Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

And why are you deliberately trying to tweak 
Linda?  She is a godly woman and It's time to 'get a life' JD.  

Opinions are out, well thought out discussion ideas  and/or personal anecdotes are 
in along with godly 
speech that will edify and 
encourage those who read you  ...  Are you up to the 
task?
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:47:21 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  So, when were you going to tell me what was so appalling 
  with that   post of several days ago,  Linda, 
   or, have you decided that your imitation of the Mouth of the 
  South was   a sufficient display of your walk with God and 
  nothing else is important?  You are one rebellious babe.  jd
   
  From: 
"ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 








You’ll have to ask 
the Lord—He hasn’t convicted me of anything on my last 20 posts as 
yet.  iz
 




From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of Terry 
Clifton
I do not agree, Iz.  In fact, I would say not 
very perceptive at all.  There are sins of commission and there are 
sins of omission, and it is not too hard to find one or the other in any 
post on TT.     I stand by my statement that it is hard for 
us to see ourselves as others see us, and if that statement is true, it is 
also hard for us to see ourselves as the Lord sees us.  I would suggest 
as an eye opener, that anyone on here who thinks that they are squeaky clean 
in the eyes of the Lord do the following:  Go back over your last 
twenty posts.  Examine them closely.  See if there is any 
meekness, any humility in any of them.  Then look again.  See if 
you can see any love for others in your words.  Finally, look again, 
this time to see how well you have managed to edify the Saints that you have 
been talking with, or down  to.  If seventy percent is a passing 
grade, yo u should see these things in at least fourteen of your 
posts.I am a miserable failure.  How much better are you and 
Judy doing?TerryShieldsFamily wrote: 

Very perceptive, jt.   
iz
 




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Judy 
TaylorSent: Tuesday, 
December 13, 2005 3:18 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [Norton AntiSp am] Re: 
[TruthTalk] Beams and Motes
 

Because others may have a critical 
and jaundiced eye does not necessarily mean there is sin in the 
object

or focus of such criticism - at 
times it means the person looking needs to work on their own 
beam.

 

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:34:43 -0500 "Lance Muir" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  EXATAMUNDO! I have long been 
  mystified by such, 
  Terry. 
  

From: Terry Clifton 


 
I suspect that you are correct.  Sometimes 
it is hard to see ourselves as others see us.Lance Muir wrote: 


How, you ask, did I figure 
that out, Terry? The same way you did. ARE YOU, TERRY, UNAWARE, THAT 
SOME EXCLUDE THEMSELVES FROM 
THIS.?

  
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  
  
   
  Lance Muir wrote: 
  
  
  Speaking ONLY of 
  expressions on TT, may I ask ALL participants who have never sinned ON 
  TT to identify themselves. IMO, NOT ONE HAS NOT SINNED ON TT ALONE 
  NEVER MIND THEIR LIVES APART FROM 
  TT.
  DUH! How did you 
  figure that out?  I can spot the sins in you other guys every time you 
  contribute.Terry
 
  
   
 
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

JD why do I get two (2) of everything you send to the 
Truth Talk list; are you emphasizing
or is it a bug in the works?
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:32:48 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Actually ignorance is a form of 
  knowledge    I have thought 
  all along that this was a viable definition for some of you on the far 
  right.  now, at long last, it is confirmed.  
   
  From: 
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 



Actually ignorance is a form of knowledge 

And since God's Word is the wisdom that 
comes from above and you are the one with the human 
theological mediators ... 
I would say your observation is 
more true for you Lance.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:37:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Ignorance, thy name is Judy!
  
    From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
You say the words Lance but your actions say 
you are a double-minded man.  If you believed in the 
authority of 
God's Word then it would be impossible for you 
ATST to endorse Barth/Torrance, and other post modern humanistic 
theologians.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:17:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Judy: I ,Myownself believe in the 
  AUTHORITY OF GOD'S WORD. I DO NOT, HOWEVER, BELIEVE THAT THE SIMPLE 
  CITATION OF SCRIPTRE BY YOU OR, BY ANYONE OF THEIR CHOOSING ALWAYS 
  SETTLES THE 'MATTER AT HAND'. IF Y'ALL DO THEN, MORE POWER TO 
      YA.    
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
Lance, I honestly do not know what you see 
or what you believe other than the theologians
you approve and a list of other professing 
Christians who are orthodox and see things 
similarly.
As for David, Kevin, Izzy, Terry, Dean et 
al.  We may not get every detail exact but so far as I 
can
tell we do 
agree about what is important - and that 
is the authority of God's Word.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:43:57 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  God can always speak through His Word and it 
  does not return void. On the other matter, as you already know, 
  you, David and I see things somewhat differently. It may indeed be 
  due to my own poor communication skills.
   
   
  From: Judy Taylor 
  
I don't 
agree but then I'm sure this is no news to you.
When I cite scripture - you either 
receive it by faith as God's Word or you read it as a dead 
letter
depending on what you have going on in 
your own heart.  Truth is apprehended by faith 
whereas
IMO you are more attuned to human 
reason.
 
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:18:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  YOUR OPINIONS re: the MEANING OF THE 
  SCRIPTURES YOU CITE ARE WHAT, IMO, I AND OTHERS 
  READ MOST OF THE TIME. I can live with that. 
  Can you?
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
This list is called Truth Talk 
Lance. It is not all about your opinions 
or me.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:51:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Let me attempt something, Judy. WITH 
  WHAT FREQUENCY THEN, DO YOU EXHIBIT THIS 'TRUE 
  HIMILITY'?
  
From: Judy Taylor 

 
True humility Lance is saying 
what God says about a situation or subject; personal 
opinion, even
while grovelling while saying 
it is inverted pride.  When a preacher gets out 
there with a megaphone
and accurately speaks the 
oracles of God .. that is true humility.  Or of one 
speaks them to a friend in
private - this is also laying 
down their own life.  Because God's Word is that 
around which the battle
  

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

Then it is past time to do some more figuring Lance 
because you have missed the boat so to speak.
I am not about trying to explain God which is the 
Church Father/theologian forte.  If He does not illumine
His Word to you - then there is nothing I could say or 
do that would help.  
 
Hey out there!!  Does anyone other than Lance think that I am a "FANCY THEOLOGIAN?" or is this 
another
example of Lance's vivid imagination and fanciful 
thinking.  judyt
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:15:16 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Funny thing, Judy, I've always though of you as 
  your own 'FANCY THEOLOGIAN'. Over time one cannot but note 
  that others have thought similarly. The 'Judy theology' is generally 
  well researched and, on the whole, readable.
   
   
  From: Judy Taylor 
  
 
And I've been attempting to say to you that 
there is such a thing as objective truth a light that shines 

into the darknes of the unregenerate human 
heart which is the Word of the Living God untainted 
and
unfiltered through human reason and/or 
fancy theologians  which, when we choose 
to abide therein
will make us free.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:50:57 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  That, Judy, is what I've been attempting to 
  say, apparently with minimal success. 
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
Every deceived person believes 
themselves to be "in the truth"
Deceived people don't know they are 
deceived - this is the nature of the beast.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:43:47 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I, for one, have no difficulty at all 
  criticizing the'deceived' as you put it, Judy. 
  The difficulty is that some who are, in 
  reality deceived, believe themselves to be 'in the truth' do they 
  not?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
Meaning that all evangelism and preaching 
the gospel should cease because we can not be
critical of anyones beliefs because this is 
criticizing them personally??  IOW let the 
deceived
stay captive to the devil.  Lord 
forbid that we should offend anyone.  Is Jesus a stumbling 
stone
and a rock of offense ... or has he now 
become fashionable in his new "living" form?
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:49:55 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  You really don't get 
  it do you? If I were to criticize your beliefs then, I am 
  criticizing your person
   
  OK so we should not criticize beliefs.
  But criticizing the person is OK in your 
  book
  Good ol Self Refutin Lance...
       
  Kevin, this so-called 
  anti-Mormon kick you're on seems to be about all you've got 
  goin' for ya..Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

You really don't get it do you? If I were to 
criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing your 
person
 
No you wouldn't be because you 
don't know my person.  What you are talking about is 
religious/racial bigotry
which is a misnomer. It is 
possible to love the person and reject their belief.  God 
did it when he sent Jesus
Jesus did it when he hung on 
the cross - and we can do it as His Ambassadors in a world full 
of sin and strife.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:37:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  You really don't get it do you? If I were to 
  criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing your person and, 
  vice versa. Kevin et al do the same with the 
  Mormons.
   
  I've asked you previously. I shall ask you 
  once again. Is there a great gulf between who you are and what 
  you say (believe)? 
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Now if you had said Joseph 
Smith & Brigham Young your observation may have carried 
some weight
Lance.  However, I've 
yet to see

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

And I've been attempting to say to you that 
there is such a thing as objective truth a light that shines 

into the darknes of the unregenerate human 
heart which is the Word of the Living God untainted 
and
unfiltered through human reason and/or 
fancy theologians  which, when we choose to 
abide therein
will make us free.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:50:57 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  That, Judy, is what I've been attempting to say, 
  apparently with minimal success. 
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Every deceived person believes themselves 
to be "in the truth"
Deceived people don't know they are 
deceived - this is the nature of the beast.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:43:47 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I, for one, have no difficulty at all 
  criticizing the'deceived' as you put it, Judy. 
  The difficulty is that some who are, in 
  reality deceived, believe themselves to be 'in the truth' do they 
  not?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
Meaning that all evangelism and preaching the 
gospel should cease because we can not be
critical of anyones beliefs because this is 
criticizing them personally??  IOW let the deceived
stay captive to the devil.  Lord forbid 
that we should offend anyone.  Is Jesus a stumbling 
stone
and a rock of offense ... or has he now become 
fashionable in his new "living" form?
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:49:55 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  You really don't get it 
  do you? If I were to criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing 
  your person
   
  OK so we should not criticize beliefs.
  But criticizing the person is OK in your 
  book
  Good ol Self Refutin Lance...
   
  Kevin, this so-called anti-Mormon 
  kick you're on seems to be about all you've got goin' for 
  ya..Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

You really don't get it do you? If I were to 
criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing your 
person
 
No you wouldn't be because you 
don't know my person.  What you are talking about is 
religious/racial bigotry
which is a misnomer. It is possible 
to love the person and reject their belief.  God did it when he 
sent Jesus
Jesus did it when he hung on the 
cross - and we can do it as His Ambassadors in a world full of sin 
and strife.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:37:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  You really don't get it do you? If I were to 
  criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing your person and, 
  vice versa. Kevin et al do the same with the Mormons.
   
  I've asked you previously. I shall ask you once 
  again. Is there a great gulf between who you are and what you say 
  (believe)? 
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Now if you had said Joseph 
Smith & Brigham Young your observation may have carried some 
weight
Lance.  However, I've yet 
to see Kevin comment on Blaine or DaveH personally, it's 
their false belief system he takes issue with and 
in doing this he confronts them with their own 
contradictions.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:56:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  OR YOUR OPINIONS OF BLAINE & DAVEH 
  THAT'S CALLED ANTI MORMONISM!! Come to think of it, Kevin, 
  
  this so-called anti-Mormon kick you're on 
  seems to be about all you've got goin' for ya..
  
From: Kevin Deegan 

 
This list is called Truth Talk 
Lance. It is not all about your opinions 
or me.
 
OR Lance's opinions OF you and others!
that is a different list called People 
talkJudy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

  
  

  This list is called Trut

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

Every deceived person believes themselves to be 
"in the truth"
Deceived people don't know they are deceived - 
this is the nature of the beast.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:43:47 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I, for one, have no difficulty at all criticizing 
  the'deceived' as you put it, Judy. 
  The difficulty is that some who are, in reality 
  deceived, believe themselves to be 'in the truth' do they not?
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Meaning that all evangelism and preaching the 
gospel should cease because we can not be
critical of anyones beliefs because this is 
criticizing them personally??  IOW let the deceived
stay captive to the devil.  Lord forbid that 
we should offend anyone.  Is Jesus a stumbling stone
and a rock of offense ... or has he now become 
fashionable in his new "living" form?
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:49:55 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  You really don't get it do 
  you? If I were to criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing your 
  person
   
  OK so we should not criticize beliefs.
  But criticizing the person is OK in your book
  Good ol Self Refutin Lance...
   
  Kevin, this so-called anti-Mormon 
      kick you're on seems to be about all you've got goin' for 
  ya..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

You really don't get it do you? If I were to criticize 
your beliefs then, I am criticizing your person
 
No you wouldn't be because you don't 
know my person.  What you are talking about is religious/racial 
bigotry
which is a misnomer. It is possible to 
love the person and reject their belief.  God did it when he sent 
Jesus
Jesus did it when he hung on the cross 
- and we can do it as His Ambassadors in a world full of sin and 
strife.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:37:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  You really don't get it do you? If I were to 
  criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing your person and, vice 
  versa. Kevin et al do the same with the Mormons.
   
  I've asked you previously. I shall ask you once 
  again. Is there a great gulf between who you are and what you say 
  (believe)? 
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
Now if you had said Joseph Smith 
& Brigham Young your observation may have carried some 
weight
Lance.  However, I've yet to 
see Kevin comment on Blaine or DaveH personally, it's their 
false belief system he 
takes issue with and in doing this he 
confronts them with their own contradictions.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:56:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  OR YOUR OPINIONS OF BLAINE & DAVEH THAT'S 
  CALLED ANTI MORMONISM!! Come to think of it, Kevin, 
  this so-called anti-Mormon kick you're on seems 
  to be about all you've got goin' for ya..
  
From: Kevin Deegan 
 
This list is called Truth Talk Lance. 
It is not all about your opinions or me.
 
OR Lance's opinions OF you and others!
that is a different list called People 
talkJudy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

  
  

  This list is called Truth Talk Lance. 
  It is not all about your opinions or me.
   
  On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:51:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
      
    Let me attempt something, Judy. WITH WHAT 
FREQUENCY THEN, DO YOU EXHIBIT THIS 'TRUE 
HIMILITY'?

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  True humility Lance is saying 
  what God says about a situation or subject; personal 
  opinion, even
  while grovelling while saying it 
  is inverted pride.  When a preacher gets out there 
  with a megaphone
  and accurately speaks the oracles 
  of God .. that is true humility.  Or of one speaks 
  them to a friend in
  private - this is als

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

Meaning that all evangelism and preaching the gospel 
should cease because we can not be
critical of anyones beliefs because this is criticizing 
them personally??  IOW let the deceived
stay captive to the devil.  Lord forbid that we 
should offend anyone.  Is Jesus a stumbling stone
and a rock of offense ... or has he now become 
fashionable in his new "living" form?
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:49:55 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  You really don't get it do you? 
  If I were to criticize your beliefs then, I am criticizing your 
  person
   
  OK so we should not criticize beliefs.
  But criticizing the person is OK in your book
  Good ol Self Refutin Lance...
   
  Kevin, this so-called anti-Mormon kick 
  you're on seems to be about all you've got goin' for 
  ya..Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote:
  

You really don't get it do you? If I were to criticize 
your beliefs then, I am criticizing your person
 
No you wouldn't be because you don't know 
my person.  What you are talking about is religious/racial 
bigotry
which is a misnomer. It is possible to love 
the person and reject their belief.  God did it when he sent 
Jesus
Jesus did it when he hung on the cross - 
and we can do it as His Ambassadors in a world full of sin and 
strife.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:37:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  You really don't get it do you? If I were to criticize 
  your beliefs then, I am criticizing your person and, vice versa. Kevin et 
  al do the same with the Mormons.
   
  I've asked you previously. I shall ask you once again. 
  Is there a great gulf between who you are and what you say (believe)? 
  
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
Now if you had said Joseph Smith & 
Brigham Young your observation may have carried some 
weight
Lance.  However, I've yet to 
see Kevin comment on Blaine or DaveH personally, it's their false 
belief system he takes 
issue with and in doing this he confronts 
them with their own contradictions.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:56:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  OR YOUR OPINIONS OF BLAINE & DAVEH THAT'S CALLED 
  ANTI MORMONISM!! Come to think of it, Kevin, 
  this so-called anti-Mormon kick you're on seems to 
  be about all you've got goin' for ya..
  
From: Kevin Deegan 
 
This list is called Truth Talk Lance. It is 
not all about your opinions or me.
 
OR Lance's opinions OF you and others!
that is a different list called People talkJudy 
Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

  
  

  This list is called Truth Talk Lance. It 
  is not all about your opinions or me.
   
  On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:51:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
    Let me attempt something, Judy. WITH WHAT 
FREQUENCY THEN, DO YOU EXHIBIT THIS 'TRUE 
HIMILITY'?

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  True humility Lance is saying what 
  God says about a situation or subject; personal opinion, 
  even
  while grovelling while saying it is 
  inverted pride.  When a preacher gets out there with a 
  megaphone
  and accurately speaks the oracles of 
  God .. that is true humility.  Or of one speaks them to a 
  friend in
  private - this is also laying down 
  their own life.  Because God's Word is that around which 
  the battle
  rages.
   
  On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:33:54 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
There are two on TT who regularly write 
reflecting humility. I'm suspect of one of them but, that's 
because I don't, perhaps. 

  From: Terry Clifton 
  
   I see.  
  Is this then the sin of the parents, or the world, or the 
  parson with low esteem?How would this condition add to 
  or subtract from one's ability to do what Jesus suggests 
  in the sermon on the mount?  I am too l

Re: [TruthTalk] THE TRUTH IS A PERSON

[Judy Taylor]

PPPSSS: Jesus is God the Word and the Bible is 
(our record of) His spoken Word and our
present day measure of 
Truth.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:50:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  PPSS:I was distinguishing between the Person of 
  Christ and the Bible NOT the Person of Christ and His spoken words. 
  
   
  PPPSS:We are not Jesus. His Person, Words and 
  deeds are ONE. Ours OUGHT to be relatively consistent but they are not the 
  same. It can never be so with any Christian. Anyone who puts themselves on an 
  equal footing with our Lord is, IMO, deluded.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
PPS: Yes they are... Just as you and your 
word are one and the same.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:20:47 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Judy: Once again, Amen & 
  Amen!
   
  PS: The Person & the book are not one and 
  the same!
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
I don't think so DaveH, the Truth is a 
person - who they hung on a tree for telling it like it 
is.
So what is new under the 
sun?
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:07:54 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Is it good to be calling one 
  
  another hypocrites and disrespecting 
  the Moderator?  Where do you think this kind 
  of attitude leads??DAVEH:   
  The truth.Judy Taylor wrote: 
  



No Lance, I wouldn't acknowledge this to be 
the case because everything that is spoken on TT is not the 

Word of God, and not everything I 
write is the Word of God because that would have to include 
opinion at 
times along with personal stories.  So 
what is the point you are trying to make here?  Is it 
good to be calling one 
another hypocrites and disrespecting 
the Moderator?  Where do you think this kind 
of attitude leads??
 
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:00:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  When you describe that which you say 
  as THE TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD Judy, while that spoken by another 
  as OTHER THAN the truth of the word of god, Judy then, you are 
  doing the very thing that you speak of as 'both discouraging and 
  wearying'. Would you not acknowledge this to be the 
      case?
  
From: 
Judy Taylor 
 
We should make accusing each 
other personally a matter to be discussed 
offline.
I find these constant 
accusations to be both discouraging and wearying - are we 
interested in Truth or not?  Why give the enemy a platform to tear each 
other down.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:01:13 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  DAVEH:   I don't think you understand the 
  nature of my posts, Perry.  I'm not talking about your 
  sexual experiences.   I'm talking about Christian hypocrisy and the double standard as 
  practiced on TT.  Is the double standard on TT not 
  a fair topic?   Why should I have to discuss that 
  matter offline?   Is this not relevant to all TTers, 
  Perry?    I find it very telling that 
  you make false accusations against 
  me...you suggest I might have some knowledge of 
  Izzy's sexual experiences,.which I did not 
  do.  Go back and read my exact words if you don't believe 
  me.  If you can't find them, I'll gladly provide them and 
  you can see for yourself that you are again accusing me of 
  something I did not do.you suggest that saying "one 
  of Joseph Smiths spiritual wives" might have some sexual 
  connotation,..That has been suggested 
  before on TT by other TTers, and the moderator did nothing to 
  discourage such comments.  Now you want to ban me from 
  posting something other TTers can post with no 
  retribution.  This is simply another example of a double 
  standard.you try to spin Dean up by suggesting he 
  gets "excited" by sexual references..I 
  merely stated the truth about Deans sensitivity t

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

Actually ignorance is a form of knowledge 

And since God's Word is the wisdom that comes 
from above and you are the one with the human 
theological mediators ... I would say your observation is more true for you 
Lance.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:37:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Ignorance, thy name is Judy!
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
You say the words Lance but your actions say you 
are a double-minded man.  If you believed in the 
authority of 
God's Word then it would be impossible for you ATST 
to endorse Barth/Torrance, and other post modern humanistic 
theologians.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:17:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Judy: I ,Myownself believe in the AUTHORITY 
  OF GOD'S WORD. I DO NOT, HOWEVER, BELIEVE THAT THE SIMPLE CITATION OF 
  SCRIPTRE BY YOU OR, BY ANYONE OF THEIR CHOOSING ALWAYS SETTLES THE 'MATTER 
  AT HAND'. IF Y'ALL DO THEN, MORE POWER TO YA.    
  
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
Lance, I honestly do not know what you see or 
what you believe other than the theologians
you approve and a list of other professing 
Christians who are orthodox and see things similarly.
As for David, Kevin, Izzy, Terry, Dean et 
al.  We may not get every detail exact but so far as I 
can
tell we do 
agree about what is important - and that 
is the authority of God's Word.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:43:57 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  God can always speak through His Word and it does 
  not return void. On the other matter, as you already know, you, David 
  and I see things somewhat differently. It may indeed be due to my own 
  poor communication skills.
   
   
  From: Judy Taylor 
  
I don't 
agree but then I'm sure this is no news to you.
When I cite scripture - you either receive 
it by faith as God's Word or you read it as a dead 
letter
depending on what you have going on in your 
own heart.  Truth is apprehended by faith whereas
IMO you are more attuned to human 
reason.
 
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:18:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  YOUR OPINIONS re: the MEANING OF THE SCRIPTURES 
  YOU CITE ARE WHAT, IMO, I AND OTHERS 
      READ MOST OF THE TIME. I can live with that. Can 
  you?
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
This list is called Truth Talk Lance. 
It is not all about your opinions or me.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:51:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Let me attempt something, Judy. WITH WHAT 
      FREQUENCY THEN, DO YOU EXHIBIT THIS 'TRUE 
  HIMILITY'?
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
True humility Lance is saying what 
God says about a situation or subject; personal opinion, 
even
while grovelling while saying it is 
inverted pride.  When a preacher gets out there with a 
megaphone
and accurately speaks the oracles 
of God .. that is true humility.  Or of one speaks them 
to a friend in
private - this is also laying down 
their own life.  Because God's Word is that around 
which the battle
rages.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:33:54 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  There are two on TT who regularly write 
  reflecting humility. I'm suspect of one of them but, 
  that's because I don't, perhaps. 
  
