

In a message dated 2/22/2005 8:38:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

The point IS: you seem to think that Unity is more important than Truth. (I hope not, but thats how its looking.) Seeking Unity is the path to compromise and humanism. Seeking Truth will (incidentally) bring us into unity with other true Believers. (The God-kind of unity.) Izzy



Well, you are close. I believe there to be such a thing as "truth." I do not believe that I can ever be fully assured that I have possessed this "truth." It is Paul who tells us not to put our faith in knowing (I Co 8:1-3). To argue against scripture and this statement is to deny the reality of growth and intellectual change. Unity will never be achieved on the basis of agreement. Surely you can see the difference between love, respect, empathy and the like AND intellectualism. There are those on this forum who criticize "intellectualism." A humorous circumstance, IMO, in view of the fact that their legalistic stance is, at it's core, a type of intellectualism. But you speak of "seeking truth." A curve ball. Actually, I could agree with this. I have the highest respect for Lance and Gary and Bill and Jon and others --- we do have one thing in common, the search for that which is true. It is with those who are no longer searching with whom I have problems. When you say "I Know," you do not yet know as you ought. That is scripture. That is my position on "truth." 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Mormons and Street Preachers

In a message dated 2/22/2005 8:39:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Sometimes it looks more like a slap in the face. Izzy



Again, you are not the one who has the right to criticize on this point. You have mastered the one line slap in the face, my dear. 


JD

Re: [TruthTalk] vessels meet for masters use