From: Terry 
Clifton 
 I 
see.  Is this then the sin of the parents, or the 
world, or the parson with low esteem?How would this 
condition add to or subtract from one's ability to do 
what Jesus suggests in the sermon on the mount?  I 
am too lazy to look it up but it seems to me that He 
  

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

You really don't get it do you? If I were to criticize your 
beliefs then, I am criticizing your person
 
No you wouldn't be because you don't know my 
person.  What you are talking about is religious/racial 
bigotry
which is a misnomer. It is possible to love the 
person and reject their belief.  God did it when he sent 
Jesus
Jesus did it when he hung on the cross - and we 
can do it as His Ambassadors in a world full of sin and 
strife.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:37:20 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  You really don't get it do you? If I were to criticize your 
  beliefs then, I am criticizing your person and, vice versa. Kevin et al do the 
  same with the Mormons.
   
  I've asked you previously. I shall ask you once again. Is 
  there a great gulf between who you are and what you say (believe)? 
  
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Now if you had said Joseph Smith & 
Brigham Young your observation may have carried some 
weight
Lance.  However, I've yet to 
see Kevin comment on Blaine or DaveH personally, it's their false 
belief system he takes 
issue with and in doing this he confronts them 
with their own contradictions.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:56:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  OR YOUR OPINIONS OF BLAINE & DAVEH THAT'S CALLED 
  ANTI MORMONISM!! Come to think of it, Kevin, 
  this so-called anti-Mormon kick you're on seems to be 
  about all you've got goin' for ya..
  
From: Kevin Deegan 
 
This list is called Truth Talk Lance. It is not 
all about your opinions or me.
 
OR Lance's opinions OF you and others!
that is a different list called People talkJudy 
Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

  
  

  This list is called Truth Talk Lance. It is 
  not all about your opinions or me.
   
  On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:51:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Let me attempt something, Judy. WITH WHAT 
FREQUENCY THEN, DO YOU EXHIBIT THIS 'TRUE HIMILITY'?

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  True humility Lance is saying what God 
  says about a situation or subject; personal opinion, 
  even
  while grovelling while saying it is 
  inverted pride.  When a preacher gets out there with a 
  megaphone
  and accurately speaks the oracles of God 
  .. that is true humility.  Or of one speaks them to a friend 
  in
  private - this is also laying down their 
  own life.  Because God's Word is that around which the 
  battle
  rages.
   
  On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:33:54 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
There are two on TT who regularly write 
reflecting humility. I'm suspect of one of them but, that's 
because I don't, perhaps. 

  From: Terry Clifton 
  
   I see.  Is 
  this then the sin of the parents, or the world, or the parson 
  with low esteem?How would this condition add to or 
  subtract from one's ability to do what Jesus suggests in the 
  sermon on the mount?  I am too lazy to look it up but it 
  seems to me that He came to town meek and lowly, riding on a 
      colt.  Possibly as an example to us?To be quite 
  honest, I do not see low esteem as a problem on TT.  Do 
  you?Terry Judy Taylor wrote: 
  

Self rejection happens when 
children are either rejected by parents or have overly 
critical parents. When
one is raised in an unloving 
atmosphere they tend to accept the lie that this is because 
they are unlovable making
it difficult to understand or 
receive the love of God.  
 
The world adds to the problem with 
unrealistic standards especially in the area of 
perfection and body image - 
thinness for women and Gk 
perfection for men and too many times this becomes 
a graven image or idol and 
people reject themselves when they 
don't measure up rather than giving thanks for b

Re: [TruthTalk] THE TRUTH IS A PERSON

[Judy Taylor]

PPS: Yes they are... Just as you and your word 
are one and the same.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:20:47 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Judy: Once again, Amen & Amen!
   
  PS: The Person & the book are not one and the 
  same!
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
I don't think so DaveH, the Truth is a 
person - who they hung on a tree for telling it like it 
is.
So what is new under the 
sun?
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:07:54 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Is it good to be calling one 
  
  another hypocrites and disrespecting the 
  Moderator?  Where do you think this kind 
  of attitude leads??DAVEH:   
  The truth.Judy Taylor wrote: 
  



No Lance, I wouldn't acknowledge this to be the 
case because everything that is spoken on TT is not the 
Word of God, and not everything I write is 
the Word of God because that would have to include opinion 
at 
times along with personal stories.  So 
what is the point you are trying to make here?  Is it good to 
be calling one 
another hypocrites and disrespecting the 
Moderator?  Where do you think this kind 
of attitude leads??
 
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:00:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  When you describe that which you say as 
  THE TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD Judy, while that spoken by another as 
  OTHER THAN the truth of the word of god, Judy then, you are doing the 
  very thing that you speak of as 'both discouraging and wearying'. 
  Would you not acknowledge this to be the case?
  
From: 
Judy Taylor 
 
We should make accusing each other 
personally a matter to be discussed offline.
I find these constant accusations 
to be both discouraging and wearying - are we interested in Truth or 
not?  Why give the 
enemy a platform to tear each other down.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:01:13 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  DAVEH:   I don't think you understand the nature of 
  my posts, Perry.  I'm not talking about your sexual 
  experiences.   I'm talking about Christian hypocrisy and the double standard as 
  practiced on TT.  Is the double standard on TT not a 
  fair topic?   Why should I have to discuss that matter 
  offline?   Is this not relevant to all TTers, 
  Perry?    I find it very telling that 
  you make false accusations against me...you 
  suggest I might have some knowledge of Izzy's sexual 
  experiences,.which I did not do.  Go back 
  and read my exact words if you don't believe me.  If you 
  can't find them, I'll gladly provide them and you can see for 
  yourself that you are again accusing me of something I did not 
  do.you suggest that saying "one of Joseph Smiths 
  spiritual wives" might have some sexual 
  connotation,..That has been suggested before 
  on TT by other TTers, and the moderator did nothing to discourage 
  such comments.  Now you want to ban me from posting something 
  other TTers can post with no retribution.  This is simply 
  another example of a double standard.you try to spin 
  Dean up by suggesting he gets "excited" by sexual 
  references..I merely stated the truth 
  about Deans sensitivity to such things.  This was not an 
  ad-hom attack.  Is the truth now a problem on 
  TT?  People have said a lot more vile things about me with no 
  condemnation by the moderator.  Why the double standard now, 
  Perry?these amount to false 
  accusations,DAVEH:   How can that 
  possibly be a false accusation if it is true, 
  Perry?  If anything, it is you who is making 
  false accusations about me in this matter.  
  Once againa TT double standard.the intentions of 
  spinning Dean up on a banned 
  topicDAVEH:   You are absolutely wrong 
  again, Perry.  You simply fail to understand the nature of my 
  posts.  My intentions are not to spin up Dean at all.  
  It is you who I am trying to enlighten as to the Christian 
  hypocrisy involving the double standard practiced on TT with 
  regard to Mormons.  Until you as the moderator 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

You say the words Lance but your actions say you are 
a double-minded man.  If you believed in the authority of 

God's Word then it would be impossible for you ATST 
to endorse Barth/Torrance, and other post modern humanistic 
theologians.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:17:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Judy: I ,Myownself believe in the AUTHORITY OF 
  GOD'S WORD. I DO NOT, HOWEVER, BELIEVE THAT THE SIMPLE CITATION OF SCRIPTRE BY 
  YOU OR, BY ANYONE OF THEIR CHOOSING ALWAYS SETTLES THE 'MATTER AT HAND'. IF 
  Y'ALL DO THEN, MORE POWER TO YA.    
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Lance, I honestly do not know what you see or what 
you believe other than the theologians
you approve and a list of other professing 
Christians who are orthodox and see things similarly.
As for David, Kevin, Izzy, Terry, Dean et al.  
We may not get every detail exact but so far as I can
tell we do agree about what is important - and that is the authority 
of God's Word.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:43:57 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  God can always speak through His Word and it does not 
  return void. On the other matter, as you already know, you, David and I 
  see things somewhat differently. It may indeed be due to my own poor 
  communication skills.
   
   
  From: Judy Taylor 
  
I don't agree 
but then I'm sure this is no news to you.
When I cite scripture - you either receive it 
by faith as God's Word or you read it as a dead letter
depending on what you have going on in your own 
heart.  Truth is apprehended by faith whereas
IMO you are more attuned to human 
reason.
 
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:18:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  YOUR OPINIONS re: the MEANING OF THE SCRIPTURES YOU 
  CITE ARE WHAT, IMO, I AND OTHERS 
  READ MOST OF THE TIME. I can live with that. Can 
  you?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
This list is called Truth Talk Lance. It is 
not all about your opinions or me.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:51:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Let me attempt something, Judy. WITH WHAT 
  FREQUENCY THEN, DO YOU EXHIBIT THIS 'TRUE HIMILITY'?
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
True humility Lance is saying what God 
says about a situation or subject; personal opinion, 
even
while grovelling while saying it is 
inverted pride.  When a preacher gets out there with a 
megaphone
and accurately speaks the oracles of 
God .. that is true humility.  Or of one speaks them to a 
friend in
private - this is also laying down 
their own life.  Because God's Word is that around which 
the battle
rages.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:33:54 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  There are two on TT who regularly write 
  reflecting humility. I'm suspect of one of them but, that's 
  because I don't, perhaps. 
  
From: Terry Clifton 

 I see.  
Is this then the sin of the parents, or the world, or the 
parson with low esteem?How would this condition add to 
or subtract from one's ability to do what Jesus suggests in 
the sermon on the mount?  I am too lazy to look it up 
but it seems to me that He came to town meek and lowly, 
riding on a colt.  Possibly as an example to us?To 
be quite honest, I do not see low esteem as a problem on 
TT.  Do you?Terry Judy Taylor 
wrote: 

  
  Self rejection happens when 
  children are either rejected by parents or have overly 
  critical parents. When
  one is raised in an unloving 
  atmosphere they tend to accept the lie that this is 
  because they are unlovable making
  it difficult to understand or 
  receive the love of God.  
   
  The world adds to the problem 
  

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

Now if you had said Joseph Smith & Brigham 
Young your observation may have carried some weight
Lance.  However, I've yet to 
see Kevin comment on Blaine or DaveH personally, it's their false belief 
system
he takes issue with 
and in doing this he confronts them with their own 
contradictions.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:56:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  OR YOUR OPINIONS OF BLAINE & DAVEH THAT'S 
  CALLED ANTI MORMONISM!! Come to think of it, Kevin, 
  this so-called anti-Mormon kick you're on seems 
  to be about all you've got goin' for ya..
  
From: Kevin Deegan 
 
This list is called Truth Talk Lance. It is not all 
about your opinions or me.
 
OR Lance's opinions OF you and others!
that is a different list called People talkJudy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

  
  

  This list is called Truth Talk Lance. It is not 
  all about your opinions or me.
   
  On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:51:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Let me attempt something, Judy. WITH WHAT 
    FREQUENCY THEN, DO YOU EXHIBIT THIS 'TRUE HIMILITY'?

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
   
  True humility Lance is saying what God says 
  about a situation or subject; personal opinion, even
  while grovelling while saying it is inverted 
  pride.  When a preacher gets out there with a 
  megaphone
  and accurately speaks the oracles of God .. 
  that is true humility.  Or of one speaks them to a friend 
  in
  private - this is also laying down their own 
  life.  Because God's Word is that around which the 
  battle
  rages.
   
  On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:33:54 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
There are two on TT who regularly write 
reflecting humility. I'm suspect of one of them but, that's because 
I don't, perhaps. 

  From: Terry Clifton 
   I see.  Is this 
  then the sin of the parents, or the world, or the parson with low 
  esteem?How would this condition add to or subtract from one's 
  ability to do what Jesus suggests in the sermon on the 
  mount?  I am too lazy to look it up but it seems to me that 
  He came to town meek and lowly, riding on a colt.  Possibly 
  as an example to us?To be quite honest, I do not see low 
  esteem as a problem on TT.  Do 
  you?Terry Judy Taylor wrote: 
  

Self rejection happens when 
children are either rejected by parents or have overly critical 
parents. When
one is raised in an unloving 
atmosphere they tend to accept the lie that this is because they 
are unlovable making
it difficult to understand or receive 
the love of God.  
 
The world adds to the problem with 
unrealistic standards especially in the area of perfection 
and body image - 
thinness for women and Gk perfection 
for men and too many times this becomes a graven image or idol 
and 
people reject themselves when they 
don't measure up rather than giving thanks for being fearfully and wonderfully 
made.
 
 
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:14:35 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Could you explain what you mean by self 
  rejection?Judy Taylor wrote: 
  

Hi Terry,
I don't know that any of us would 
say that they are "self satisfied" in fact not even Paul 
himself said that.
What he did say is that he didn't 
know of any sin but that did not mean he was justified 
completely before
the Lord.  I would say the 
same.  At this point in my walk I see self rejection 
just as sinful as the ignorance
that comes with pride... either way 
it is all self, self, self, self.  judyt
 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't 

Re: [TruthTalk] TT Double Standard

[Judy Taylor]

I don't think so DaveH, the Truth is a person - 
who they hung on a tree for telling it like it is.
So what is new under the 
sun?
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:07:54 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Is it good to be calling one 
  
  another hypocrites and disrespecting the 
  Moderator?  Where do you think this kind 
  of attitude leads??DAVEH:   
  The truth.Judy Taylor wrote: 
  


No Lance, I wouldn't acknowledge this to be the 
case because everything that is spoken on TT is not the 
Word of God, and not everything I write is the 
Word of God because that would have to include opinion at 
times along with personal stories.  So what is 
the point you are trying to make here?  Is it good to be calling 
one 
another hypocrites and disrespecting the 
Moderator?  Where do you think this kind 
of attitude leads??
 
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:00:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  When you describe that which you say as THE 
  TRUTH OF THE WORD OF GOD Judy, while that spoken by another as OTHER THAN 
  the truth of the word of god, Judy then, you are doing the very thing that 
  you speak of as 'both discouraging and wearying'. Would you not 
  acknowledge this to be the case?
  
    From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
 
We should make accusing each other 
personally a matter to be discussed offline.
I find these constant accusations to be 
both discouraging and wearying - are we interested in Truth or 
not?  Why give the 
enemy a platform to tear each other down.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:01:13 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  DAVEH:   I don't think you understand the nature of my 
  posts, Perry.  I'm not talking about your sexual 
  experiences.   I'm talking about Christian hypocrisy and the double standard as practiced 
  on TT.  Is the double standard on TT not a fair 
  topic?   Why should I have to discuss that matter 
  offline?   Is this not relevant to all TTers, 
  Perry?    I find it very telling that you 
  make false accusations against me...you suggest I 
  might have some knowledge of Izzy's sexual 
  experiences,.which I did not do.  Go back and 
  read my exact words if you don't believe me.  If you can't find 
  them, I'll gladly provide them and you can see for yourself that you 
  are again accusing me of something I did not do.you suggest 
  that saying "one of Joseph Smiths spiritual wives" might have some 
  sexual connotation,..That has been suggested 
  before on TT by other TTers, and the moderator did nothing to 
  discourage such comments.  Now you want to ban me from posting 
  something other TTers can post with no retribution.  This is 
  simply another example of a double standard.you try to spin 
  Dean up by suggesting he gets "excited" by sexual 
  references..I merely stated the truth about 
  Deans sensitivity to such things.  This was not an ad-hom 
  attack.  Is the truth now a problem on TT?  People 
  have said a lot more vile things about me with no condemnation by the 
  moderator.  Why the double standard now, 
  Perry?these amount to false 
  accusations,DAVEH:   How can that possibly 
  be a false accusation if it is true, Perry?  If 
  anything, it is you who is making false 
  accusations about me in this matter.  Once againa TT 
  double standard.the intentions of spinning Dean up on a 
  banned topicDAVEH:   You are absolutely 
  wrong again, Perry.  You simply fail to understand the nature of 
  my posts.  My intentions are not to spin up Dean at all.  It 
  is you who I am trying to enlighten as to the Christian 
  hypocrisy involving the double standard practiced on TT with regard to 
  Mormons.  Until you as the moderator recognize it, why 
  should I discontinue pointing it out every time it occurs?  Is 
  not the TT double standard an acceptable discussion 
  topic?    Charles Perry Locke wrote: 
  
  Dave, you suggest I might have some knowledge of 
Izzy's sexual experiences, then you suggest that saying "one 
of Joseph Smiths spiritual wives" might have some sexual 
connotation, then you try to spin Dean up by 
suggesting he gets "excited" by sexual references. These 
amount to false accusations, with the intentions of 
spinning Dean up on a banned topic. Any more posts from y

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

If you haven't noticed so far Lance, what good would it 
do me to try to explain at this late date?
Guess this is why the prophets always said "Let him who 
has ears to hear."
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:00:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Should I happen to cite the Matthean geneaology 
  in support of some unrelated matter, it'd be 
  GOD'S WORD TO BE SURE, JUDY BUTYou do attempt 
  to connect the citation to the matter at hand, do you not? 
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
I don't agree but then I'm sure this is no news to 
you.
When I cite scripture - you either receive it by 
faith as God's Word or you read it as a dead letter
depending on what you have going on in your own 
heart.  Truth is apprehended by faith whereas
IMO you are more attuned to human 
reason.
 
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:18:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  YOUR OPINIONS re: the MEANING OF THE 
  SCRIPTURES YOU CITE ARE WHAT, IMO, I AND OTHERS 
  READ MOST OF THE TIME. I can live with that. 
  Can you?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
This list is called Truth Talk Lance. It is not 
all about your opinions or me.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:51:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Let me attempt something, Judy. WITH WHAT 
  FREQUENCY THEN, DO YOU EXHIBIT THIS 'TRUE HIMILITY'?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
True humility Lance is saying what God says 
about a situation or subject; personal opinion, even
while grovelling while saying it is 
inverted pride.  When a preacher gets out there with a 
megaphone
and accurately speaks the oracles of God .. 
that is true humility.  Or of one speaks them to a friend 
in
private - this is also laying down their 
own life.  Because God's Word is that around which the 
battle
rages.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:33:54 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  There are two on TT who regularly 
  write reflecting humility. I'm suspect of one of them but, that's 
  because I don't, perhaps. 
  
From: Terry Clifton 
 I see.  Is 
this then the sin of the parents, or the world, or the parson 
with low esteem?How would this condition add to or subtract 
from one's ability to do what Jesus suggests in the sermon on 
the mount?  I am too lazy to look it up but it seems to me 
that He came to town meek and lowly, riding on a colt.  
Possibly as an example to us?To be quite honest, I do not 
see low esteem as a problem on TT.  Do 
you?Terry Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  Self rejection happens when 
  children are either rejected by parents or have overly 
  critical parents. When
  one is raised in an unloving 
  atmosphere they tend to accept the lie that this is because 
  they are unlovable making
  it difficult to understand or receive 
  the love of God.  
   
  The world adds to the problem with 
  unrealistic standards especially in the area of 
  perfection and body image - 
  thinness for women and Gk perfection 
  for men and too many times this becomes a graven image or 
  idol and 
  people reject themselves when they 
  don't measure up rather than giving thanks for being fearfully and wonderfully 
  made.
   
   
  On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:14:35 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Could you explain what you mean by self 
rejection?Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  Hi Terry,
  I don't know that any of us would 
  say that they are "self satisfied" in fact not even Paul 
  himself said that.
  What he did say is that he didn't 
  know of any sin but that did not mean he was justified 
  completely before
  the Lord.  I would say the 
 

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

Lance, I honestly do not know what you see or what you 
believe other than the theologians
you approve and a list of other professing 
Christians who are orthodox and see things similarly.
As for David, Kevin, Izzy, Terry, Dean et al.  We 
may not get every detail exact but so far as I can
tell we do agree about what is important - and that is the authority of 
God's Word.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:43:57 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  God can always speak through His Word and it does not return 
  void. On the other matter, as you already know, you, David and I see things 
  somewhat differently. It may indeed be due to my own poor communication 
  skills.
   
   
  From: Judy Taylor 
  
I don't agree but 
then I'm sure this is no news to you.
When I cite scripture - you either receive it by 
faith as God's Word or you read it as a dead letter
depending on what you have going on in your own 
heart.  Truth is apprehended by faith whereas
IMO you are more attuned to human 
reason.
 
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:18:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  YOUR OPINIONS re: the MEANING OF THE SCRIPTURES YOU CITE 
  ARE WHAT, IMO, I AND OTHERS 
  READ MOST OF THE TIME. I can live with that. Can 
  you?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
This list is called Truth Talk Lance. It is not 
all about your opinions or me.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:51:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Let me attempt something, Judy. WITH WHAT FREQUENCY 
  THEN, DO YOU EXHIBIT THIS 'TRUE HIMILITY'?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
True humility Lance is saying what God says 
about a situation or subject; personal opinion, even
while grovelling while saying it is 
inverted pride.  When a preacher gets out there with a 
megaphone
and accurately speaks the oracles of God .. 
that is true humility.  Or of one speaks them to a friend 
in
private - this is also laying down their 
own life.  Because God's Word is that around which the 
battle
rages.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:33:54 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  There are two on TT who regularly write 
  reflecting humility. I'm suspect of one of them but, that's 
  because I don't, perhaps. 
  
From: Terry Clifton 
 I see.  Is 
this then the sin of the parents, or the world, or the parson 
with low esteem?How would this condition add to or subtract 
from one's ability to do what Jesus suggests in the sermon on 
the mount?  I am too lazy to look it up but it seems to me 
that He came to town meek and lowly, riding on a colt.  
Possibly as an example to us?To be quite honest, I do not 
see low esteem as a problem on TT.  Do 
you?Terry Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  Self rejection happens when 
  children are either rejected by parents or have overly 
  critical parents. When
  one is raised in an unloving 
  atmosphere they tend to accept the lie that this is because 
  they are unlovable making
  it difficult to understand or receive 
  the love of God.  
   
  The world adds to the problem with 
  unrealistic standards especially in the area of 
  perfection and body image - 
  thinness for women and Gk perfection 
  for men and too many times this becomes a graven image or 
  idol and 
  people reject themselves when they 
  don't measure up rather than giving thanks for being fearfully and wonderfully 
  made.
   
   
  On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:14:35 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
      writes:
  
Could you explain what you mean by self 
rejection?Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  Hi Terry,
  I don't know that any of us would 
  say that they are "self satisfied" in fact not even Paul 
  himself said that.
  What he did say is that he didn't

[TruthTalk] Tozer says ......

[Judy Taylor]

 
   "If God can be 
understood and comprehended by any of our humans means, 
then I cannot worship  
Him.  One thing is sure.  I will never bend my knees and 

say "Holy, holy, holy," to 
that which I have been able to decipher and figure out 
in my own 
mind!" 

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

I don't agree but then I'm sure this is no news to 
you.
When I cite scripture - you either receive it by faith 
as God's Word or you read it as a dead letter
depending on what you have going on in your own 
heart.  Truth is apprehended by faith whereas
IMO you are more attuned to human reason.
 
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:18:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  YOUR OPINIONS re: the MEANING OF THE SCRIPTURES 
  YOU CITE ARE WHAT, IMO, I AND OTHERS 
  READ MOST OF THE TIME. I can live with that. Can 
  you?
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
This list is called Truth Talk Lance. It is not all 
about your opinions or me.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:51:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Let me attempt something, Judy. WITH WHAT 
  FREQUENCY THEN, DO YOU EXHIBIT THIS 'TRUE HIMILITY'?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
True humility Lance is saying what God says 
about a situation or subject; personal opinion, even
while grovelling while saying it is inverted 
pride.  When a preacher gets out there with a 
megaphone
and accurately speaks the oracles of God .. 
that is true humility.  Or of one speaks them to a friend 
in
private - this is also laying down their own 
life.  Because God's Word is that around which the 
battle
rages.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:33:54 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  There are two on TT who regularly write 
  reflecting humility. I'm suspect of one of them but, that's because I 
  don't, perhaps. 
  
From: Terry Clifton 
 I see.  Is this 
then the sin of the parents, or the world, or the parson with low 
esteem?How would this condition add to or subtract from one's 
ability to do what Jesus suggests in the sermon on the mount?  
I am too lazy to look it up but it seems to me that He came to town 
meek and lowly, riding on a colt.  Possibly as an example to 
us?To be quite honest, I do not see low esteem as a problem on 
TT.  Do you?Terry Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  Self rejection happens when children 
  are either rejected by parents or have overly critical parents. 
  When
  one is raised in an unloving 
  atmosphere they tend to accept the lie that this is because they 
  are unlovable making
  it difficult to understand or receive the 
  love of God.  
   
  The world adds to the problem with 
  unrealistic standards especially in the 
  area of perfection and body image - 
  
  thinness for women and Gk perfection for 
  men and too many times this becomes a 
  graven image or idol and 
  people reject themselves when they don't 
  measure up rather than giving thanks for being fearfully and wonderfully 
  made.
   
   
  On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:14:35 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
      writes:
  
Could you explain what you mean by self 
rejection?Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  Hi Terry,
  I don't know that any of us would say 
  that they are "self satisfied" in fact not even Paul himself 
  said that.
  What he did say is that he didn't 
  know of any sin but that did not mean he was justified 
  completely before
  the Lord.  I would say the 
  same.  At this point in my walk I see self rejection just 
  as sinful as the ignorance
  that comes with pride... either way 
  it is all self, self, self, self.  judyt
   
  
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Co

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

True humility Lance is saying what God says about a 
situation or subject; personal opinion, even
while grovelling while saying it is inverted 
pride.  When a preacher gets out there with a megaphone
and accurately speaks the oracles of God .. that is 
true humility.  Or of one speaks them to a friend in
private - this is also laying down their own 
life.  Because God's Word is that around which the battle
rages.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:33:54 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  There are two on TT who regularly write 
  reflecting humility. I'm suspect of one of them but, that's because I don't, 
  perhaps. 
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: December 14, 2005 08:14
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and 
Motes
I see.  Is this then the sin of the parents, or the 
world, or the parson with low esteem?How would this condition add to or 
subtract from one's ability to do what Jesus suggests in the sermon on the 
mount?  I am too lazy to look it up but it seems to me that He came to 
town meek and lowly, riding on a colt.  Possibly as an example to 
us?To be quite honest, I do not see low esteem as a problem on TT.  
Do you?Terry Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  Self rejection happens when children are 
  either rejected by parents or have overly critical parents. 
  When
  one is raised in an unloving atmosphere they 
  tend to accept the lie that this is because they are unlovable 
  making
  it difficult to understand or receive the love of 
  God.  
   
  The world adds to the problem with unrealistic 
  standards especially in the area of perfection and body image - 
  thinness for women and Gk perfection for men and 
  too many times this becomes a graven image or idol and 
  people reject themselves when they don't measure 
  up rather than giving thanks for being 
  fearfully and wonderfully 
  made.
   
   
  On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:14:35 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
    Could you explain what you mean by self rejection?Judy 
Taylor wrote: 

  
  Hi Terry,
  I don't know that any of us would say that 
  they are "self satisfied" in fact not even Paul himself said 
  that.
  What he did say is that he didn't know of any 
  sin but that did not mean he was justified completely 
  before
  the Lord.  I would say the same.  
  At this point in my walk I see self rejection just as sinful as 
  the ignorance
  that comes with pride... either way it is all 
  self, self, self, self.  judyt
   
  
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

Possibly any or all of what you mention and yes it does 
keep one from wholeheartedly laying down their life for
others and causes the heart to be less than 
pure.  I'm sure a lot of the behaviors you observed as a prison 
guard
were the result of these kinds of issues. The 
enemy over the years (because of violence and lack of love) built 

strongholds in the hearts of these ppl in their 
childhood and in prison the outworking is 
evident.  I saw Jeffrey 
Dahmer's father on TV 
recently and he said that he also had the dark kinds of dreams that Dahmer had 
in his 
childhood, the only difference being that the boy acted on them and followed through where the father 
did not ;
Dahmer's mother had a difficult pregnancy and she 
took massive doses of anti depressant drugs 
while pregnant 
with him which would have added to the 
mix. In Christ we covenant to work our 
issues out in a different way which 
is through repentance, 
turning from sin and embracing His righteousness 
through the cross.  His promise is 
"If you continue in My Word 
you will know the truth and the truth will make you 
free".
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:14:00 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I see.  Is this then the sin of the parents, or the world, or the 
  parson with low esteem?How would this condition add to or subtract from 
  one's ability to do what Jesus suggests in the sermon on the mount?  I am 
  too lazy to look it up but it seems to me that He came to town meek and lowly, 
  riding on a colt.  Possibly as an example to us?To be quite honest, I 
  do not see low esteem as a problem on TT.  Do 
  you?Terry Judy Taylor wrote: 
  
Self rejection happens when children are 
either rejected by parents or have overly critical parents. 
When
one is raised in an unloving atmosphere they 
tend to accept the lie that this is because they are unlovable making 
it difficult to understand or receive the love of 
God.  
 
The world adds to the problem with unrealistic 
standards especially in the area of perfection and body image - thinness for women and Gk perfection for men and too many 
times this becomes a graven image or idol and people 
reject themselves when they don't measure up rather than giving thanks for 
being fearfully and wonderfully made.
 
 
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:14:35 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Could you explain what you mean by self rejection?Judy Taylor 
  wrote: 
  

Hi Terry,
I don't know that any of us would say that they 
are "self satisfied" in fact not even Paul himself said 
that.
What he did say is that he didn't know of any 
sin but that did not mean he was justified completely 
before
the Lord.  I would say the same.  At 
this point in my walk I see self rejection just as sinful as the 
ignorance
that comes with pride... either way it is all 
self, self, self, self.  judyt
 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Garden Atonement

[Judy Taylor]

Just what is the "direct question" Lance?  I don't 
recall you ever being direct about anything.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:45:52 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  FWIW (not much, say many), you are as elusive as 
  the Mormons when it comes to a direct replay to a direct question. 'Slip 
  slidin' away'
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
But apparently it leaves us bereft in our own 
personal mess at least in your economy Lance since
you are wanting to allude to and/or point out or at 
least have others confess their own sin on TT ... 
For what purpose?
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:49:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  THE VICARIOUS HUMANITY OF CHRIST WOULD MOST 
  ASSUREDLY INCLUDE THE GARDEN, kevin!
  
From: Kevin Deegan 
 
Blaine what is all this Talk 
about PAYING for SINS in the GARDEN?
And what is this great drops 
of Blood sweat thing have to do with Atonement?
 
"The Savior ATONED for our 
sins by suffering in Gethsemane and by giving his life 
on the cross. It is impossible for us to fully understand how he 
suffered for all of our sins. In the Garden of Gethsemane, the 
weight of our sins caused him to feel such agony and heartbreak that be 
bled from every pore (see D&C 
19:18-19). " Gospel Principles, Corporation of the President of the 
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979, pg. 
66
 
"Jesus then went into the Garden of Gethsemane. There he 
suffered most. He suffered greatly on the cross, of course, but 
other men had died by crucifixion; in fact, a man hung on either side of 
him as he died on the cross. But no man, nor set of men, nor all men put 
together, ever suffered what the Redeemer suffered in the garden. He 
went there to pray and suffer'" (Conference Report, Marion Romney, First 
Presidency, October 1953, Pg.35). 
 "suffered as only as God would suffer, bearing our 
griefs, carrying our sorrows, being wounded for our transgressions, 
voluntarily submitting Himself to the iniquity of us all, just as Isaiah 
prophesied." 
"It was in Gethsemane that Jesus took on 
Himself the sins of the world, in Gethsemane that His pain was 
equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men, in Gethsemane that He 
descended below all things so that all could repent and come to Him" 
(Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg.15). 
 
"Forgiveness is available because Christ the Lord sweat great drops of blood in Gethsemane 
as he bore the incalculable weight of the sins of all 
who ever had or ever would repent" ("The Promised Messiah," Bruce R. 
McConkie pg. 337)
"In a garden called Gethsemane, outside 
Jerusalem's walls, in agony beyond compare, he took upon himself 
the sins of all men on condition of repentance."  ("The 
Promised Messiah," Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie pg. 552)
"And as he came out of the Garden, delivering himself voluntarily 
into the hands of wicked men, the victory had been won. There remained 
yet the shame and the pain of his attest, his trials, and his 
cross. But all these were overshadowed by the agonies 
and sufferings in Gethsemane. It 
was on the cross that he 'suffered death in the flesh,' even as many 
have suffered agonizing deaths, but it was in Gethsemane that "he 
suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent 
and come unto him." "The Mortal Messiah," McConkie pg. 127-128

Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the Garden 
of Gethsemane. Laurel Rohlfing, “Sharing Time: The Atonement,” 
Friend, Mar. 1989, 39
 
BYU professor Robert J. Matthews, who on page 282 of his book, A 
Bible! A Bible!, wrote, “It was in Gethsemane, on the slopes of the 
Mount of Olives, that Jesus made his perfect atonement 
by the shedding of his blood-more so than on the 
cross.” 
 
Apostle Bruce McConkie, stated, “Where 
and under what circumstances was the atoning sacrifice 
of the Son of God made? Was it on the Cross of Calvary or in the Garden 
of Gethsemane? It is to the Cross of Christ that most Christians look 
when centering their attention upon the infinite and eternal atonement. 
And certainly the sacrifice of our Lord was completed when he was lifted 
up by men; also, that part of his life and suffering is more dramatic 
and, perhaps, m

Re: [TruthTalk] Garden Atonement

[Judy Taylor]

But apparently it leaves us bereft in our own personal 
mess at least in your economy Lance since
you are wanting to allude to and/or point out or at 
least have others confess their own sin on TT ... 
For what purpose?
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:49:17 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  THE VICARIOUS HUMANITY OF CHRIST WOULD MOST 
  ASSUREDLY INCLUDE THE GARDEN, kevin!
  
From: Kevin Deegan 
 
Blaine what is all this Talk 
about PAYING for SINS in the GARDEN?
And what is this great drops of 
Blood sweat thing have to do with Atonement?
 
"The Savior ATONED for our sins by 
suffering in Gethsemane and by giving his life on the cross. It 
is impossible for us to fully understand how he suffered for all of our 
sins. In the Garden of Gethsemane, the weight of our sins caused 
him to feel such agony and heartbreak that be bled from 
every pore (see D&C 19:18-19). " Gospel Principles, 
Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day 
Saints, 1979, pg. 66
 
"Jesus then went into the Garden of Gethsemane. There he 
suffered most. He suffered greatly on the cross, of course, but 
other men had died by crucifixion; in fact, a man hung on either side of him 
as he died on the cross. But no man, nor set of men, nor all men put 
together, ever suffered what the Redeemer suffered in the garden. He went 
there to pray and suffer'" (Conference Report, Marion Romney, First 
Presidency, October 1953, Pg.35). 
 "suffered as only as God would suffer, bearing our griefs, 
carrying our sorrows, being wounded for our transgressions, voluntarily 
submitting Himself to the iniquity of us all, just as Isaiah 
prophesied." 
"It was in Gethsemane that Jesus took on 
Himself the sins of the world, in Gethsemane that His pain was 
equivalent to the cumulative burden of all men, in Gethsemane that He 
descended below all things so that all could repent and come to Him" 
(Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg.15). 
 
"Forgiveness is available because Christ the Lord sweat great drops of blood in Gethsemane as he 
bore the incalculable weight of the sins of all who ever 
had or ever would repent" ("The Promised Messiah," Bruce R. McConkie pg. 
337)
"In a garden called Gethsemane, outside Jerusalem's 
walls, in agony beyond compare, he took upon himself the sins of all 
men on condition of repentance."  ("The Promised Messiah," 
Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie pg. 552)
"And as he came out of the Garden, delivering himself voluntarily into 
the hands of wicked men, the victory had been won. There remained yet the 
shame and the pain of his attest, his trials, and his 
cross. But all these were overshadowed by the agonies and 
sufferings in Gethsemane. It was on the 
cross that he 'suffered death in the flesh,' even as many have suffered 
agonizing deaths, but it was in Gethsemane that "he suffered the pain of all 
men, that all men might repent and come unto him." "The 
Mortal Messiah," McConkie pg. 127-128

Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the Garden of 
Gethsemane. Laurel Rohlfing, “Sharing Time: The Atonement,” Friend, 
Mar. 1989, 39
 
BYU professor Robert J. Matthews, who on page 282 of his book, A Bible! 
A Bible!, wrote, “It was in Gethsemane, on the slopes of the Mount of 
Olives, that Jesus made his perfect atonement by the 
shedding of his blood-more so than on the cross.” 
 
Apostle Bruce McConkie, stated, “Where and 
under what circumstances was the atoning sacrifice of the 
Son of God made? Was it on the Cross of Calvary or in the Garden of 
Gethsemane? It is to the Cross of Christ that most Christians look when 
centering their attention upon the infinite and eternal atonement. And 
certainly the sacrifice of our Lord was completed when he was lifted up by 
men; also, that part of his life and suffering is more dramatic and, 
perhaps, more soul stirring. But in reality the pain and suffering, the 
triumph and grandeur, of the atonement took place primarily in 
Gethsemane,” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 1:774)
 
The Savior began shedding His blood for all mankind, not on the 
cross but in the Garden of Gethsemane.  (Russell M. Nelson, 
“His Mission and Ministry,” New Era, Dec. 1999)
 
the preaching of the 
CROSS is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are 
saved it is the power of God 1 Co 1:18
 
Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

  Now Kevin, we don't despise crosses, we just 
  like stars better.  :>) Blainerb
   
  Jesus paid for all our sins when He suffered in the Garden of 
  Gethsemane. Laurel Rohlfing, “Sharing Time: The Atonement,” 
  Friend, Mar. 1989, 39
   
  "The Savior atoned for our si

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

This list is called Truth Talk Lance. It is not all 
about your opinions or me.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:51:53 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Let me attempt something, Judy. WITH WHAT 
  FREQUENCY THEN, DO YOU EXHIBIT THIS 'TRUE HIMILITY'?
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
True humility Lance is saying what God says about a 
situation or subject; personal opinion, even
while grovelling while saying it is inverted 
pride.  When a preacher gets out there with a megaphone
and accurately speaks the oracles of God .. that is 
true humility.  Or of one speaks them to a friend in
private - this is also laying down their own 
life.  Because God's Word is that around which the battle
rages.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:33:54 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  There are two on TT who regularly write 
  reflecting humility. I'm suspect of one of them but, that's because I 
  don't, perhaps. 
  
From: Terry Clifton 
 I see.  Is this then 
the sin of the parents, or the world, or the parson with low 
esteem?How would this condition add to or subtract from one's 
ability to do what Jesus suggests in the sermon on the mount?  I am 
too lazy to look it up but it seems to me that He came to town meek and 
lowly, riding on a colt.  Possibly as an example to us?To be 
quite honest, I do not see low esteem as a problem on TT.  Do 
you?Terry Judy Taylor wrote: 

  
  Self rejection happens when children are 
  either rejected by parents or have overly critical parents. 
  When
  one is raised in an unloving atmosphere 
  they tend to accept the lie that this is because they are unlovable 
  making
  it difficult to understand or receive the 
  love of God.  
   
  The world adds to the problem with 
  unrealistic standards especially in the 
  area of perfection and body image - 
  
  thinness for women and Gk perfection for men 
  and too many times this becomes a 
  graven image or idol and 
  people reject themselves when they don't 
  measure up rather than giving thanks for being fearfully and wonderfully 
  made.
   
   
  On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:14:35 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
    Could you explain what you mean by self rejection?Judy 
Taylor wrote: 

  
  Hi Terry,
  I don't know that any of us would say 
  that they are "self satisfied" in fact not even Paul himself said 
  that.
  What he did say is that he didn't know of 
  any sin but that did not mean he was justified completely 
  before
  the Lord.  I would say the 
  same.  At this point in my walk I see self rejection just 
  as sinful as the ignorance
  that comes with pride... either way it is 
  all self, self, self, self.  judyt
   
  
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] TT Double Standard

[Judy Taylor]

No Lance, I wouldn't acknowledge this to be the case 
because everything that is spoken on TT is not the 
Word of God, and not everything I write is the 
Word of God because that would have to include opinion at 
times along with personal stories.  So what is the 
point you are trying to make here?  Is it good to be calling one 

another hypocrites and disrespecting the 
Moderator?  Where do you think this kind 
of attitude leads??
 
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:00:39 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  When you describe that which you say as THE TRUTH 
  OF THE WORD OF GOD Judy, while that spoken by another as OTHER THAN the truth 
  of the word of god, Judy then, you are doing the very thing that you speak of 
  as 'both discouraging and wearying'. Would you not acknowledge this to be the 
  case?
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
We should make accusing each other 
personally a matter to be discussed offline.
I find these constant accusations to be 
both discouraging and wearying - are we interested in Truth or not?  
Why give the enemy a platform to 
tear each other down.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:01:13 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  DAVEH:   I don't think you understand the nature of my 
  posts, Perry.  I'm not talking about your sexual 
  experiences.   I'm talking about Christian 
  hypocrisy and the double standard as practiced on TT.  Is the 
  double standard on TT not a fair topic?   Why should I have to 
  discuss that matter offline?   Is this not relevant to all 
  TTers, Perry?    I find it very telling that you 
  make false accusations against me...you suggest I might 
  have some knowledge of Izzy's sexual 
  experiences,.which I did not do.  Go back and 
  read my exact words if you don't believe me.  If you can't find them, 
  I'll gladly provide them and you can see for yourself that you are again 
  accusing me of something I did not do.you suggest that saying 
  "one of Joseph Smiths spiritual wives" might have some sexual 
  connotation,..That has been suggested before on TT by 
  other TTers, and the moderator did nothing to discourage such 
  comments.  Now you want to ban me from posting something other TTers 
  can post with no retribution.  This is simply another example of a 
  double standard.you try to spin Dean up by suggesting he gets 
  "excited" by sexual references..I merely stated the 
  truth about Deans sensitivity to such things.  This was not an 
  ad-hom attack.  Is the truth now a problem on TT?  People 
  have said a lot more vile things about me with no condemnation by the 
  moderator.  Why the double standard now, Perry?these 
  amount to false accusations,DAVEH:   How can 
  that possibly be a false accusation if it is true, 
  Perry?  If anything, it is you who is making false 
  accusations about me in this matter.  Once againa TT 
  double standard.the intentions of spinning Dean up on a 
  banned topicDAVEH:   You are absolutely wrong 
  again, Perry.  You simply fail to understand the nature of my 
  posts.  My intentions are not to spin up Dean at all.  It is 
  you who I am trying to enlighten as to the Christian hypocrisy 
  involving the double standard practiced on TT with regard to 
  Mormons.  Until you as the moderator recognize it, why should 
  I discontinue pointing it out every time it occurs?  Is not the TT 
  double standard an acceptable discussion topic?    
  Charles Perry Locke wrote: 
  Dave, you suggest I might have some knowledge of Izzy's 
sexual experiences, then you suggest that saying "one of Joseph 
Smiths spiritual wives" might have some sexual connotation, then 
you try to spin Dean up by suggesting he gets "excited" by 
sexual references. These amount to false accusations, 
with the intentions of spinning Dean up on a banned topic. 
Any more posts from you containing sexual references and I will have to 
take you off the forum until you agree not to do so. Take any issues you 
have up with me, offline, at this address, not on the forum. 
Perry 
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator comment ** Date: Tue, 13 
  Dec 2005 07:29:32 -0800 *  Please try to /refrain /from 
  making sexual references, especially /false accuastions/.* 
  DAVEH:   Let's see if I understand this, 
  Perry.  Recently I asked some questions that were no more 
  sexually oriented than what you commonly make, Dean then claim

Re: [TruthTalk] TT Double Standard

[Judy Taylor]

We should make accusing each other personally a 
matter to be discussed offline.
I find these constant accusations to be both 
discouraging and wearying - are we interested in Truth or 
not?
Why give the enemy a platform to tear each 
other down.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:01:13 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  DAVEH:   I don't think you understand the nature of my posts, 
  Perry.  I'm not talking about your sexual experiences.   I'm 
  talking about Christian hypocrisy and the double standard 
  as practiced on TT.  Is the double standard on TT not a fair 
  topic?   Why should I have to discuss that matter 
  offline?   Is this not relevant to all TTers, 
  Perry?    I find it very telling that you make 
  false accusations against me...you suggest I might have some 
  knowledge of Izzy's sexual experiences,.which I did not 
  do.  Go back and read my exact words if you don't believe me.  If 
  you can't find them, I'll gladly provide them and you can see for yourself 
  that you are again accusing me of something I did not do.you 
  suggest that saying "one of Joseph Smiths spiritual wives" might have some 
  sexual connotation,..That has been suggested before on TT 
  by other TTers, and the moderator did nothing to discourage such 
  comments.  Now you want to ban me from posting something other TTers can 
  post with no retribution.  This is simply another example of a double 
  standard.you try to spin Dean up by suggesting he gets "excited" by 
  sexual references..I merely stated the truth about 
  Deans sensitivity to such things.  This was not an ad-hom attack.  
  Is the truth now a problem on TT?  People have said a lot more 
  vile things about me with no condemnation by the moderator.  Why the 
  double standard now, Perry?these amount to false 
  accusations,DAVEH:   How can that possibly be a 
  false accusation if it is true, Perry?  If anything, it is 
  you who is making false accusations about me in this 
  matter.  Once againa TT double standard.the intentions 
  of spinning Dean up on a banned topicDAVEH:   You 
  are absolutely wrong again, Perry.  You simply fail to understand the 
  nature of my posts.  My intentions are not to spin up Dean at all.  
  It is you who I am trying to enlighten as to the Christian hypocrisy 
  involving the double standard practiced on TT with regard to Mormons.  
  Until you as the moderator recognize it, why should I discontinue 
  pointing it out every time it occurs?  Is not the TT double standard an 
  acceptable discussion topic?    Charles Perry 
  Locke wrote: 
  Dave, you suggest I might have some knowledge of Izzy's 
sexual experiences, then you suggest that saying "one of Joseph 
Smiths spiritual wives" might have some sexual connotation, then 
you try to spin Dean up by suggesting he gets "excited" by sexual 
references. These amount to false accusations, with 
the intentions of spinning Dean up on a banned topic. Any more 
posts from you containing sexual references and I will have to take you off 
the forum until you agree not to do so. Take any issues you have up with me, 
offline, at this address, not on the forum. Perry 
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] ** Moderator comment ** Date: Tue, 13 Dec 
  2005 07:29:32 -0800 *  Please try to /refrain /from making 
  sexual references, especially /false accuastions/.* 
  DAVEH:   Let's see if I understand this, Perry.  
  Recently I asked some questions that were no more sexually oriented than 
  what you commonly make, Dean then claimed foul..and you banned further 
  discussion based on the /perception /you and Dean had about what those 
  comments might have implied.    Now you have made a 
  comment that can be perceived to be sexually charged.. *If 
  lucky, you may become one of his many spirit wives! * 
  ..and you don't want to recognize the double 
  standard?  It is interesting that when you or other TTers make any 
  kind of denigrating remarks toward LDS theology with sexual implications, 
  nothing is considered off limits.  When I point out this obvious 
  double standard, I am cautioned by the moderator to /refrain /from 
  bringing the discussion to the TT table under the guise of making/ false 
  accusations/.  It must be convenient to have a moderator who can see 
  non-LDS posters through one non-judgmental eye, and perceive a completely 
  different perspective of LDS posters through the other, more critical 
  eye.  I suppose if one has an ax to grind against LDS theology, and 
  is not embarrassed to publicly admit suchthen it should not surprise 
  anybody to find that person practicing a double standard.  The 
  curious part about this is that it happens on

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

Obviously you are not one of them Lance - so are you 
going to oblige the rest of us by pointing the
index finger now?
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:27:24 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Kevin: Did you not know that there are CHRISTIAN 
  PERFECTIONISTS on TT? They are three in number. I shan't ask them to identify 
  themselves as that might exhibit pride and...well..you get it... 
  
From: Kevin Deegan 
 
those who believe themselves to be WITHOUT SIN 
 
Are there Christian perfectionists on TT?All those that are WITHOUT 
SIN raise your hands
Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:

  
  Terry:I believe that YOU FAIL THE LEAST ON 
  THIS. You raised an important point when speaking of not knowing one's 
  self. IMO, those who believe themselves to be WITHOUT SIN do 
  not!
   
  - Original Message - 
  
From: 
Terry Clifton 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: December 13, 2005 21:22
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and 
Motes
I do not agree, Iz.  In fact, I would say not very 
perceptive at all.  There are sins of commission and there are sins 
of omission, and it is not too hard to find one or the other in any post 
on TT.     I stand by my statement that it is hard for us 
to see ourselves as others see us, and if that statement is true, it is 
also hard for us to see ourselves as the Lord sees us.  I would 
suggest as an eye opener, that anyone on here who thinks that they are 
squeaky clean in the eyes of the Lord do the following:  Go back 
over your last twenty posts.  Examine them closely.  See if 
there is any meekness, any humility in any of them.  Then look 
again.  See if you can see any love for others in your words.  
Finally, look again, this time to see how well you have managed to edify 
the Saints that you have been talking with, or down  to.  If 
seventy percent is a passing grade, you should see these things in at 
least fourteen of your posts.I am a miserable failure.  How 
much better are you and Judy doing?TerryShieldsFamily 
wrote: 

  
  
  
  

  
  
  
  Very 
  perceptive, jt.   iz
  
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
  On Behalf Of Judy 
  TaylorSent: Tuesday, 
  December 13, 2005 3:18 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes
  
  
  Because 
  others may have a critical and jaundiced eye does not necessarily mean 
  there is sin in the object
  
  or focus of 
  such criticism - at times it means the person looking needs to work on 
  their own beam.
  
  
  
  On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:34:43 
  -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

EXATAMUNDO! I have long 
been mystified by such, 
Terry. 

  
  From: Terry Clifton 
  
  
   
  I suspect that you are 
  correct.  Sometimes it is hard to see ourselves as others see 
  us.Lance Muir wrote: 
  
  How, you ask, did I 
  figure that out, Terry? The same way you did. ARE YOU, TERRY, 
  UNAWARE, THAT SOME EXCLUDE THEMSELVES FROM 
  THIS.?
  

From: Terry Clifton 



Lance Muir wrote: 


Speaking ONLY of 
expressions on TT, may I ask ALL participants who have never 
sinned ON TT to identify themselves. IMO, NOT ONE HAS NOT SINNED 
ON TT ALONE NEVER MIND THEIR LIVES APART FROM 
TT.
DUH! How did 
you figure that out?  I can spot the sins in you other guys every time you 
contribute.Terry
  


   
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 
2:4)



Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! 
Shopping 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a l

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

And let's add those who believe they are HONEST yet are 
only willing to see the other guys faults .
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 04:22:33 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  those who believe themselves to be WITHOUT SIN 
  Are there Christian perfectionists on TT?All those that are WITHOUT 
  SIN raise your hands
  Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

Terry:I believe that YOU FAIL THE LEAST ON 
THIS. You raised an important point when speaking of not knowing one's self. 
IMO, those who believe themselves to be WITHOUT SIN do not!
 
From: Terry Clifton 

  I do not agree, Iz.  In fact, I would 
  say not very perceptive at all.  There are sins of commission and 
  there are sins of omission, and it is not too hard to find one or the 
  other in any post on TT.     I stand by my statement that 
  it is hard for us to see ourselves as others see us, and if that statement 
  is true, it is also hard for us to see ourselves as the Lord sees 
  us.  I would suggest as an eye opener, that anyone on here who thinks 
  that they are squeaky clean in the eyes of the Lord do the 
  following:  Go back over your last twenty posts.  Examine them 
  closely.  See if there is any meekness, any humility in any of 
  them.  Then look again.  See if you can see any love for others 
  in your words.  Finally, look again, this time to see how well you 
  have managed to edify the Saints that you have been talking with, or 
  down  to.  If seventy percent is a passing grade, you should see 
  these things in at least fourteen of your posts.I am a miserable 
  failure.  How much better are you and Judy 
  doing?TerryShieldsFamily wrote: 
  








Very 
perceptive, jt.   iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Judy 
TaylorSent: Tuesday, 
December 13, 2005 3:18 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: 
[TruthTalk] Beams and Motes


Because 
others may have a critical and jaundiced eye does not necessarily mean 
there is sin in the object

or focus of 
such criticism - at times it means the person looking needs to work on 
their own beam.



On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:34:43 -0500 
"Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  EXATAMUNDO! I have long 
  been mystified by such, 
  Terry. 
  

From: 
Terry Clifton 


 
I suspect that you are 
correct.  Sometimes it is hard to see ourselves as others see 
us.Lance Muir wrote: 

How, you ask, did I 
figure that out, Terry? The same way you did. ARE YOU, TERRY, 
UNAWARE, THAT SOME EXCLUDE THEMSELVES FROM 
THIS.?

  
  From: Terry Clifton 
  
  
  
  Lance Muir wrote: 
  
  
  Speaking ONLY of 
  expressions on TT, may I ask ALL participants who have never 
  sinned ON TT to identify themselves. IMO, NOT ONE HAS NOT SINNED 
  ON TT ALONE NEVER MIND THEIR LIVES APART FROM 
  TT.
  DUH! How did 
  you figure that out?  I can spot the sins in you other guys every time you 
  contribute.Terry

  
  
 
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 
  2:4)
  
  
  
  Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! 
  Shopping 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

This is quite rich coming from one who consistently 
maintains that noone can know anything anyway. I guess
you are the only one around here with a valid opinion 
now Lance (according to you that is) and from what I read
you don't believe there is any such thing as "objective 
truth" anyway so what could one be more deceived about
this which is probably why Jesus said we are to take 
care of our own beams and motes which makes us free
to love the other guy rather than consistently look for 
flaws in him.  Hopefully Terry will not be taken 
in by your brand
of wisdom because it is from the other 
tree.
 
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 06:11:49 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Terry:I believe that YOU FAIL THE LEAST ON THIS. 
  You raised an important point when speaking of not knowing one's self. IMO, 
  those who believe themselves to be WITHOUT SIN do not!
   
   
  From: Terry Clifton 
  
I do not agree, Iz.  In fact, I would say 
not very perceptive at all.  There are sins of commission and there are 
sins of omission, and it is not too hard to find one or the other in any 
post on TT.     I stand by my statement that it is hard for 
us to see ourselves as others see us, and if that statement is true, it is 
also hard for us to see ourselves as the Lord sees us.  I would suggest 
as an eye opener, that anyone on here who thinks that they are squeaky clean 
in the eyes of the Lord do the following:  Go back over your last 
twenty posts.  Examine them closely.  See if there is any 
meekness, any humility in any of them.  Then look again.  See if 
you can see any love for others in your words.  Finally, look again, 
this time to see how well you have managed to edify the Saints that you have 
been talking with, or down  to.  If seventy percent is a passing 
grade, you should see these things in at least fourteen of your 
posts.I am a miserable failure.  How much better are you and 
Judy doing?TerryShieldsFamily wrote: 

  
  

  
  Very perceptive, 
  jt.   iz
  
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
  On Behalf Of Judy 
  TaylorSent: Tuesday, 
  December 13, 2005 3:18 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes
  
  
  Because others may have a 
  critical and jaundiced eye does not necessarily mean there is sin in the 
  object
  
  or focus of such criticism - 
  at times it means the person looking needs to work on their own 
  beam.
  
  
  
  On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:34:43 -0500 "Lance Muir" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

EXATAMUNDO! I have long been 
mystified by such, Terry. 

  
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  
  
   
  I suspect that you are 
  correct.  Sometimes it is hard to see ourselves as others see 
  us.Lance Muir wrote: 
  
  How, you ask, did I figure 
  that out, Terry? The same way you did. ARE YOU, TERRY, UNAWARE, THAT 
  SOME EXCLUDE THEMSELVES FROM THIS.?
  

From: 
Terry Clifton 



Lance Muir wrote: 


Speaking ONLY of 
expressions on TT, may I ask ALL participants who have never sinned 
ON TT to identify themselves. IMO, NOT ONE HAS NOT SINNED ON TT 
ALONE NEVER MIND THEIR LIVES APART FROM 
TT.
DUH! How did you 
figure that out?  I can spot the sins in you other guys every time you 
contribute.Terry
  


   
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 
  2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

Self rejection happens when children are either 
rejected by parents or have overly critical parents. When
one is raised in an unloving atmosphere they tend 
to accept the lie that this is because they are unlovable making
it difficult to understand or receive the love of 
God.  
 
The world adds to the problem with unrealistic 
standards especially in the area of perfection and body image - 
thinness for women and Gk perfection for men and too 
many times this becomes a graven image or idol and 
people reject themselves when they don't measure up 
rather than giving thanks for being fearfully and 
wonderfully 
made.
 
 
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:14:35 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Could you explain what you mean by self rejection?Judy Taylor 
  wrote: 
  
Hi Terry,
I don't know that any of us would say that they are 
"self satisfied" in fact not even Paul himself said that.
What he did say is that he didn't know of any sin 
but that did not mean he was justified completely before
the Lord.  I would say the same.  At this 
point in my walk I see self rejection just as sinful as the 
ignorance
that comes with pride... either way it is all self, 
self, self, self.  judyt
 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

Hi Terry,
I don't know that any of us would say that they are 
"self satisfied" in fact not even Paul himself said that.
What he did say is that he didn't know of any sin but 
that did not mean he was justified completely before
the Lord.  I would say the same.  At this 
point in my walk I see self rejection just as sinful as the 
ignorance
that comes with pride... either way it is all self, 
self, self, self.  judyt
 
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:06:48 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I am not judging you Judy.  I asked everyone here to judge 
  themselves.  Evidently you have given this much consideration and are 
  well satisfied with yourself.  That surprises me, but then  you know 
  yourself better than I do.  Congratulations on doing so 
  well.TerryJudy Taylor wrote: 
  
According to your scale of measure Terry - and 
assuming you know everything there is to know about the one you are judging. 
However, only God actually sees and knows the heart and you are judging by 
how it appears outwardly ... Jesus himself would not have appeared too 
humble on the day He weilded those cords in the temple either according 
to the outward look of humility and neither would Paul have appeared 
too humble in some of the places where he barged in like a street preacher 
and began speaking against what the ppl believed in (because they had been 
raised in it).  I think all of us are aware of our own human 
shortcomings but facts are - it is God who is working in us to will and to 
do of His good pleasure and I am not about to call what He has done in my 
life a "miserable failure"  You should have seen/known me before.  
Tell me - what does "boldness to speak the truth" 
look like? and remember that love covers a multitude of sin ... 
If you think we are missing it don't stone us, 
pray for us.  There is responsibility on both sides and only one 
Judge.  It's impossible to function while all the time examining 
one's own navel for fear of offending.    judyt
 
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:22:20 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I do not agree, Iz.  In fact, I would say not very perceptive at 
  all.  There are sins of commission and there are sins of omission, 
  and it is not too hard to find one or the other in any post on TT.  
     I stand by my statement that it is hard for us to see 
  ourselves as others see us, and if that statement is true, it is also hard 
  for us to see ourselves as the Lord sees us.  I would suggest as an 
  eye opener, that anyone on here who thinks that they are squeaky clean in 
  the eyes of the Lord do the following:  Go back over your last twenty 
  posts.  Examine them closely.  See if there is any meekness, any 
  humility in any of them.  Then look again.  See if you can see 
  any love for others in your words.  Finally, look again, this time to 
  see how well you have managed to edify the Saints that you have been 
  talking with, or down  to.  If seventy percent is a passing 
  grade, you should see these things in at least fourteen of your 
  posts.I am a miserable failure.  How much better are you and 
  Judy doing?TerryShieldsFamily wrote: 
  




Very 
perceptive, jt.   iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Judy 
TaylorSent: Tuesday, 
December 13, 2005 3:18 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: 
[TruthTalk] Beams and Motes


Because 
others may have a critical and jaundiced eye does not necessarily mean 
there is sin in the object

or focus of 
such criticism - at times it means the person looking needs to work on 
their own beam.



On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:34:43 -0500 "Lance Muir" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  EXATAMUNDO! I have long 
  been mystified by such, 
Terry. 
  

From: 
Terry Clifton 


 
I suspect that you are 
correct.  Sometimes it is hard to see ourselves as others see 
us.Lance Muir wrote: 

How, you ask, did I 
figure that out, Terry? The same way you did. ARE YOU, TERRY, 
UNAWARE, THAT SOME EXCLUDE THEMSELVES FROM 
THIS.?

  
  From: Terry Clifton 
  
  
  
  Lance Muir wrote: 
  
  
  Speaking ONLY of 
  expressions on TT, may I ask ALL participants who have never 
  sinned ON TT to id

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

According to your scale of measure Terry - and assuming 
you know everything there is to know about the one you are judging. However, 
only God actually sees and knows the heart and you are judging by how it appears 
outwardly ... Jesus himself would not have appeared too humble on the day He 
weilded those cords in the temple either according to the outward look 
of humility and neither would Paul have appeared too humble in some of the 
places where he barged in like a street preacher and began speaking against what 
the ppl believed in (because they had been raised in it).  I think all of 
us are aware of our own human shortcomings but facts are - it is God who is 
working in us to will and to do of His good pleasure and I am not about to call 
what He has done in my life a "miserable failure"  You should have 
seen/known me before.  Tell me - what does 
"boldness to speak the truth" look like? and remember that love covers 
a multitude of sin ... If you think we are missing it 
don't stone us, pray for us.  There is responsibility on both sides 
and only one Judge.  It's impossible to function while all the time 
examining one's own navel for fear of offending.    
judyt
 
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 20:22:20 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I do not agree, Iz.  In fact, I would say not very perceptive at 
  all.  There are sins of commission and there are sins of omission, and it 
  is not too hard to find one or the other in any post on TT.     
  I stand by my statement that it is hard for us to see ourselves as others see 
  us, and if that statement is true, it is also hard for us to see ourselves as 
  the Lord sees us.  I would suggest as an eye opener, that anyone on here 
  who thinks that they are squeaky clean in the eyes of the Lord do the 
  following:  Go back over your last twenty posts.  Examine them 
  closely.  See if there is any meekness, any humility in any of 
  them.  Then look again.  See if you can see any love for others in 
  your words.  Finally, look again, this time to see how well you have 
  managed to edify the Saints that you have been talking with, or down  
  to.  If seventy percent is a passing grade, you should see these things 
  in at least fourteen of your posts.I am a miserable failure.  How 
  much better are you and Judy doing?TerryShieldsFamily wrote: 
  
  



Very perceptive, 
jt.   iz





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
On Behalf Of Judy 
TaylorSent: Tuesday, 
December 13, 2005 3:18 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: 
[TruthTalk] Beams and Motes


Because others may have a 
critical and jaundiced eye does not necessarily mean there is sin in the 
object

or focus of such criticism - 
at times it means the person looking needs to work on their own 
beam.



On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:34:43 -0500 "Lance Muir" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  EXATAMUNDO! I have long been 
  mystified by such, Terry. 
  

From: Terry Clifton 


 
I suspect that you are correct.  Sometimes 
it is hard to see ourselves as others see us.Lance Muir wrote: 


How, you ask, did I figure 
that out, Terry? The same way you did. ARE YOU, TERRY, UNAWARE, THAT 
SOME EXCLUDE THEMSELVES FROM THIS.?

  
  From: 
  Terry Clifton 
  
  
  
  Lance Muir wrote: 
  
  
  Speaking ONLY of 
  expressions on TT, may I ask ALL participants who have never sinned ON 
  TT to identify themselves. IMO, NOT ONE HAS NOT SINNED ON TT ALONE 
  NEVER MIND THEIR LIVES APART FROM 
  TT.
  DUH! How did you 
  figure that out?  I can spot the sins in you other guys every time you 
  contribute.Terry

  
  
 
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

[Judy Taylor]




Might as well admit it Blaine - you Mormon boys 
have  been sprung.  You've got yourselves in a mess over this 
one.
This is exactly what happened with my little 
friend in Newfoundland Canada.  Two good looking Mormon Missionaries had 
her and her friend snowed.  They said 
they were born again Christians and she was a baby in the faith so at first she 
didn't know the difference The boys took 
Roseanne and her friend out bowling and when a (for Christians) well loved hymn 
came on over the sound system these good looking Mormon boys began to mock 
it  This was when the lights came on 
for my friend and their missionary endeavors were over -  to late for her, she already knew the Truth and darkness 
had lost it's cover.
 
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:44:00 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
   
  Now Kevin, we don't despise crosses, we just like 
  stars better.  :>)
  Blainerb
   
  In a message dated 12/13/2005 6:12:12 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
The cats out of the bag:
Christians Glory in the cross you dispise it since you are of those 
that the Bible says are ENEMIES of the Cross whose END is 
DESTRUCTION!
Galatians 6:14 But God 
forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and 
I unto the world.
Ph 3 Brethren, be followers together of me, 
and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For 
many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, 
that they are the enemies of the 
cross of Christ: Whose end is 
destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is 
in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
 
You are an example of those that mind earthly things such as 
your LUSTFUL MIND.
 
What specifically is so WIERD here? Except for ENEMIES that 
is.
 
On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,The emblem of 
suffering and shame;And I love that old cross where the dearest and 
bestFor a world of lost sinners was slain.
Refrain
So I’ll cherish the old rugged cross,Till my trophies 
at last I lay down;I will cling to the old rugged cross,And exchange 
it some day for a crown.
O that old rugged cross, so despised by the world,Has a wondrous 
attraction for me;For the dear Lamb of God left His glory aboveTo 
bear it to dark Calvary.
Refrain
In that old rugged cross, stained with blood so divine,A wondrous 
beauty I see,For ’twas on that old cross Jesus suffered and died,To 
pardon and sanctify me.
Refrain
To the old rugged cross I will ever be true;Its shame and reproach 
gladly bear;Then He’ll call me some day to my home far away,Where 
His glory forever I’ll share.
 
  
   
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Beams and Motes

[Judy Taylor]

Because others may have a critical and jaundiced eye 
does not necessarily mean there is sin in the object
or focus of such criticism - at times it means the 
person looking needs to work on their own beam.
 
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:34:43 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  EXATAMUNDO! I have long been mystified by such, 
  Terry. 
  
From: Terry Clifton 
 I suspect that you are 
correct.  Sometimes it is hard to see ourselves as others see 
us.Lance Muir wrote: 

  
  How, you ask, did I figure that out, Terry? 
  The same way you did. ARE YOU, TERRY, UNAWARE, THAT SOME EXCLUDE 
  THEMSELVES FROM THIS.?
  
From: 
Terry Clifton 
Lance Muir wrote: 

  
  

  Speaking ONLY of expressions on TT, may I 
  ask ALL participants who have never sinned ON TT to identify 
  themselves. IMO, NOT ONE HAS NOT SINNED ON TT ALONE NEVER MIND THEIR 
  LIVES APART FROM 
TT.DUH! 
How did you figure that out?  I can spot the sins in you 
other guys every time you 
contribute.Terry
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] TRUE CHRISTIANS SAY NO TO SATAN BEFORE IT MANIFESTS INTO SIN - says Dean Moore

[Judy Taylor]

True believers hear the voice of the Spirit when they 
miss it and they go to the throne of grace
to make things right.  God doesn't use Nathans 
anymore and David only missed it in a big way
once, maybe twice.  It is all going to be "shouted 
from the housetops" anyway and God knows.
so we don't need almost(s) and anti(s) 
pointing fingers on TT to help us along.  Temptation is
not sin.
 
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:00:27 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Speaking ONLY of expressions on TT, may I ask ALL 
  participants who have never sinned ON TT to identify themselves. IMO, NOT ONE 
  HAS NOT SINNED ON TT ALONE NEVER MIND THEIR LIVES APART FROM TT.
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Saving Faith -- what is it?

[Judy Taylor]

Is this fellow talking to himself or 
what?  Maybe he and Gary are in cahoots.
He asks the question and then he answers 
himself ... only Gary doesn't stop at one answer
 
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:59:14 +1100 "Andrew C. Bain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Question : "Who can declare what are the essential 
  doctrines of soteriology?? All the doctrines are interconnected.   
  The Scripture cannot be broken. So, anyone denying one doctrine, denies them 
  all."
   
  My response: 
  
   
  There are TWO 
  issues here. 

Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:05:10 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, you didn't answer the question.   
The gentile in Romans 2  IS NOT  a 
regenerated individual.   
How do we know this?  This is a person who 
has never heard the preaching of the law of God  
( Paul contrasts hearing with doing in this 
context) AND his salvation is tenuous , at best,  because 
it is based solely upon his ability to "naturally" obey the law  apart from any spirit 
influence or knowledge 
of the law. 
 
You have changed the wording of Vs.14 from "When 
gentiles who have not the law do by nature what 
the law requires" - to "naturally" obeying the law 
JD.  Why? How do you know they never heard the 
preaching of the cross of 
Christ?   
 
The point of Romans 2 is the contrast between 
the have's and the have not's.   The Gentiles 

are those who outside God's revelation and the Jews 
are those who are in.   
 
He is speaking to the Church in Rome JD; all believers are in and in Christ there is no 
separation between these ppl so why are 
you making one here?   
 
I am making one because Paul did.   
CAn't you read?   He is the one who speaks of G-E-N-T-I-L-E-S  

and J-E-W 
and and 
contrasts them in terms of hearing the law and not having heard the law.   
You deny this?
 
Only to make his larger point which is what he 
begins the 2nd chapter of Romans with, which
is "therefore you have no excuse O man whoever 
you are for judging another - he then goes on
to explain God's kindness which is meant to 
lead them to repentance and/or God's righteous
judgment"  His point is NOT  racial 
differences.
 
Paul begins with this scenario.    Now I 
know that this is no longer true  -   but Paul is using this 

very distinction to teach that in Christ's economy, the distinction between Jew and Gentile is 
no longer 
important. 
 
Not only unimportant, it is no longer there 
unless the Jews are still practicing Judaism.  Remember 

this is written in 57 AD 24yrs after the cross 
and in Rom 2:11 Paul announces that God shows 
NO
partiality.  
 
"non-partiality" IS NOT the theme of this 
section of Romans 2, Judy  ..inwardness verses the 

letter of the law is,  hearing versus 
doing.   In the passage THE GENTILE IS ONLY ONE DOING 

THE WUILL 
OF GOD BY NATURE..the Jew is not.
 
He does go on in the rest of 
chapter 2 to contrast teaching the law to others while neglecting 
to
obey it themselves dishonors God and makes them 
lawbreakers which is curious in the light of
your teaching JD which is 
that following the cross the law is no 
more. 
 
The Gentile  -  typically 
speaking  -  is not God's chosen while the Jew is  -- 
typically speaking .    
Using this stereotype, Paul makes the point that is most shocking to the 
Jewish Christian in Rome
hearing is not the most important 
issue  doing is.   
 
Why would Paul contradict (by what you see as a 
stereotype) what he had just said in Vs.11 JD?
This makes no sense at all.  The Jews had 
been trying to do God's Law since Moses came 
down   
from Mt. Sinai 
unsuccessfully.   
 
Judy, in Romans 2:23, who is NOT keeping the 
law  --  the Jew or the Gentile?   And who is 
doing the deeds of the law by 
"nature?"
 
How did we get to Vs.23?  I thought we 
were discussing Romans 2:14,15?  Arn't you a bit 
ahead
of yourself? Oh well!  Let's just look at 
Paul's summary in Vs.29 which is "He is not a real Jew
who is one outwardly, nor is true 
circumcision something external and physical. He is a 
Jew
who is one inwardly, and real circumcision 
is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. 
His
praise is not from men but from God.  OK 
so the gentiles were able to do the law because they
had circumcized hearts. IOW they were born of 
the Spirit so they were able to do "by nature"
what is required by God's 
Law.
 
The contrast of hearing and doing is unmistakable in 
2:13-14.   Hence, the Gentile has not 
heard the law.  
 
It is not there JD, you are reading this into the 
text.    
 
This is the perfect example of bias overwhelming reason.   
You are  so convinced of the notion 
that unregenerated man cannot 
understand the will of God nor accomplish anything good that 

you cannot see what is being said here in 
Romans 2: 11ff.   You don't see the words "Gentiles" 
and "Jew" in this text?   You don't 
see the words "by nature" associated with the Gentiles 
only in this passage?  You can't see 
this?  
 
Yes I can see the words JD - and I can 
understand them.  There is nothing in the text about
whether or not the gentiles who are by nature 
doing what is required in the law have or have
not heard the preaching of the 
gospel.   You have the old "us vs them" mentality that is
accepted in many church circles.  Think 
about it in light of the fall of man and the 
old sin nature
How is an unregenerate gentile who has never heard of God's Law going to do 
what is
required in it by their pagan 
nature?
 
As far as unregenerated man not being able to do 
good   --   wh

Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit

[Judy Taylor]

s with disobedience - By Vs.12 Paul writes 
"All who have sinned without the law will also perish 
without 
the law and all who have sinned under the 
law will be judged by the law.  I see no statement 
about
the spiritual condition of the Jews here at 
all.
 
I assume a believing Jew would do the same 
thing but having access to God's law helps 
me so I figure it would also help them. Why would the Judaizers 
be coming to the 
Church at Rome on Sunday - they would be going to the Synagogue 
wouldn't they?
 
And your out of context I Co 2:14 
is really getting old.   So unregenerated man cannot receive the things of 
God unless he is given the Holy Spirit of God  --  
right?   
 
RIGHT!!  This is what Paul is teaching here 
and it would make things a whole lot 
easier for you if you accepted the fact.
 
There are those who have the Spirit and are thereby regenerated and those who do not and are 
unregenerated.   And 
the unregenerated cannot receive the 
things of God  -  nothing from God for all that God lays on us is 
spiritual  --   right  
 
RIGHT.  
1.  God is a Spirit (John 4:24)
2.  The Lord is that Spirit and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is 
liberty (2 Cor 3:17)
3.  Satan the fallen angel is a 
spirit
4.  Mankind are spirit beings (Zech 12:1)
5.  The Law is spiritual (Rom 
7:14)
 
And this would include the 
Corinthians  --  right??  I mean , the text says ".and even 
now, you are still not able"  (I Co 3:2).  So, why is he writing to them 
if they are not able to understand what he is saying?   And how 
did they come to a knowledge of the truth in the first place 
?   And on what occasion do you KNOW that you are right 
and cannot be wrong,  Judy 
y?   How many times have you read the text,  layed it down and said to yourself,"  I have 
no need to read this again for I know that I know ,"  Could you give me 
an example of a few specific scriptures that you understand to the 
point of never having to review those scriptures for "truth's" sake?   Maybe just four or 
five scriptures.  
 
No JD, I couldn't give you anything 
because you and your theologians already 
KNOW IT ALL.
 
And how many of these questions 
will you now ignore?   
 
If I had been sensible enough to read through the 
whole thing first I wouldn't have answered any of them
because you are not sincerely wanting to know 
anything from me - you are just bloviating here and your mind
is already made up.
 
Its called  "gatcha."   Bless 
your heart, Judy.   You are honest enough to allow the post to 
include your reponse just as it happened !!!   Hats 
off.   Most would have changed their first reponses.   
And you are wrong about my 
honesty.   I would accept your point of view if I could answer my 
own queestions offered to you.   But I cannot 
answer those questions using your theology either.  

 
 
 
You are cultish in your doctrine and blind 
to any possibility of 
change.   That is NOT the 
leadership of the Spirit.  
 
If I were you JD, I'd go back to Barth. He is the one 
with all the answers, along with TFT, Polyani, 
etc...  Why 
go back when I am doing so good with the biblical text ??!!  

 
I will await your answers.   Still 
waiting.  
 
jd
 
 
 
 
 
 
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:24:07 
-0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit



Whatever JD;  You asked the question, I just answered 
it.
Maybe it's best for you to stick with Barth 
and leave 
Romans to those who understand Paul the apostle 
who
is inspired by the Spirit of God.  
As I've said before scripture is 
'spiritually discerned' 1 Cor 
2:14. So my reason, your reason, and/or 
Barth's 
reasonings have nothing to do 
with anything, not anything important that is.
 
  
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't 
  keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] 1 Corinthians 2:14-16

[Judy Taylor]

Is this the "summary of commentary" Lance?
To begin with I have said over and over that I do not 
"interpret" God's Word; if He does not give understanding
we are all flailing about in the dark.  This is 
why there are so many theologians and theological differences.
Secondly - Yes scripture has one meaning although ppl 
seem to get all kinds of moral teachings out of it.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that DavidM or myself 
are in possession of ALL TRUTH but we know the one who is.
 
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:45:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Yes, Judy, IT IS. THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO THINK THEMSELVES 
  MATURE. (think being the operative word).
  As I understand you both, you and David believe both your 
  apprehension of and, your interpretation(s) of, 
  Scripture to be 'Spirit-Inspired' (Does Scripture have ONE 
  MEANING? Are both you and David always in possession of that ONE 
  MEANING?)
   
   
  From: Judy Taylor 
  
My, my Lance, 
you've just run right off here into another subject entirely - Let's stick 
with the one at hand and see what God has to say about it ...  Those 
prophets are messing with your head.
 
1 Cor 2:14 Juxtaposes the two kinds of 
wisdom - which are natural/worldly and spiritual 
or that from above.
 
1 Cor 1:20 "For since in the wisdom of God the 
world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well pleased 
through the (incarnation)? ... foolishness 
of the message preached to save those who 
believe"
 
There is a natural body and there is a spiritual 
body (1 Cor 15:44-46)
There is wisdom from above and there is wisdom that 
is earthly, sensual and demonic (James 3:15)
There are people who are spiritually minded and 
those who are worldly minded and devoid of the Spirit (Jude 19)
Unless and until they repent the world can not 
receive the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17) 
God makes foolish the wisdom of the world (1 Cor 
1:18-20)
 
So lets stay on track and see what leads up 
to 1 Cor 2:14 .. Paul writes:
1 Cor 2:6 The wisdom we speak is not of this age 
nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away
1 Cor 2:7 We speak God's wisdom in a mystery 
.
1 Cor 2:8 The wisdom which none of the rulers of 
this age has understood ...
1 Cor 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the 
Spirit for the Spirit searches all things even the depths of 
God
1 Cor 2:11 Who knows the thought of a man except 
the spirit of the man which is in him ...
    
even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of 
God
1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of 
the world but the Spirit who is from God that we might 
know.
1 Cor 2:13 Which things we also speak not in words 
taught by human wisdom but in those taught by the Spirit
    
combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural (or worldly) man does 
not accept the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him 
and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually 
discerned.
 
So how did "merely human" get into the 
conversation and where does the drug of sophistry come from?  Paul is 

discussing two kinds of wisdom here 
- this is not about who the people think they are or 
mature/immature.
 
 
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:59:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  'Someone who is merely human 
  doesn't accept the things of God's Spirit. They are foolishness to such 
  people, you see, and they can't understand them because they need to be 
  discerned spiitually.' But spiritual people discern everything , while 
  nobody else can discern the truth about them! For. 'Who has known the mind 
  of the Lord, so as to instruct him?' But we have the mind of the 
  Messiah'
   
  Paul is now bringing his discussion of wisdom and folly, 
  and spiritual maturity and immaturity, right down to where the Corinthians 
  themselves are. They have been using the 'drug' 
  of sophistry. supposing it makes them more 'spiritual'; and Paul 
  declares that it has made them all the more human.
   
  The more they take the drug, the more immature they show 
  themselves to be; and the proof of it all is -- their in-fighting about 
  different Christian teachers!
   
  That is the main point Paul is making here, and it bears 
  reflection in today's church as we so easily lapse from serious issues to 
  personality clashes, and from personalities to mere gossip, while all the 
  time pretending 

Re: [TruthTalk] 1 Corinthians 2:14-16

[Judy Taylor]

Can you show me by the Word how I am misusing 
same?
What other ppl do is their business. We are responsible 
for what we do.
Well at last - we can agree on this at 
least.
 
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:14:28 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  One but, not necessarily yours.  
  No but, people will 
  continue to do so.  Yes 
  unequivocally!
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
How many meanings do you think it has 
Lance?
Do you think it should be chameleon like for ppl to 
form it into whatever shape fits their doctrinal demands?
Or should we seek the Lord with our whole heart to 
actually know what HE is saying so we can be a doer of
HIS WORD
 
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:45:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Yes, Judy, IT IS. THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO 
  THINK THEMSELVES MATURE. (think being the operative word).As I understand 
  you both, you and David believe both your apprehension of and, your 
  interpretation(s) of, Scripture to be 'Spirit-Inspired' (Does Scripture 
  have ONE MEANING? Are both you and David always in possession of that ONE 
  MEANING?)
  
    From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
 
My, my Lance, you've just run right off here 
into another subject entirely - Let's stick with the one at hand and see 
what
God has to say about it ...  Those 
prophets are messing with your head.
 
1 Cor 2:14 Juxtaposes the two 
kinds of wisdom - which are natural/worldly and spiritual or that from above.
 
1 Cor 1:20 "For since in the wisdom of God the 
world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well pleased 
through the (incarnation)? 
... foolishness of the message preached 
to save those who believe"
 
There is a natural body and there is a 
spiritual body (1 Cor 15:44-46)
There is wisdom from above and there is wisdom 
that is earthly, sensual and demonic (James 3:15)
There are people who are spiritually minded and 
those who are worldly minded and devoid of the Spirit (Jude 
19)
Unless and until they repent the world can not 
receive the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17) 
God makes foolish the wisdom of the world (1 
Cor 1:18-20)
 
So lets stay on track and see what 
leads up to 1 Cor 2:14 .. Paul writes:
1 Cor 2:6 The wisdom we speak is not of this 
age nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away
1 Cor 2:7 We speak God's wisdom in a mystery 
.
1 Cor 2:8 The wisdom which none of the rulers 
of this age has understood ...
1 Cor 2:10 For to us God revealed them through 
the Spirit for the Spirit searches all things even the depths of 
God
1 Cor 2:11 Who knows the thought of a man 
except the spirit of the man which is in him ...
    
even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of 
God
1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit 
of the world but the Spirit who is from God that we might 
know.
1 Cor 2:13 Which things we also speak not in 
words taught by human wisdom but in those taught by the 
Spirit
    
combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural (or worldly) man 
does not accept the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness 
to him and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually 
discerned.
 
So how did "merely human" get into the 
conversation and where does the drug of sophistry come from?  Paul 
is 
discussing two kinds of wisdom here 
- this is not about who the people think they are or 
mature/immature.
 
 
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:59:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  'Someone who is merely human doesn't accept the things of God's 
  Spirit. They are foolishness to such people, you see, and they can't 
  understand them because they need to be discerned spiitually.' But 
  spiritual people discern everything , while nobody else can discern 
  the truth about them! For. 'Who has known the mind of the Lord, so as 
  to instruct him?' But we have the mind of the Messiah'
   
  Paul is now bringing his discussion of 
  wisdom and folly, and spiritual maturity and immaturity, right down to 
  where the Corinthians themselves are. They 
  have been using the 'drug

Re: [TruthTalk] 1 Corinthians 2:14-16

[Judy Taylor]

How many meanings do you think it has 
Lance?
Do you think it should be chameleon like for ppl to 
form it into whatever shape fits their doctrinal demands?
Or should we seek the Lord with our whole heart to 
actually know what HE is saying so we can be a doer of
HIS WORD
 
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:45:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Yes, Judy, IT IS. THIS IS ABOUT PEOPLE WHO THINK 
  THEMSELVES MATURE. (think being the operative word).As I understand you both, 
  you and David believe both your apprehension of and, your interpretation(s) 
  of, Scripture to be 'Spirit-Inspired' (Does Scripture have ONE MEANING? Are 
  both you and David always in possession of that ONE MEANING?)
  
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
 
My, my Lance, you've just run right off here into 
another subject entirely - Let's stick with the one at hand and see 
what
God has to say about it ...  Those prophets 
are messing with your head.
 
1 Cor 2:14 Juxtaposes the two kinds of 
wisdom - which are natural/worldly and spiritual 
or that from above.
 
1 Cor 1:20 "For since in the wisdom of God the 
world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well pleased 
through the (incarnation)? ... foolishness 
of the message preached to save those who 
believe"
 
There is a natural body and there is a spiritual 
body (1 Cor 15:44-46)
There is wisdom from above and there is wisdom that 
is earthly, sensual and demonic (James 3:15)
There are people who are spiritually minded and 
those who are worldly minded and devoid of the Spirit (Jude 19)
Unless and until they repent the world can not 
receive the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17) 
God makes foolish the wisdom of the world (1 Cor 
1:18-20)
 
So lets stay on track and see what leads up 
to 1 Cor 2:14 .. Paul writes:
1 Cor 2:6 The wisdom we speak is not of this age 
nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away
1 Cor 2:7 We speak God's wisdom in a mystery 
.
1 Cor 2:8 The wisdom which none of the rulers of 
this age has understood ...
1 Cor 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the 
Spirit for the Spirit searches all things even the depths of 
God
1 Cor 2:11 Who knows the thought of a man except 
the spirit of the man which is in him ...
    
even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of 
God
1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of 
the world but the Spirit who is from God that we might 
know.
1 Cor 2:13 Which things we also speak not in words 
taught by human wisdom but in those taught by the Spirit
    
combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural (or worldly) man does 
not accept the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him 
and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually 
discerned.
 
So how did "merely human" get into the 
conversation and where does the drug of sophistry come from?  Paul is 

discussing two kinds of wisdom here 
- this is not about who the people think they are or 
mature/immature.
 
 
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:59:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  'Someone who is merely 
  human doesn't accept the things of God's Spirit. They are 
  foolishness to such people, you see, and they can't understand them 
  because they need to be discerned spiitually.' But spiritual people 
  discern everything , while nobody else can discern the truth about them! 
  For. 'Who has known the mind of the Lord, so as to instruct him?' But we 
  have the mind of the Messiah'
   
  Paul is now bringing his discussion of wisdom 
  and folly, and spiritual maturity and immaturity, right down to where the 
  Corinthians themselves are. They have been using 
  the 'drug' of sophistry. supposing it makes them more 'spiritual'; 
  and Paul declares that it has made them all the more human.
   
  The more they take the drug, the more 
  immature they show themselves to be; and the proof of it all is -- their 
  in-fighting about different Christian teachers!
   
  That is the main point Paul is making here, 
  and it bears reflection in today's church as we so easily lapse from 
  serious issues to personality clashes, and from personalities to mere 
  gossip, while all the time pretending we are still dealing with important 
  matters.
   
  Paul draws a distinction between 'spiritual' 
  people (vs 13) and merely 'human people', those living on the ordinary 
  level.The former ar

Re: [TruthTalk] Cross

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 00:44:56 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I would expect Satan to teach his people to shun the cross...it is the 
  very instrument of his defeat.DAVEH:  Really?   As 
  I see it, the cross was the most successful tool Satan could devise to torture 
  and kill our beloved Lord.  Everything else he tried failedbut, the 
  cross did the job.  
   
  Only because He willingly layed His life 
  down.  If He had not done that nothing could have killed Him, the 
  Lord of Life.  ad there would 
  have been no resurrection without a death.  Satan didn't know what he was 
  doing - he acted in ignorance 
  which must have been a blow to his pride (1 Cor 2:6-8) 
  judyt    The resurrection 
  was the defeat of deathand Satan.  Removing the guarded stone 
  blocking the entrance, and rising from the tomb was the symbol of Satan's 
  defeat, Perry.  Perhaps you should consider hanging a millstone about 
  your neck..    How do you see it that Jesus and the 
  Apostles glorified the cross?   Did they idolize it, and turn it 
  into jewelery?  Was it displayed on their edifices?   Or are 
  those examples simply Christian traditions that lay no claim to Biblical 
  validity?   Biblical references would be appreciated.Charles 
  Perry Locke wrote: 
  I hope you don't mind me intruding on your intrusion. I would 
expect Satan to teach his people to shun the cross...it is the very 
instrument of his defeat. Besides, Christ himself used the cross as a 
symbol, as did the Apostles. If it is good enough for them, it is good 
enough for me. And, it is a frequent reminder of the tremendous sacrifice 
Jesus paid for our sins. I just do not think of that when I see a beehive. 
Perry 
*/What does the CROSS "REPRESENT"/* 
  DAVEH:  I hope you don't mind me intruding on your discussion 
  with Blaine, Kevin.  This topic is of particular interest to me, as 
  I've seen quite a few crosses at the sides of highways I travel.  
  Quite often, they indicate places where people have died, or in the case 
  of cemeteries.where they are buried... 
  ..In the past couple thousand years, many 
  Christians have idolized the cross to depict the death of Jesus. 
  ...which to me seems rather bizarre to meif not 
  macabre.  Some Christians have taken to wearing jewelery, and 
  displaying crosses in their abodes and places of worship. 
  .As I see it, those crosses depict the *cruel 
  tool* used to bring not only much pain and suffering to our beloved 
  Savior, but also the device that was used by God's enemies to kill our 
  Lord.  This inhumane instrument was designed not only to kill God's 
  children, but at the same time to punitively torture them in a humiliating 
  and degrading way.  It always amazes me that some Christians would 
  have such an affinity to such a devilish device that brings pain, 
  suffering and death to the minds of many who see it, and especially to 
  those who were victims of it.    I'm curious as to how 
  you would feel about something similar, Kevin.  I don't know if you 
  have any children, but for the sake of this discussion let's assume you 
  do.  If your enemy were to maliciously use a knife to torture your 
  daughter for a couple days to the point that the wounds killed her, would 
  you be predisposed to wear a piece of jewelry on a chain around your neck 
  in the form of a knife to remind you of what the guy did to your 
  daughter?  And, how would you feel if you drove by a gun & knife 
  store, and saw a sign depicting knives that looked similar to the one that 
  killed your daughter..Would it bring back fond memories? 
     LDS folks appreciate the dying sacrifice of our Lord 
  in our behalf.  But we don't glorify the tool that killed him.  
  It sickens me to think of man's inhumanity that would bring such pain, 
  suffering and death to one who did not deserve it.   Nor do we 
  idolize the cross as do so many others.  Rather, we prefer to 
  remember his sacrifice and glorify his Father---not the cross--- for the 
  resurrection of his Son.    FWIW.We have a large 
  Christian church near us that a few years ago put 3 large prominent 
  crosses on their building that are lit up at night with blue lights that 
  are very noticeable to the cars passing by on the freeway 
  http://www.rollinghills.org/about_us/campus/index.cfm 
  .This picture really doesn't show them very well compared 
  to the cars on the freeway, as it is taken from the wrong angle and at 
  quite a distance.  I have sometimes wondered if Jesus were to travel 
  that road, what would he think if he were to pass such an edifice that 
  memorializes his death in such a manner.  I wouldn't be sur

Re: [TruthTalk] Strawmen

[Judy Taylor]

Dave scripture is understood in the light of other 
scripture and calling it the tree of death does not change anything
What was the result of their partaking of it?  God 
said "In the day you eat you shall surely die"  They ate and 
they
immediately lost fellowship with the source of life and 
light.  That day they died spiritually and became mortal, that
is, they began to die physically as well.  So how 
is calling this tree a tree of death spinning anything?  You 
think
death and dying are a good thing - rather than an enemy 
that has caused mankind to live in fear from that time on?
 
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:27:30 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  A&E rejected it in favor of the tree of 
  deathDAVEH:  I find it interesting that you changed 
  the terminology of the Bible regarding the tree of knowledge of good and 
  evil, Judy.  It seems like you are purposely spinning what the 
  Bible said to promote your own bias by referring to it as a tree of death. Why would you call it a tree of death when the Lord called it a tree of 
  knowledge?  Do you have a particular reason for your aversion to 
  the Lord's nomenclature regarding the tree of knowledge of good and 
  evil?Judy Taylor wrote: 
  
 
God's wisdom is a tree of life JD
A&E rejected it in favor of the tree of 
death
 
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:38:42 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  So, you decided to ignore my comment about the Tree of 
  Life?   Adam and Eve were not given any restrictions 
  concerning eating from this tree.   What do you suppose 
  would be the result of eating from such fruit?   I say 
  "continued life."  jd  
   -- 
~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas

[Judy Taylor]

Lewis on Islam? 
Was your teacher a Muslim? Was the issue of terrorism addressed? Do 
you see the similarities between a 'radical/fundamentalist' Muslim 
and a 'radical/fundamentalist' anything else?
 
 Original Message - 

  From: 
  Christine 
  Miller 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  December 11, 2005 13:45
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas
  
  Do you speak/believe in the gift of tongues, 
  Lance?I've taken Calculus and Financial Accounting. Next 
  up is Islam. Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  
I do, Christine.
 
Which courses are you being 
'examined' on?
 
PS:I've met three 'prophets' in the 
last couple of years. Two of them are socially dysfunctional 
but, highly gifted. The other was in the store a week or two 
back and a group of us chatted for a couple of hours. 


  - 
  Original Message - 
  From: 
  Christine 
  Miller 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  December 10, 2005 20:23
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas
  
  Lance, I didn't know you believed in the 
  gifts of the Spirit.(Whew. Two final exams down, one 
  to go.)Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  wrote: 
  






I actually do, Judy. A prophet 
visited our store one week ago. God spoke through him and, 
said exactly that. You may be surprised to know just how 
dependent your country is on Canada. It is NOT JUST the 
other way 'round. Most yanks are sufficiently insular to 
know nothing of the rest of the world (including their 
    neighbour)
 
- Original Message - 

  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: 
  December 10, 2005 14:41
  Subject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, 
  X-mas
  
   
  
  If you really 
  believe what you write here Lance then you need to be 
  weeping between the porch and the
  altar for us 
  down here. Do you really think that if the US goes down - 
  Canada will be left standing??
  
  
  
  


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance 
MuirNo you 
wouldn't, Judy. You are in deep doodoo without anyone, 
including Canadians, keeping 'tabs', as you put 
it.



From: Judy 
Taylor 

  
  
  
  Sure 
  glad you are keeping up with our economy Lance. Don't 
  know what we 
  
  
  would do 
  if we didn't have the Canadians keeping tabs on 
  us.  We'd 
  really
  
  be in 
  trouble then ...
  
  
  
  
  
   

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

 
Perry in this case obtuse would probably be an 
improvement 
I for one find the "abstruseness" since he likes that 
word to be quite wearying.
 
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 10:15:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:> I believe you mean to use the word ABSTRUSE instead of OBTUSE do 
you > not, > Charles? How are you able to MODERATE when you 
misperceive so > regularly?> > As to the 'anti-thingy', 
Charles: I weary, even though I must say > mea culpa, > (1 Cor 2) 
of you, Dean, Kevin, Judy etc. always writing in the > 'attack > 
mode'.> > PS:I don't have a link.> > > - 
Original Message - > From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> To: > 
Sent: December 11, 2005 09:49> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New 
Subject-A&E> > > > But you see, lance, it is almost 
impossible to have a straight > > conversation with you. I ask a 
quaestion, you answer a different > one. That > > is called 
beign OBTUSE. It does not lead to conversation, and > tends to > 
> make one appear arrogant. All I want to do is get a link to your > 
> bookstore. And, what is an "anti-thingy"?> >> >> 
>>From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
>>To: > 
>>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E> >>Date: Sun, 
11 Dec 2005 09:44:47 -0500> >>> >>Charles Perry 
Locke!!> >>> >>I KNEW what you were asking!  Let 
go this anti-thingy Charles.> >>> >>> 
>>- Original Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" > 
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
>>To: > 
>>Sent: December 11, 2005 09:35> >>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
New Subject-A&E> >>> >>> >>>Lance, 
I was not asking for recommendations, just asking you to > "post a 
> >>>link to your bookstore so we can check out your 
wares.">   From: 
"Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
To: > 
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E> 
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:11:38 -0500> 
> We'd best be certain that we're 
speaking of the same book(s). > When I say > that 
it (the book) is excellent, I'M NOT RECOMMENDING IT! This > is > 
particularly true concerning those who believe other texts to 
> function > on a par with Scripture. I apologize 
if I mislead anyone on > this. I > carry lots of 
material that I'd not recommend to everyone. Who > wouldn't?> 
> > - Original 
Message - From: "Charles Perry Locke" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
To: > 
Sent: December 11, 2005 00:25> Subject: 
Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E> > 
> >Lance, post a link to your 
bookstore so we can check out your > wares.> 
>> >> 
>>From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
>>Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
>>To: > 
>>Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E> 
>>Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:17:04 -0500> 
>>> >>I SELL this book. It's 
excellent!> >>   - Original Message 
-> >>   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>>   To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> 
>>   Sent: December 10, 2005 13:34> 
>>   Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New 
Subject-A&E> >>> 
>>> >>   As you 
should know by now, I do not believe the Bible to be > the > 
>> only source of spiritual enlightenment!  
:>)  I have a book > titled > >> 
Lost Books of the Bible, in which there are accounts that are > written 
> >> as being true, but were not accepted by those 
who made the > final > >> decisions of what 
should and what should not be included in > the holy > 
>> writ.  I tried to find it--must still be buried 
with stuff > from when > >> I moved--if I 
find it I will give you chapter and verse.> 
>> In the account it actually 
gives the sister's name, and > describes > 
>> her as being very beautiful.> 
>>   Blainerb> 
>>> >>> 
>>   In a message dated 12/9/2005 6:00:57 A.M. 
Mountain Standard > Time, > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:> 
>> Blaine do you read the 
Bible?> >> It was not a 
coveted sister Cain was jealous of - why not > go back > 
>> and refresh .> 
>>> 
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> 
>> I think 
Eve had a passal of children, they just > didn't make > 
>> headlines like Cain.  Cain married his sister, 
according to > one > >> account. He was 
jealous of Able because the coveted sister > liked Able > 
>> better than Cain--until Able was "removed," at 
least.> >> >> 
>--> >"Let your speech be 
always with grace, seasoned with salt, that > you may > 
>know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 
4:6) > >http://www.InnGlory.org> 
>> >If you do not want to receive 
posts from this list, send an > email to > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If > you have > 
>a friend who wants to jo

[TruthTalk] : Doug Gresham Comments on Narnia

[Judy Taylor]

Interesting comments from CSL's stepson - contradicting 
the voice of scripture which says loving the brethren
is how we know we are "in Him" and His Spirit is in 
us.  The professing church may not be as it should at any 
given time but where else 
does one go to find brethren?
 
Did anyone see "The Hour of Power" this morning?  Doug 
Gresham was on.  He made one interesting comment (others, too) -"the closer 
Jack got to the Lord, the farther he got away from the church."  Was "Jack" 
C.S.'s nickname?   soks
> 
  For those not on the SpareOom list, here is what Doug Gresham (Lewis's 
  stepson) had to say about the movie's critics > Date: Sat, 10 
  Dec 2005 16:30:30 +> From: douglas gresham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
  Subject: Re: Digest Number 1946> > Dear All,> > 
  Poking my nose around the door very briefly before resuming my ride on 
  the> tornado that my life has become of late, to make a couple of 
  observations> about our movie.> > First, the attacks 
  from the sneering anti-Christian elements of the press> are to be 
  expected and indeed welcomed. Expected because there are always> 
  those who approach such matters blinded by their own prejudices, those 
  who> feel that to tear down something great and glorious makes them 
  bigger, and> those whom fame has eluded leaving them only notoriety 
  to pursue. Welcomed> for they prove that we have stayed close 
  enough to Jack's original book to> honour his work and thus provide 
  grist to the mills of the bigoted, the> prejudiced and the 
  envious.> > Second, whatever those who have never walked the 
  razor's edge may say, we> know we have made a spectacularly 
  beautiful and very good movie. We know> that what we have produced 
  honours Jack's work and delights both children> and adults who are 
  honest in their approach to it. No film is ever perfect,> so don't 
  expect perfection. This one though, is very good. So don't worry> 
  about what is written by snide hacks who have never made a movie 
  nor> written a halfway decent book in their lives, just go and see 
  it and form> your own opinion of our work.> > I am 
  hurtling off again soon, but will check in occasionally to see 
  what> your opinions are, for they are more valuable to me than 
  most.> > Blessings all (in haste)> > Doug 
  (G).> Yahoo! 
  Groups Sponsor ~--> Join modern day disciples reach 
  the disfigured and poor with hope and 
  healinghttp://us.click.yahoo.com/B6T8nB/Vp3LAA/EcBKAA/GuTslB/TM~-> 
  Yahoo! Groups Links<*> To visit your group on the 
  web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ill-legalism/<*> To 
  unsubscribe from this group, send an email 
  to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]<*> Your use of 
  Yahoo! Groups is subject 
  to:http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/























  
  

  An Optimist:  "My tire is only flat on the 
  bottom."  Soks
  

  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   


Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! 
Shopping 


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

   Visit your group "ill-legalism" on the 
  web.  
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email 
  to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
  
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 
  

[TruthTalk] Joybells

[Judy Taylor]

 
Who is it (I believe JD and Blaine) who are constantly 
telling me to lighten up - or accusing me
of having no joy.  Look at this bunch - God's 
people and I'd say they had some joy .. but it didn't 
help them any.  I guess God must not believe in 
'once saved, always saved'
 
"therefore my people are gone into captivity, because 
they have no knowledge; and their honourable
men are famished, and their multitude dried up with 
thirst. Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and
opened her mouth without measure; and their glory, and 
their multitude, and their pomp, and he
that rejoiceth, shall 
descend into it."  Isaiah 5:13,14)
 
 
 
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable to Elvis??

[Judy Taylor]

He paid the price for all of them - but they won't all 
come.  Read your Bible JD.
It is those who not only come - but those who endure to 
the end who are saved.
Also it's good to be red hot for the Lord because He 
spews the lukewarm out.
 
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:44:48 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
   God hasn't redeemed the whole world 
  . ??  
  ! -Original 
  Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 
  11 Dec 2005 03:59:04 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable to 
  Elvis??
  

  
  

  Where was the Word during the dark ages?  (even 
  though there were some Anabaptists and Waldenses and some now deny that 
  there ever were what was called the dark ages)?  God hasn't redeemed the whole world (unless you are Lance and 
  believe that everyone was assumed up into Him) and the NT still says that a 
  friend of the world is God's enemy. Yes Jesus did 
  love and accept the prostitute - but even she and all the ones He 
  ministered to were only  the ones the Father sent Him, He did not run about willy nilly embracing everything and 
  everyone and calling them redeemed.  It's those who do the will of 
  the Father who make it and we still need to 
  walk circumspectly - The faith we walk in is our own conviction and happy is 
  he who does not condemn himself by what he approves (Rom 14:22). 
  
   
  On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:56:10 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  

I don't want to be 
the kind of person who is Against Everything.  I want to be For 
God-Kinds of Things.  I don't want to spend my life fighting against 
everything.  I want to spend my life Celebrating Life in Christ.  
Like Jesus, I don't want to emulate the world, but to embrace the world with 
His Truth.  Jesus didn't reject the prostitute.  He redeemed 
her.  Jesus didn't reject the world.  He became part of it.  
He bled for it.  He redeemed it.  And because of that His Secret 
Kingdom now permeates the world.  We who dwell in that Secret Kingdom are now the counter-culture 
revolutionaries that Jesus was.  We turn the "things of the world" on 
their head, and use them to spread the Good News.  Whether it be 
mythology, movies, or e-mail, we use the things of the world to overcome the 
world with good.  The gospel triumphs over every imagination of 
man.  There were probably those who rejected those strange new printing 
contraptions that made those newfangled books called Bibles.  Why can't 
we just read from the scrolls like our grandfathers did? The Word will not 
be bound by the traditions of men, but explodes exponentially with each new 
age.  izzy
 




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

I don't see His parables as every 
day stuff - especially not when he told His disciples 
that

he spoke in parables so that some 
would not see - rather than to make it easy for the 
regular

run of the mill person out there 
(see Matt 13:34-43)

 

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:58:17 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  I use the word 
  secular to denote "everyday stuff" vs. "religious stuff".  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Judy 
  Taylor
  
  Why do you call them 
  "the secular allegory of His day?" Iz
  
  Wasn't He born under 
  the Law into a theocracy?  
  
   
  
  On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:37:29 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Jesus used the 
secular allegory of His day; called parables. 
iz
 




From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 
12:26 PMTo: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] CSL 
comparable to Elvis??
 


In a message 
dated 12/9/2005 6:00:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  Ugh!  
  Will have to suffer witches and lions at the FF places for a 
  while.  Did God say it was 
  through
  
  secular 
  allegory He would draw ppl or was it by the foolishness of 
  preaching??

Blainerb:  
Are we alluding to CS Lewis and his writings?  


 
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher

[Judy Taylor]

Out of the abundance that fills the heart the mouth 
speaks - from both sides.
 
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:55:45 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  but you read Dakes.   And I read Barth.   I am no 
  more "of Barth" than you are "of Dakes" so stop with the "you're out and 
  I am in" games.  jd  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  
  I am not of Barth and neither am I of Dakes 
  jt
   
  On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:59:50 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

 
what I want to know is what Jesus is 
saying (present tense)
 
 Read Barth  (instead of Dakes)
 

From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]




 
Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is 
about JD?  
Because simple folk like you are busy 
misunderstanding what Barth is about,  JT. 
 
OK JD, I should have known better; since 
Barth is your forte - I leave him to you.  I don't care what 
he
was about or what he said or didn't say; 
what I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present 
tense)
 
  
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 08:42:37 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Actually, you didn't answer the question.   The gentile in 
  Romans 2 IS NOT  a 
  regenerated individual.   How do we know this?  This 
  is a person who has never heard the preaching of the law of God  
  ( Paul contrasts hearing with doing in this context) AND his salvation is 
  tenuous , at best,  because it is based solely upon his ability to 
  "naturally" obey the law  apart from any spirit influence or knowledge of 
  the law. 
   
  How do you know he had never heard the preaching of 
  the cross of Christ?  He just didn't have the Law the way
  that the Jews did. He 
  would have to be regenerated to 'DO BY NATURE' what is written in God's 
  Law.  Love is the
  fulfillment of the law and the unregenerated gentile 
  would be unable to do this.  Paul was speaking to the Church
  at Rome wasn't he? 
   
  And , as often as not,   he fails in this doing , by the 
  way. If the phrase "by nature" means to include the indwelling of the Spirit,  then the Jew in 
  this passage DOES NOT HAVE THE SPIRIT, for 
  he is clearly NOT doing the law "by 
  nature."   Your theology of Ro 2 has the Jew , in this passage lost 
  and without the Spirit.   But, of course, you do not believe that a 
  nd so away you go.  
   
  My so called theology is not judging any Jew one way 
  or the other.  I assume a believing Jew would do the same
  thing but having access to God's law helps me so 
  I figure it would also help them. Why would the Judaizers be 
  coming
  to the Church at Rome on 
  Sunday - they would be going to the Synagogue wouldn't they?
   
  And your out of context I Co 2:14 is really getting old.   So 
  unregenerated man cannot receive the 
  things of God unless he is given the Holy Spirit of God  --  
  right?   
   
  RIGHT!!  This is what Paul is teaching here and 
  it would make things a whole lot easier for you if you accepted the 
  fact.
   
  There are those who have the Spirit and are thereby regenerated and those 
  who do not and are unregenerated.   And the unregenerated cannot receive the things of God  -  
  nothing from God for all that God lays on us is spiritual  --   
  right  
   
  RIGHT.  
  1.  God is a Spirit (John 4:24)
  2.  The Lord is that Spirit and where the Spirit 
  of the Lord is there is liberty (2 Cor 3:17)
  3.  Mankind are spirit beings (Zech 
  12:1)
  4.  The Law is spiritual (Rom 7:14)
   
  And this would include the Corinthians  --  right??  I 
  mean , the text says ".and even now, you are still not able"  (I Co 
  3:2).  So, why is he writing to them if they are not able to 
  understand what he is saying?   And how did they come to a knowledge 
  of the truth in the first place ?   And on what occasion 
  do you KNOW that you are right and cannot be wrong,  Jud 
  y?   How many times have you read the text,  layed it down and said to yourself,"  I 
  have no need to read this again for I know that I know ,"  Could you give 
  me an example of a few specific scriptures that you understand to the 
  point of never having to review those scriptures for "truth's" sake?   Maybe just four or five 
  scriptures.  
   
  No JD, I couldn't give you anything because you and 
  your theologians already KNOW IT ALL.
   
  And how many of these questions will you now ignore?   
   
  If I had been sensible enough to read through the 
  whole thing first I wouldn't have answered any of them
  because you are not sincerely wanting to know 
  anything from me - you are just bloviating here and your mind
  is already made up.
   
  You are cultish in your doctrine and 
  blind to any possibility of 
  change.   That is NOT the 
  leadership of the Spirit.  
   
  If I were you JD, I'd go back to Barth. He is the one 
  with all the answers, along with TFT, Polyani, etc...
   
  I will await your answers.
   
  jd
   
   
   
   
   
   
  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 03:24:07 
  -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit
  

  
  Whatever JD;  You asked the question, I just answered 
  it.
  Maybe it's best for you to stick with Barth 
  and leave Romans to those who understand Paul the apostle 
  who
  is inspired by the Spirit of God.  
  As I've said before scripture is 
  'spiritually discerned' 1 Cor 2:14. So my 
  reason, your reason, and/or Barth's 
  reasonings have nothing to do with 
  anything, not anything important that is.
   
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

How amazing - This situation completely reverses 
everything
Woe until them that call evil 
good and goodevil; that put darkness for light, and light for 
darkness
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!! (Isa 
5:20)
 
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 05:34:04 -0800 (PST) Kevin Deegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  So Satan told the Truth as far as "ye shall be as" 
  But God left this info out, and did not tell them the "WHOLE 
TRUTH"?
   
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  


 

In a message dated 12/9/2005 8:15:44 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
   The lie that Satan 
  perpetrated in the garden of Eden to deceive Eve is still alive today 
  in some cults..."and ye shall be as 
  gods".Perry
 
 
Blainerb:   
"and ye shall be as the gods, knowing good and evil," 
 was actually the truth--the lie was that they 
would not die.  Satan often pairs the truth with a lie so 
as to give the lie credibility--politicians often do the same thing, as do 
Street Preachers  :>)
 
 

 
  
  
  
  Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! 
  Shopping 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher

[Judy Taylor]

I am not of Barth and neither am I of Dakes 
jt
 
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 07:59:50 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
   
  what I want to know is what Jesus is 
  saying (present tense)
   
   Read Barth  (instead of Dakes)
   
  
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  
  
   
  Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about 
  JD?  
  Because simple folk like you are busy 
  misunderstanding what Barth is about,  JT. 
   
  OK JD, I should have known better; since 
  Barth is your forte - I leave him to you.  I don't care what 
  he
  was about or what he said or didn't say; what 
  I want to know is what Jesus is saying (present 
  tense)
   
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] 1 Corinthians 2:14-16

[Judy Taylor]

My, my Lance, you've just run right off here into 
another subject entirely - Let's stick with the one at hand and see 
what
God has to say about it ...  Those prophets are 
messing with your head.
 
1 Cor 2:14 Juxtaposes the two kinds of 
wisdom - which are natural/worldly and spiritual or 
that from above.
 
1 Cor 1:20 "For since in the wisdom of God the world 
through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well pleased through 
the (incarnation)? ... foolishness of the message preached to save those who 
believe"
 
There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body 
(1 Cor 15:44-46)
There is wisdom from above and there is wisdom that is 
earthly, sensual and demonic (James 3:15)
There are people who are spiritually minded and those 
who are worldly minded and devoid of the Spirit (Jude 19)
Unless and until they repent the world can not receive 
the Spirit of Truth (John 14:17) 
God makes foolish the wisdom of the world (1 Cor 
1:18-20)
 
So lets stay on track and see what leads up to 
1 Cor 2:14 .. Paul writes:
1 Cor 2:6 The wisdom we speak is not of this age nor of 
the rulers of this age who are passing away
1 Cor 2:7 We speak God's wisdom in a mystery 
.
1 Cor 2:8 The wisdom which none of the rulers of this 
age has understood ...
1 Cor 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the 
Spirit for the Spirit searches all things even the depths of 
God
1 Cor 2:11 Who knows the thought of a man except the 
spirit of the man which is in him ...
    
even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God
1 Cor 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the 
world but the Spirit who is from God that we might know.
1 Cor 2:13 Which things we also speak not in words 
taught by human wisdom but in those taught by the Spirit
    
combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural (or worldly) man does not 
accept the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him and he 
cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
 
So how did "merely human" get into the 
conversation and where does the drug of sophistry come from?  Paul is 

discussing two kinds of wisdom here - this 
is not about who the people think they are or 
mature/immature.
 
 
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 06:59:36 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  'Someone who is merely 
  human doesn't accept the things of God's Spirit. They are foolishness 
  to such people, you see, and they can't understand them because they need to 
  be discerned spiitually.' But spiritual people discern everything , while 
  nobody else can discern the truth about them! For. 'Who has known the mind of 
  the Lord, so as to instruct him?' But we have the mind of the 
  Messiah'
   
  Paul is now bringing his discussion of wisdom and 
  folly, and spiritual maturity and immaturity, right down to where the 
  Corinthians themselves are. They have been using the 
  'drug' of sophistry. supposing it makes them more 'spiritual'; and Paul 
  declares that it has made them all the more human.
   
  The more they take the drug, the more immature 
  they show themselves to be; and the proof of it all is -- their in-fighting 
  about different Christian teachers!
   
  That is the main point Paul is making here, and 
  it bears reflection in today's church as we so easily lapse from serious 
  issues to personality clashes, and from personalities to mere gossip, while 
  all the time pretending we are still dealing with important 
  matters.
   
  Paul draws a distinction between 'spiritual' 
  people (vs 13) and merely 'human people', those living on the ordinary 
  level.The former are ones in whom God's Spirit has come to dwell, opening them 
  up to new depths and dimensions of truth and experience. The latter may think 
  themselves 'sophisticated' but they are 'merely human'. ('soul-ish') Such a 
  person (the latter) simply can't understand what's going on when talk turns to 
  the deeper things of the spirit. They become LIKE A TONE-DEAF PERSON AT AN 
  OPERA: IT'S ALL NONSENSE TO THEM. Imagine being the only muscial person 
  listening to a wonderful string quartet in a large room full of tone-deaf 
  people. That is rather like Paul's picture of being a 'spiritual' person in a 
  world of 'merely human' people.
   
  Those who have the spirit have the MESSIAH'S MIND 
  
   
  THE CORINITHIANS AREN'T READY FOR IT. Paul is 
  drawing out the difference (2:6) between those who were ready for serious 
  teaching and those who were still at the infancy stage. Paul declares (3:2) 
  You are still babies. You are driven by all-too-human impulses.
   
  LET THOSE WHO HAVE EARS TO HEAR, 
  HEAR!
   
  What is this passage NOT about? What IS it 
  concerning? One ought not employ God's Word without spiritual discernment. 
  Might it be the case that those who buttress their comments with many biblical 
  citations occasionally display immaturity? Might 

Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable to Elvis??

[Judy Taylor]

Where was the Word during the dark ages?  (even 
though there were some Anabaptists and Waldenses and some now deny that 
there ever were what was called the dark ages)?  God hasn't redeemed the whole world (unless you are Lance and 
believe that everyone was assumed up into Him) and the NT still says that a 
friend of the world is God's enemy. Yes Jesus did 
love and accept the prostitute - but even she and all the ones He 
ministered to were only  the ones the Father sent Him, He did not run about willy nilly embracing everything and 
everyone and calling them redeemed.  It's those who do the will of the 
Father who make it and we still need to walk 
circumspectly - The faith we walk in is our own conviction and happy is he who 
does not condemn himself by what he approves (Rom 14:22). 
 
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:56:10 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  I don’t want to be 
  the kind of person who is Against Everything.  I want to be For God-Kinds 
  of Things.  I don’t want to spend my life fighting against 
  everything.  I want to spend my life Celebrating Life in Christ.  
  Like Jesus, I don’t want to emulate the world, but to embrace the world with 
  His Truth.  Jesus didn’t reject the prostitute.  He redeemed 
  her.  Jesus didn’t reject the world.  He became part of it.  He 
  bled for it.  He redeemed it.  And because of that His Secret 
  Kingdom now permeates the world.  We who dwell in that Secret Kingdom are now the counter-culture 
  revolutionaries that Jesus was.  We turn the “things of the world” on 
  their head, and use them to spread the Good News.  Whether it be 
  mythology, movies, or e-mail, we use the things of the world to overcome the 
  world with good.  The gospel triumphs over every imagination of 
  man.  There were probably those who rejected those strange new printing 
  contraptions that made those newfangled books called Bibles.  Why can’t 
  we just read from the scrolls like our grandfathers did? The Word will not be 
  bound by the traditions of men, but explodes exponentially with each new 
  age.  izzy
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Judy 
  Taylor 
  
  I don't see His parables as every day 
  stuff - especially not when he told His disciples 
  that
  
  he spoke in parables so that some 
  would not see - rather than to make it easy for the 
  regular
  
  run of the mill person out there (see 
  Matt 13:34-43)
  
   
  
  On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:58:17 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
I use the word 
secular to denote “everyday stuff” vs. “religious stuff”.  

 




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

Why do you call them "the secular 
allegory of His day?" Iz

Wasn't He born under the Law into a 
theocracy?  

 

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:37:29 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Jesus used the 
  secular allegory of His day; called parables. 
  iz
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 
  12:26 PMTo: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] CSL 
  comparable to Elvis??
   
  
  
  In a message 
  dated 12/9/2005 6:00:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

Ugh!  
Will have to suffer witches and lions at the FF places for a 
while.  Did God say it was 
through

secular 
allegory He would draw ppl or was it by the foolishness of 
preaching??
  
  Blainerb:  
  Are we alluding to CS Lewis and his writings?  
  
  
   
 
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

 
   
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

Blaine 
writes:  The Book of Mormon is the word of 
God
 
I'm sure you 
know already that I don't buy that Blaine; God's Words never contradict 
themselves, he is not confused.
Thanks for your 
concern but to the contrary I am content, I enjoy my life, God has always 
been faithful so I'm not about
to desert Him at 
this late date.  PS: He calls diviners and divining an abomination 
that should not be seen in Israel.
 
 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Judy 
you're just too fixed on a one bible only theme.  You would enjoy your life 
more if you would loosen up on that point a bit, huh?  The Book of Mormon 
is the word of God, and see what you are missing?  


  
  
  
  Tell me your 
  birthday, maybe I can psych out your problem . . .   
  :>)
  
  Blainerb
  
   
  
   
  
  In a message dated 
  12/10/2005 12:41:16 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

I have it and 
have yet to figure out what it is excellent for   I'd put it on the 
same level as "Dead Sea Scrolls"

and "Dead Sea Scroll Bibles"

 

On Sat, 10 Dec 
2005 14:17:04 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  I SELL this 
  book. It's excellent!
  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 







As you should 
know by now, I do not believe the Bible to be the only source of 
spiritual enlightenment!  :>)  I have a book titled 
Lost Books 
of the Bible, 
in which there are accounts that are written as being true, but were not 
accepted by those who made the final decisions of what should and what 
should not be included in the holy writ.  I tried to find it--must 
still be buried with stuff from when I moved--if I find it I will give 
you chapter and verse.  

  In the 
account it actually gives the sister's name, and describes her as being 
very beautiful. 

Blainerb 
  
   
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit

[Judy Taylor]

Whatever JD;  You asked the question, I 
just answered it.
Maybe it's best for you to stick with Barth and 
leave Romans to those who understand Paul the apostle who
is inspired by the Spirit of God.  
As I've said before scripture is 
'spiritually discerned' 1 Cor 2:14. So my reason, your reason, and/or Barth's 
reasonings have nothing to do with 
anything, not anything important that is.
 
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:46:34 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  

  
  
  
  Lets not discuss this one.   You have no grasp of what is being 
  said.   For example,  Paul 
  speaks of the Gentile and the Jew in this passage.   I ask a 
  question about the two, and you fire back that there is no longer Jew and 
  Gentile.   I must say, Judy,  that your line of reason has 
  markedly declined over the past year.   You have moved from being 
  simply difficult, to difficult to understand,  to just plain  
  ...   well  ..   I am not sure I have the words to 
  express it.  I will leave it at that.   
  
  
   
  From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:14:40 
  -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit
  

  
   
   
  On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:26:28 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  


Me 
again.  JD writes: You speak as if the Holy Sprit indwelling and the "..law written on their 
hearts" are two different things.   What exactly do you mean when 
you,  Judy Taylor, speak of the law written on your heart?   
Memorization or what?  


  
  
  
  
  
  No JD, 
  it's too much for the old unregenerated mind - the law is 
  spiritual - When we are in Christ and indwelt by the Spirit of Christ we like the ppl in Romans 2:14,15 do by nature 
  the things required by God's Law.
   
  You have not explained how your 
  version of legal inwardness is different from that of the OT 
  opportunity for same.   
   
  OT people had no Spirit of Christ indwelling them JD; they were to keep the Levitical Law along with God's moral 
  laws.
   
  Secondly, you  
  misunderstand Romans , chapter 2  (you meant 2:14-,15 correct 
  ?).  The "Gentiles" in that passage are not regenerated 
  anything. 
   
  There is no way an unregenerated person either OT or NT 
  is able to fulfill God's
  law "by nature" JD.  Read 
  about their natures in Ephesians 2.  Children of 
  wrath.
  Now tell me how you figure.  
  Makes no sense.  You are in Calvin's mode - OTOH
  saying unregenerate man is by nature totally 
  depraved and the next minute claiming that they can also "by nature" fulfill God's law - something only 
  Jesus
  had accomplished pre 
  Calvary.
   
  You only say that because your 
  bias orders you to do so.    
   
  If you want to call it that - OK 
  then.  My scriptural bias compels me to do 
  it.
   
  Look at what you say 
  !!    The "Gentile" (according to you) is anyone and 
  everyone who has the indwelling Holy Spirit.   He is one who has 
  received the new nature and , therefore, does by nature the things of the 
  Law.  
   
  Remember I did say the regenerated 
  gentile who is walking after the Spirit JD.
  Don't leave anything 
  out.
   
  So  --  who is the Jew 
  in this passage?   He is obviously not like the rest of 
  us.   If the Gentile is the Holy Ghost inhabited disciple of 
  God  -  who is this Jew guy? 
   
  He is either a disciple of Christ 
  who is also indwelt by the Spirit of 
  God - remember
  in Christ there is no Jew, Greek, 
  bond, or free.  All are one.  Or he is a legalistic
  Judaiser who is still under bondage to the sacrificial 
  law. 
   
  And , if the Gentile is the one 
  with the Holy Spirit, who does by nature the things of the Law  
  -   how is it that he might be lost  
  ("...   conscience either 
  excusing or accusing  .")?  
   
  That does not refer to saved/lost 
  JD.  When a Christian's conscience excuses them
  they go on their way 
  rejoicing.  When accused by the conscience it is time to go 
  to
  the throne of grace and do some 
  business with God.  Time to repent. 
   
   
  And what of 2:12?   The 
  "Gentile" in this passage, according to Judy, is the saved 
  individual  (having the indwelling Holy Spirit).   
  He is judged by one  standard   and  the 
  Jew  (Christian?) 
  is judged by 
  another.  
   
  I didn't say anything of the kind 
  JD.  The above is your construction and yours 
  alon

Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher

[Judy Taylor]

 
Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about 
JD?  
Because simple folk like you are busy 
misunderstanding what Barth is about,  JT. 
 
OK JD, I should have known better; since Barth 
is your forte - I leave him to you.  I don't care what 
he
was about or what he said or didn't say; what I 
want to know is what Jesus is saying (present 
tense)
 
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:28:49 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  

  
  
  
  
  On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:09:34 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

 
 "But in respect of the very three elements which are supposed to 
vindicate it [theology]  as a science, namely, 
the idea of unity, the possibility of myth, and the humanistic 
relevance of Christianity, it can only be described as completely empty from 
the theological standpoint, so that theology integrated along these lines 
must be flatly 
disowned as 
theology" (Dogmatics,  1.1,  The word of 
God,  pp. 9,10).
 
So the late Barth did or did not believe theology 
is a science?  There is no way I can 
answer that question without you misunderstanding.   
Sorry.   besides, the point of the above had nothing to do with 
"science."   
 
Is this what he said all that to say?  
This is not written in English.  

 
 
When critics of Barth leapfrog such foundational comments,   they cannot possibly 
understand what Barth is 
all about.   He is as "conservative" as one gets  -  if being centered in 
the Word is a definition of same.  
 
Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is 
about JD?  Because simple folk like 
you are busy misunderstanding what Barth is about,  JT. 

 
 
Ppl can be conservative and well 
meaning
and still be dead wrong.   Thank you for your testimony on that.  

 
Bro Barth seems to accept these 
criterion as legitimate considerations when one thinks to consider 
theology as a "science"  
 
How is it possible for theology to be a science 
when observation is the key to science?
So how does one observe God?   
Who said the rules of natural 
science  are the rules of thgology?  Not me.   Not 
Barth.  Just you.   You are just arguing with yourself on 
this one, Judy.  
 
1.  freedom from contradiction
 
The Bible is already free 
from contradiction with or without Barth
Not the way you 
interpret it     
 
2.  Unity in the sphere of its object.   [read: subject 
matter].
 
That's sadly lacking - on TT at least, I guess 
Barth would have been unified with himself.]
Huh?   All I know is that you do 
not agree with any other person on TT  --  none of 
do.
 
3.  The willingness to accept request for verification.
 
Who would he verify with?  Anyone who has an ear for understanding.  

 
4.  Respect for that which is physically and biologically 
impossible.
 
What is impossible with 
God?  You miss the 
point.    If you do not have have respect for what is 
naturally impossible,  you will never recognize a miracle when it 
happens.  
 
5.  Freedom from all prejudgments.  
 
6.  The validity of axiomatic propositions [relative to biblical 
studies and 'theological' conclusions].
 
Certainly, these are excellent considerations as one considers a person 
hermeneutic.   
[] are my additions.  
 
jd
 
  
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas

[Judy Taylor]

Interpretation please... Gary is speaking in 
tongues -  Or could it be Dylanspeak??
 
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:57:02 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..'bout a 50 
  megaton blast, baby
   
  On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 18:47:33 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
the western sun 
set near hiroshima 
 
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:49:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  ||
  
 if the US goes down - Canada will be left 
standing??




  
  
  ||
   
 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable to Elvis??

[Judy Taylor]

I don't see His parables as every day stuff - 
especially not when he told His disciples that
he spoke in parables so that some would not see - 
rather than to make it easy for the regular
run of the mill person out there (see Matt 
13:34-43)
 
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:58:17 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  I use the word 
  secular to denote “everyday stuff” vs. “religious stuff”.  
  
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Judy 
  Taylor 
  
  Why do you call them "the secular 
  allegory of His day?" Iz
  
  Wasn't He born under the Law into a 
  theocracy?  
  
   
  
  On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:37:29 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Jesus used the 
secular allegory of His day; called parables. 
iz
 




From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
On Behalf Of 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 12:26 
PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable 
to Elvis??
 


In a message dated 
12/9/2005 6:00:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  Ugh!  
  Will have to suffer witches and lions at the FF places for a while.  
  Did God say it was through
  
  secular 
  allegory He would draw ppl or was it by the foolishness of 
  preaching??

Blainerb:  
Are we alluding to CS Lewis and his writings?  


 
   
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas

[Judy Taylor]

What kind of prophets go about giving political 
statements?  I understood the
spiritual giftings to be of the edification and 
building up of the body of Christ. Are you
sure he isn't a fortune teller?  Actually I am not 
a "yank" by birth and I lived in Canada
for a number of years, long enough to know that there 
are problems.  True most Americans
don't know a whole lot about Canada - blame that on the 
liberal media here.
 
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:49:41 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I actually do, Judy. A prophet visited our store 
  one week ago. God spoke through him and, said exactly 
  that. You may be surprised to know just how 
  dependent your country is on Canada. It is NOT JUST the 
  other way 'round. Most yanks are sufficiently 
  insular to know nothing of the rest of the world 
  (including their neighbour)
   
   
  From: Judy Taylor 
  
If you really believe what you 
write here Lance then you need to be weeping between the porch and 
the
altar for us down here. Do you really think that if the 
US goes down - Canada will be left standing??




  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lance 
  MuirNo you wouldn't, Judy. You are 
  in deep doodoo without anyone, including Canadians, keeping 'tabs', as you 
  put it.
  
   
  
  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  



Sure glad you are keeping up 
with our economy Lance. Don't know what we 


would do if we 
didn't have the Canadians keeping tabs on us.  We'd 
really

be in trouble then 
...

 

 

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:40:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:> Upset? No!  Why? USA is a 
secular republic NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION! > More > pagans 
means more people with whom to share/live the gospel.> > 
What then ought one to be taking note of? How 'bout China/India. 
> They, > Terry, are the ones suppling the mdse for the 
aforementioned stores. > No more > 'made in the 
USA! (3 million manufacturing 
jobs lost since 2003 and > many, > many more to 
come).> >  - Original Message - > 
From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> 
Sent: December 10, 2005 08:20> Subject: [TruthTalk] Happy 
holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas> > > 
>> > We have been watching the news lately, plus getting 
some stuff by > e-mail, > > and it seems that the world 
we once knew is no longer to be found. > It is > > bad 
enough when all the big merchants, such as Wal Mart, Sears, > 
Target and > > home depot stop advertising Christmas sales and 
start advertising > "Holiday 
> > sales".  When you walk in the stores you are greeted 
by > salespeople with > > "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons 
greetings".  Target stores went so > far as to > > 
run the Salvation army off it's property.  No buckets or bell 
> ringers > > there anymore.> > This sounds 
like where the preachers and banners proclaiming > Christ should 
> > be, but then you must remember that the reason these 
stores are > there is > > not to proclaim Christ, but 
to make money.  If they mentioned > Christ mas, > 
> it would only be lip service.> >> > Besides 
that, we need to get the beam out of our own eye before we > try 
to > > remove the speck from their's.  It seems that 
since Christmas > falls on > > Sunday this year, that 
many churches will not have services "So > that > > 
people can spend time with their families".  That, to me, is s 
> stupid. > > Why not take the family to church?  
What am I missing here?> > The words of Jesus keep running 
through my mind.  "If you do not > love me > > 
more than mother or father, sister or brother (Family), you cannot 
> be > > Mine.> >> > Do the rest of 
you get worked up or nauseous over this?  Is there > 
> > something here I don't see?  Am I too critical?  
Your thoughts?> > Terry> > --> > 
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that > 
you may > > know how you ought to answer 

Re: [TruthTalk] Some thoughts from a master teacher

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:09:34 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
   
   "But in respect of the very three elements which are supposed to 
  vindicate it [theology]  as a science, namely, 
  the idea of unity, the possibility of myth, and the humanistic relevance 
  of Christianity, it can only be described as completely empty from the 
  theological standpoint, so that theology integrated along these lines must be 
  flatly 
  disowned as 
  theology" (Dogmatics,  1.1,  The word of 
  God,  pp. 9,10).
   
  So the late Barth did or did not believe theology is 
  a science?
  Is this what he said all that to say?
   
  When critics of Barth leapfrog such foundational comments,   they cannot possibly 
  understand what Barth is 
  all about.   He is as "conservative" as one gets  -  if being centered in the 
  Word is a definition of same.  
   
  Why is it necessary to understand what Barth is about 
  JD?  Ppl can be conservative and well meaning
  and still be dead wrong.
   
  Bro Barth seems to accept these 
  criterion as legitimate considerations when one thinks to consider 
  theology as a "science"  
   
  How is it possible for theology to be a science when 
  observation is the key to science?
  So how does one observe God?
   
  1.  freedom from contradiction
   
  The Bible is already free from 
  contradiction with or without Barth
   
  2.  Unity in the sphere of its object.   [read: subject 
  matter].
   
  That's sadly lacking - on TT at least, I guess Barth 
  would have been unified with himself.
   
  3.  The willingness to accept request for verification.
   
  Who would he verify with?
   
  4.  Respect for that which is physically and biologically 
  impossible.
   
  What is impossible with God?
   
  5.  Freedom from all prejudgments.
   
  6.  The validity of axiomatic propositions [relative to biblical 
  studies and 'theological' conclusions].
   
  Certainly, these are excellent considerations as one considers a person 
  hermeneutic.   
  [] are my additions.  
   
  jd
   
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable to Elvis??

[Judy Taylor]

Why do you call them "the secular allegory of His day?" 
Iz
Wasn't He born under the Law into a 
theocracy?  
 
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:37:29 -0600 "ShieldsFamily" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  
  Jesus used the 
  secular allegory of His day; called parables. iz
   
  
  
  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 12:26 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] CSL comparable 
  to Elvis??
   
  
  
  In a message dated 
  12/9/2005 6:00:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

Ugh!  Will 
have to suffer witches and lions at the FF places for a while.  Did God 
say it was through

secular 
allegory He would draw ppl or was it by the foolishness of 
preaching??
  
  Blainerb:  Are 
  we alluding to CS Lewis and his writings?  
  
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas

[Judy Taylor]

 

If you really believe what you write here Lance then you need to be 
weeping between the porch and the
altar for us down here. Do you really think that if the US goes down - 
Canada will be left standing??




  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Lance 
  MuirNo you wouldn't, Judy. You are in 
  deep doodoo without anyone, including Canadians, keeping 'tabs', as you put 
  it.
  
   
  
  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
  



Sure glad you are keeping up with 
our economy Lance. Don't know what we

would do if we didn't have the 
Canadians keeping tabs on us.  We'd 
really

be in trouble then 
...

 

 

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:40:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:> Upset? No!  Why? USA is a 
secular republic NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION! > More > pagans means 
more people with whom to share/live the gospel.> > What then 
ought one to be taking note of? How 'bout China/India. > They, 
> Terry, are the ones suppling the mdse for the aforementioned 
stores. > No more > 'made in the USA! (3 
million manufacturing jobs lost since 2003 and > many, > many 
more to come).> >  - Original Message - > 
From: "Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>> 
Sent: December 10, 2005 08:20> Subject: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, 
seasons greetings, X-mas> > > >> > We have 
been watching the news lately, plus getting some stuff by > e-mail, 
> > and it seems that the world we once knew is no longer to be 
found. > It is > > bad enough when all the big merchants, 
such as Wal Mart, Sears, > Target and > > home depot stop 
advertising Christmas sales and start advertising > "Holiday > > sales".  When you walk in 
the stores you are greeted by > salespeople with > > "Happy 
Holidays" or "Seasons greetings".  Target stores went so > far 
as to > > run the Salvation army off it's property.  No 
buckets or bell > ringers > > there anymore.> > 
This sounds like where the preachers and banners proclaiming > Christ 
should > > be, but then you must remember that the reason these 
stores are > there is > > not to proclaim Christ, but to 
make money.  If they mentioned > Christ mas, > > it 
would only be lip service.> >> > Besides that, we need 
to get the beam out of our own eye before we > try to > > 
remove the speck from their's.  It seems that since Christmas > 
falls on > > Sunday this year, that many churches will not have 
services "So > that > > people can spend time with their 
families".  That, to me, is s > stupid. > > Why 
not take the family to church?  What am I missing here?> > 
The words of Jesus keep running through my mind.  "If you do not 
> love me > > more than mother or father, sister or brother 
(Family), you cannot > be > > Mine.> >> 
> Do the rest of you get worked up or nauseous over this?  Is there 
> > > something here I don't see?  Am I too 
critical?  Your thoughts?> > Terry> > 
--> > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with 
salt, that > you may > > know how you ought to answer every 
man."  (Colossians 4:6) > > http://www.InnGlory.org> 
>> > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send 
an email > to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed.  If you > have a > > 
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.> > > > > 
--> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with 
salt, that you > may know how you ought to answer every man."  
(Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org> > 
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
and you will be unsubscribed.  If you > have a friend who wants 
to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
he will be subscribed.> > 

 

 

 
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

I have it and have yet to figure out what it is 
excellent for   I'd put it on the same level as "Dead Sea 
Scrolls"
and "Dead Sea Scroll Bibles"
 
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:17:04 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  I SELL this book. It's excellent!
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: December 10, 2005 13:34
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New 
Subject-A&E


As you should know by now, I do not believe the Bible to be the only 
source of spiritual enlightenment!  :>)  I have a book titled 
Lost Books of the Bible, in 
which there are accounts that are written as being true, but were not 
accepted by those who made the final decisions of what should and what 
should not be included in the holy writ.  I tried to find it--must 
still be buried with stuff from when I moved--if I find it I will give you 
chapter and verse.  
  In the account it actually gives the sister's name, and 
describes her as being very beautiful. 
Blainerb 
 
 
In a message dated 12/9/2005 6:00:57 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Blaine do you read the Bible?
  It was not a coveted sister Cain was jealous of - 
  why not go back and refresh 
  .[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


  
  
  I think Eve had a passal of children, they just didn't make 
  headlines like Cain.  Cain married his sister, according to one 
  account.  He was jealous of Able because the coveted sister liked 
  Able better than Cain--until Able 
  was "removed," at least.     
  

 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 10:26:28 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Me again.  JD 
  writes: You speak as if the Holy Sprit indwelling and the "..law written on 
  their hearts" are two different things.   What exactly do you mean 
  when you,  Judy Taylor, speak of the law written on your 
  heart?   Memorization or what? 
  
  





No JD, 
it's too much for the old unregenerated 
mind - the law is spiritual - When we are in Christ and indwelt by the Spirit of Christ we like the ppl in Romans 2:14,15 do by nature the things required by 
God's Law.
 
You have not explained how your 
version of legal inwardness is different from that of the OT opportunity for same.   

 
OT people had no Spirit of 
Christ indwelling them JD; they were to keep the Levitical Law along with 
God's moral laws.
 
Secondly, you  
misunderstand Romans , chapter 2  (you meant 2:14-,15 correct 
?).  The "Gentiles" in that passage are not regenerated 
anything. 
 
There is no way an unregenerated 
person either OT or NT is able to fulfill God's
law "by nature" JD.  Read about 
their natures in Ephesians 2.  Children of wrath.
Now tell me how you figure.  
Makes no sense.  You are in Calvin's mode - 
OTOH
saying unregenerate man is by 
nature totally depraved and the next minute claiming that 
they can also "by nature" fulfill 
God's law - something only Jesus
had accomplished pre 
Calvary.
 
You only say that because your bias 
orders you to do so.    
 
If you want to call it that - OK 
then.  My scriptural bias compels me to do 
it.
 
Look at what you say 
!!    The "Gentile" (according to you) is anyone and everyone 
who has the indwelling Holy 
Spirit.   He is one who has received the new nature and , 
therefore, does by nature the things of the Law.  

 
Remember I did say the regenerated 
gentile who is walking after the Spirit JD.
Don't leave anything 
out.
 
So  --  who is the Jew in 
this passage?   He is obviously not like the rest of 
us.   If the Gentile is the Holy Ghost inhabited disciple of 
God  -  who is this Jew guy? 
 
He is either a disciple of Christ 
who is also indwelt by the Spirit of God - remember
in Christ there is no Jew, Greek, 
bond, or free.  All are one.  Or he is a 
legalistic
Judaiser who is still under bondage 
to the sacrificial law. 
 
And , if the Gentile is the one 
with the Holy Spirit, who does by nature the things of the Law  
-   how is it that he might be lost  
("...   conscience either 
excusing or accusing  .")?  
 
That does not refer to saved/lost 
JD.  When a Christian's conscience excuses them
they go on their way 
rejoicing.  When accused by the conscience it is time to go 
to
the throne of grace and do some 
business with God.  Time to repent. 
 
 
And what of 2:12?   The 
"Gentile" in this passage, according to Judy, is the saved individual  
(having the indwelling Holy 
Spirit).   He is judged by 
one  standard   and  the 
Jew  (Christian?) 
is judged by 
another.  
 
I didn't say anything of the kind 
JD.  The above is your construction and yours 
alone
Please stop putting words in my 
mouth.  I can speak for myself, thank you.
 
It is so much easier to just accept 
the text for what it says.    
 
Yes, then you don't have to cut 
anything out or try to manipulate any passages.
 
 
 
What ever it means, we do know that it cannot be the same 
experience as those under the Mosaical Law.   Is it the 
Holy Spirit 's influence  -   but you make a difference 
between the two.   If this "law" has to do with various and 
multiple commandments,  how are they written on our hearts in a way 
different from the Old Law?   I honestly have no idea how you 
might answer this question.   I have no answer 
and that is why I reject (up to this point in time) the notion that the "law 
written on our hearts"  is talking about law as opposed to the 
rule of the Spirit.  jd
 
Careful JD, if you reject everything in scripture that 
you don't comprehend mentally then pretty soon you will have to throw out the whole 
Book.   jt I can't 
reject what I don't comprehend,   Judy.    You are 
such an avowed anti-intellectual that it is scary.    And, 
what is almost funny about your anti-intellectual stance is that you rely so 
much on your own   brand of intellectualism.    It is startling to me, 
just how little you use scripture   

Re: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, seasons greetings, X-mas

[Judy Taylor]

Sure glad you are keeping up with our economy Lance. 
Don't know what we
would do if we didn't have the Canadians keeping tabs 
on us.  We'd really
be in trouble then ...
 
 
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:40:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:> Upset? No!  Why? USA is a secular republic NOT A CHRISTIAN 
NATION! > More > pagans means more people with whom to share/live 
the gospel.> > What then ought one to be taking note of? How 'bout 
China/India. > They, > Terry, are the ones suppling the mdse for 
the aforementioned stores. > No more > 'made in the USA! (3 
million manufacturing jobs lost since 2003 and > many, > many more 
to come).> >  - Original Message - > From: 
"Terry Clifton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> 
To: > 
Sent: December 10, 2005 08:20> Subject: [TruthTalk] Happy holidays, 
seasons greetings, X-mas> > > >> > We have 
been watching the news lately, plus getting some stuff by > e-mail, 
> > and it seems that the world we once knew is no longer to be found. 
> It is > > bad enough when all the big merchants, such as Wal 
Mart, Sears, > Target and > > home depot stop advertising 
Christmas sales and start advertising > "Holiday > > 
sales".  When you walk in the stores you are greeted by > 
salespeople with > > "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons greetings".  
Target stores went so > far as to > > run the Salvation army 
off it's property.  No buckets or bell > ringers > > there 
anymore.> > This sounds like where the preachers and banners 
proclaiming > Christ should > > be, but then you must remember 
that the reason these stores are > there is > > not to proclaim 
Christ, but to make money.  If they mentioned > Christ mas, > 
> it would only be lip service.> >> > Besides that, we 
need to get the beam out of our own eye before we > try to > > 
remove the speck from their's.  It seems that since Christmas > 
falls on > > Sunday this year, that many churches will not have 
services "So > that > > people can spend time with their 
families".  That, to me, is s > stupid. > > Why not 
take the family to church?  What am I missing here?> > The words 
of Jesus keep running through my mind.  "If you do not > love me 
> > more than mother or father, sister or brother (Family), you cannot 
> be > > Mine.> >> > Do the rest of you get 
worked up or nauseous over this?  Is there > > > something 
here I don't see?  Am I too critical?  Your thoughts?> > 
Terry> > --> > "Let your speech be always with 
grace, seasoned with salt, that > you may > > know how you 
ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) > > http://www.InnGlory.org> >> 
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email > 
to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If you > have a > > friend who 
wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.> > > > > --> 
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you > may 
know how you ought to answer every man."  (Colossians 4:6) > http://www.InnGlory.org> > If 
you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and 
you will be unsubscribed.  If you > have a friend who wants to join, 
tell him to send an e-mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.> > 
 
 
 
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit

[Judy Taylor]

Oophs, typo, I meant Romans 2:14,15.  When we 
become partakers of the 'divine nature' by the indwelling
of the Holy Spirit we are enabled to do by nature what 
is required by God's Law.  That is, when we choose
to walk after the Spirit rather than follow the lusts 
of the old flesh nature.

  On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:44:07 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  







You speak as if the Holy Sprit 
indwelling and the "..law written on 
their hearts" are two different things.   
What exactly do you mean when you,  Judy Taylor, speak of the law 
written on your heart?   Memorization or what? 
 
No JD, it's too much for the old 
unregenerated mind - the law is spiritual - When we are in Christ and 
indwelt by the Spirit of Christ we like 
the ppl in Romans 2:14,15 do by nature the things required by God's 
Law.
 
What ever it means, we do know that it cannot be the same 
experience as those under the Mosaical Law.   Is it the Holy Spirit 's 
influence  -   but you make a difference between the 
two.   If this "law" has to do with various and multiple 
commandments,  how are they written on our hearts in a way different 
from the Old Law?   I honestly have no idea how you might answer 
this question.   I have no answer and that is 
why I reject (up to this point in time) the notion that the "law written on 
our hearts"  is talking about law as opposed to the rule of the 
Spirit.  jd
 
Careful JD, if you 
reject everything in scripture that you don't comprehend mentally then 
pretty soon you will have to throw out the whole Book.   
jt From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>



In OT days they 
did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling 
them, nor did they have
God's Law written on their hearts.  They lived 
in a theocracy and Moses had to 
gather the ppl, 
men, women, and children and read God's Law to 
them every
seven years.  jt
 
 
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:21:12 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
    
  How is this different from OT 
  days   
  Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts   ???
   
  jd
   
    -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 
  2005 11:11:07 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to 
  Heaven?
  

  
  
  
   
  How is this different from OT 
  days   
  Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts   ???
   
  jd
   
   
   
  -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:09:54 
  -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?
  

  
  Why do we need scripture?  
  Yes the born again/spirit filled believer is 
  given the measure of faith - 
  Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts 
  But let's look at our example, the Head of the 
  Church, the one we are to follow 
  During His earthly ministry Jesus walked in all 
  this too; in fact He walked in the fulness of the Spirit  
  When confronted by the adversary - What was His 
  defense?  It is written, It is written, It is written.
  No wonder the professing church is so weak.  
  You would rather do it any way but learn from Him.
   
  If anyone speaks not according 
  to THIS WORD there is no light of day for him (Isa 8:20)
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


  
  
  You haven't read the book either !!!   This is what is 
  so great about you and Judy.   First --  
  you two disagree on a number of 
  points  -- but, like you, I will ignore that for 
  time being.   In addition to the Inspired Version 
  doctrine, and the Inerrant Understanding 
  didache,  you two also believe that 
  you can condemn a book without having read it , not to mention that 
  you know of the personal judgments of God.  With those 
  qualifications,  why do we even need the 
  Bible?   We certainly don't need preachers, pastors 
  and teacher  --  I mean the Holy Spirit will take care of 
  all that -  right?  But ignore these questions, as well.   Your peace of mind just 
  migh t be at stake.    
   
  jd  
 -
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
   

Re: [TruthTalk] Law and Spirit

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:44:07 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  

  
  
  
  You speak as if the Holy Sprit indwelling and the "..law written on their 
  hearts" are two different things.   
  What exactly do you mean when you,  Judy Taylor, speak of the law 
  written on your heart?   Memorization or what? 
   
  No JD, it's too much for the old unregenerated 
  mind - the law is spiritual - When we are in Christ and indwelt by 
  the Spirit of Christ we like the ppl in 
  Romans 1:14,15 do by nature the things required by God's 
Law.
   
  What ever it means, we do know that it cannot be the same 
  experience as those under the Mosaical Law.   Is it the Holy Spirit 's 
  influence  -   but you make a difference between the 
  two.   If this "law" has to do with various and multiple 
  commandments,  how are they written on our hearts in a way different from 
  the Old Law?   I honestly have no idea how you might answer this 
  question.   I have no answer and that is why I 
  reject (up to this point in time) the notion that the "law written on our 
  hearts"  is talking about law as opposed to the rule of the 
  Spirit.  jd
   
  Careful JD, if you 
  reject everything in scripture that you don't comprehend mentally then pretty 
  soon you will have to throw out the whole Book.   
  jt From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
  

  
  In OT days they 
  did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling 
  them, nor did they have
  God's Law written on their hearts.  They lived 
  in a theocracy and Moses had to 
  gather the ppl, 
  men, women, and children and read God's Law to them 
  every
  seven years.  jt
   
   
  On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:21:12 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  


  
How is this different from OT 
days   
Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts   ???
 
jd
 
  -Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 
2005 11:11:07 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to 
Heaven?





 
How is this different from OT 
days   
Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts   ???
     
jd
 
 
 
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:09:54 
-0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?



Why do we need scripture?  
Yes the born again/spirit filled believer is given 
the measure of faith - 
Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts 
But let's look at our example, the Head of the 
Church, the one we are to follow 
During His earthly ministry Jesus walked in all 
this too; in fact He walked in the fulness of the Spirit  
When confronted by the adversary - What was His 
defense?  It is written, It is written, It is written.
No wonder the professing church is so weak.  
You would rather do it any way but learn from Him.
 
If anyone speaks not according to 
THIS WORD there is no light of day for him (Isa 8:20)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  


You haven't read the book either !!!   This is what is so 
great about you and Judy.   First --  
you two disagree on a number of 
points  -- but, like you, I will ignore that for 
time being.   In addition to the Inspired Version 
doctrine, and the Inerrant Understanding didache,  you two also believe that 
you can condemn a book without having read it , not to mention that you 
know of the personal judgments of God.  With those 
qualifications,  why do we even need the 
Bible?   We certainly don't need preachers, pastors and 
teacher  --  I mean the Holy Spirit will take care of all that 
-  right?  But ignore these questions, as well.   Your peace of mind just 
migh t be at stake.    
 
jd  
   -
  
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:33:15 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
   
  I love it.  Judy interprets John !!!   If this is an 
  example of your "spirit discernment,"  you have a long long way to 
  go.  
   
  Correction!  Judy has no interest in 
  interpreting John.  Judy reads and understands scripture.
   
  In the account of A & E,  they are mortal beings just like you 
  and I with two exceptions in terms of circumstance:  they had the Tree of 
  Life and continued access to that tree was the only stated reason for their 
  dismissal from the garden,   and  ,  they had not yet 
  violated the expressly stated will of God.   
   
  Then why the warning that if they ate of the 
  wrong tree they would die if they were already mortal (like us) temporal ie passing away?  God said they would die, 
  Satan said they wouldn't
   
  The EFFECT of the fall presents the reader with consequences that are 
  much more involved than we might have expected  --  at least for 
  me.   
   
  Maybe you are making it a figment of your own 
  imagination JD.  If they were like us they
  would have no place to fall to.
   
  "In the image of God"  is not a reference to the essence of God's 
  existence.   Holy and eternal are but two considerations of 
  God.   He is omnipresent.   He is all wise and has all 
  knowledge.   He is all powerful.  He is a triune 
  being.   
   
  Image and likeness does not make 
  them Creator rather than Created; but they would have his nature and 
  character and would be spirit 
  beings with a flesh body just as He is a Spirit.  
   
  Give us a rule of some sort,  a path of season, for accepting two of 
  His qualities and not the others.   The fact of the matter is 
  this  -   I believe that I can come closer to a biblical 
  consideration for saying the "image" is the need for community than you can 
  for "holy and eternal"   jd
   
  Oh I know JD - here we 
  go again with the "procession and the perichoresis - and the trinity all 
  dancing with each other"  Some things never change.
   
   
    From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
  

  
  

   
  On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 05:57:00 -0700 "Taylor" <wmtaylor@plains.net> writes:
  
From: Judy Taylor 


  

  So they 
  were created one of two ways.  They were either eternal with the 
  ability to fall through disobedience - OR they 
  were created like us which is mortal and dying as we live with 
  
  access 
  to the tree of life?
   
  More added words: you are setting up a strawman, Judy. Go back to what 
  has been said and 
  see the distinction.
   
  No strawman here Bill.
   
  When you add the word "dying" to our 
  words, Judy, you are setting up a strawman.
   
  If anyone set up a strawman it was JD; he is the one who said they were created 
  
  "like us" which is mortal and the 
  word "mortal" well I already gave the dictionary
  definition.  They were created 
  "in God's image" which is both holy and eternal. 

   
   God did not create a dying 
  people -- John did not say that, and neither did I. 
  
   
  JD said created "like us" in which case they would 
  be a "dying people"
   
  As long as A&W were eating of the 
  tree of life, there was no death in them 
  whatsoever. Hence, what we are saying 
  -- or at least I am -- is that God created 
  a people with the potential to die. 
  
   
  The above is a little different from 
  what JD stated ... How about the 
  potential to
  fall as Lucifer did.  Angels are 
  spirits - they don't die.  Humans I believe are 
  also
  created spiritual beings and tho our body is perishing our inner man 
  is either
  being renewed or 
  being entrenched in even more darkness 
  daily.
   
  If you will accept this distinction, 
  I will be happy to continue our discussion. 
  If not, then there is nothing to 
  discuss.
   
  Bill
  
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Strawmen

[Judy Taylor]

 
God's wisdom is a tree of life JD
A&E rejected it in favor of the tree of 
death
 
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 09:38:42 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  So, you decided to ignore my comment about the Tree of 
  Life?   Adam and Eve were not given any restrictions 
  concerning eating from this tree.   What do you suppose would 
  be the result of eating from such fruit?   I say "continued 
  life."  jd    From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  
   
  On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:33:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  


Also,  there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just like us  --  which includes the fact 
that they were created 
"mortal,"  hence, the The Tree of Life , in the 
garden.    jd
 
Above is the strawman that needs to be 
kicked down 
 
And look at this, even the Mormon boys know 
better:
Satan assured Eve she would not die by 
eating the fruit, which indicates she was at that time 
immortal.  Also, God told her if she ate the good stuff on the 
tree, she would surely die--another evidence she was at that time 
immortal.  They were then kicked out of the garden, to prevent them 
from eating the fruit of the tree of life, which would have apparently 
restored their immortality.  
 
So both God and Satan agree that the first 
two ppl are immortal ...
which is not "like us" - that is outside of 
Christ.
 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

Why?  The apostle Paul is good enough for me - He 
used "great plainness of speech"
with no hidden agendas.  Nothing was done in a 
corner.
 
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 09:21:34 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Bill speaks of 'A&W'?? Hm...Freudian 
  slip? Bill's favourite FF place? A hidden agenda?
  Good root beer? (as close as Bill gets to 
  'beer'?) We had all best ponder this encrypted message 
  from our vaunted theologian!
  
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 


Amen.  -Original Message-From: Taylor 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: 
Fri, 9 Dec 2005 05:57:00 -0700Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New 
Subject-A&E





     

  ----- Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 5:20 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New 
  Subject-A&E
  
   
   
  On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 05:01:44 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 

   
  So they were created one of two ways.  
  They were either eternal with the ability to fall through disobedience 
  - 
  OR they were created like us which is mortal 
  and dying as we live with access to the 
  tree of life?
   
  More added words: you are setting up a strawman, Judy. Go back to 
  what has been said and see the distinction.
   
  No strawman here 
  Bill.
   
  When you add the word "dying" to our 
  words, Judy, you are setting up a strawman. God did not create a dying 
  people -- John did not say that, and neither did I. As long as A&W 
  were eating of the tree of life, there was no death in them 
  whatsoever. Hence, what we are saying -- or at least I am -- is that 
  God created a people with the potential to die. If you will accept 
  this distinction, I will be happy to continue our discussion. If not, 
  then there is nothing to discuss.
   
  Bill
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

[TruthTalk] For DaveH

[Judy Taylor]

 


When a woman wears leather clothing, . A man's 
  heart beats quicker, his throat gets dry, he goes weak in the knees,  
  and he begins to think irrationally. Ever wonder why? Because she 
  smells like a new truck. 

Re: [TruthTalk] Mr. Cleo

[Judy Taylor]

I thought the same thing - this looks like what we used 
to call in Australia a golliwog.  jt
 
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 07:53:46 -0600 Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Kevin Deegan wrote: 
  

temple stone!I had kinda pictured God in my mind as having a little different 
  hair do.  Are you certain this is Him?Terry
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Strawmen

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:33:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Also,  there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just like us  --  which includes the fact that 
  they were created 
  "mortal,"  hence, the The Tree of Life , in the 
  garden.    jd
   
  Above is the strawman that needs to be kicked 
  down 
   
  And look at this, even the Mormon boys know 
  better:
  Satan assured Eve she would not die by 
  eating the fruit, which indicates she was at that time 
  immortal.  Also, God told her if she ate the good stuff on the 
  tree, she would surely die--another evidence she was at that time 
  immortal.  They were then kicked out of the garden, to prevent them from 
  eating the fruit of the tree of life, which would have apparently restored 
  their immortality.  
   
  So both God and Satan agree that the first two 
  ppl are immortal ...
  which is not "like us" - that is outside of 
  Christ.
   

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

Yeah!  Innocence turned to lust and caring 
and love turned into pride, selfishness, and shame.
 
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 07:52:03 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 10:34:55 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
Also,  there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just like 
us  --  which includes the fact that they were created 
"mortal,"  hence, the The Tree of Life , in the 
garden.    
 
jd 
  
  They did not seem to be aware of their nakedness until they ate the 
  apple.  Then they made fig leaf aprons to cover their nakedness.  
  Sounds like they were changed in some mysterious way by eating the 
  apple.  I can see it all now--Adam looks at Eve, and sees her for the 
  first time as being desirable.  She feels uncomfortable, and asks, 
  why are you staring at me?  He blushes--for the first time--and looks 
  away.  But steals a glance now and then when she's not looking.  
  :>)
  Satan assured Eve she would not die by eating the fruit, which 
  indicates she was at that time immortal.  Also, God told her if she ate 
  the good stuff on the tree, she would surely die--another evidence she was at 
  that time immortal.  They were then kicked out of the garden, to prevent 
  them from eating the fruit of the tree of life, which would have apparently 
  restored their immortality.  
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 05:57:00 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  From: Judy Taylor 
  

  
So they 
were created one of two ways.  They were either eternal with the 
ability to fall through disobedience - OR they were 
created like us which is mortal and dying as we live with 

access to 
the tree of life?
 
More added words: you are setting up a 
strawman, Judy. Go back to what has been said and 
see the distinction.
 
No strawman here 
Bill.
 
When you add the word "dying" to our 
words, Judy, you are setting up a strawman.
 
If anyone set up a strawman it was JD; 
he is the one who said they were created 
"like us" which is mortal and the word 
"mortal" well I already gave the dictionary
definition.  They were created "in 
God's image" which is both holy and eternal. 
 
 God did not create a dying people 
-- John did not say that, and neither did I. 
 
JD said created "like us" in 
which case they would be a "dying people"
 
As long as A&W were eating of the 
tree of life, there was no death in them 
whatsoever. Hence, what we are saying 
-- or at least I am -- is that God created 
a people with the potential to die. 

 
The above is a little different from 
what JD stated ... How about the potential to
fall as Lucifer did.  Angels are 
spirits - they don't die.  Humans I believe are 
also
created spiritual beings and tho our 
body is perishing our inner man is either
being renewed or being entrenched 
in even more darkness daily.
 
If you will accept this distinction, I 
will be happy to continue our discussion. 
If not, then there is nothing to 
discuss.
 
Bill
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

Blaine do you read the Bible?
It was not a coveted sister Cain was jealous of - why 
not go back and refresh .[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote: 

  
  


I think Eve had a passal of children, they just didn't make headlines 
like Cain.  Cain married his sister, according to one account.  He 
was jealous of Able because the coveted sister liked Able better than 
Cain--until Able was "removed," at 
least.     
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 10:28:04 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  So Cain and Abel were children # 
  1 and #2.   and when Cain 
  killed Able  --  who was he afraid of  --  I 
  mean,  where did those people come from?   I personally 
  believe that Adam and Eve were not the only people created.   
  But that is not a  popular opinion.   If we go with 
  the standard opin  --  Cain was afraid of his own 
  people
   
  jd

 
  
  
  Yahoo! ShoppingFind Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! 
  Shopping 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 05:01:44 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  From: Judy Taylor 
  
 
So they were created one of two ways.  They 
were either eternal with the ability to fall through disobedience - 

OR they were created like us which is mortal 
and dying as we live with access to the tree of 
life?
 
More added words: you are setting up a strawman, Judy. Go back to what 
has been said and see the distinction.
 
No strawman here 
Bill.
 
Why would a God of life in whom there is no 
darkness or shadow of turning create a dying people?  
 
He did not create a "dying people."
 
What is the meaning of the word "mortal"? 
It is "subject to death, or destined to die?"  We who are 
procreated are born mortal because of the first Adam's disobedience.  
He fell from something Bill.  So from whence did he 
fall?  From mortal to 
mortal?
 
A&E chose death by 
their disobedience.
 
Adam and Eve chose disobedience, death being the consequence of their 
actions: "The wages of sin is death ... " 
 
Exactly - and if they were mortal already, 
that is, if God created them mortal then He chose it for 
them
before they got the chance to 
disobey.  jt
 
 
 
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 04:33:36 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Me thinks you are putting words in his mouth, 
  Judy. Had they have continued to eat of the tree of life, they would not 
  have died, their mortality being the potential to 
  die in the absence of the sustenance supplied by the tree of life: 
  "'And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and 
  eat, and live forever' -- so the LORD God banished him from the Garden . . 
  ." 
   
  Bill
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
JD your dylexia has kicked in again.  We 
who are born through procreation are created in the "image" of 
the
first Adam.  They were here first 
already and the tree of life is what they were encouraged 
to eat from. to
say they were walking in death right then is 
pure unwarranted speculation; why would a God og life create them 

in death?
 
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:33:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Also,  there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just 
  like us  --  which includes the fact that they were created 
  "mortal,"  hence, the The Tree of Life , in the 
  garden.    
   
  jd  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 09 
  Dec 2005 00:27:22 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New 
  Subject-A&E
  

  
  
  
  So Cain and Abel were children # 1 and 
  #2.   and when Cain killed Able  --  who 
  was he afraid of  --  I mean,  where did those people 
  come from?   I personally believe that Adam and Eve were not 
  the only people created.   But that is not a  popular 
  opinion.   If we go with the standard opin  
  --  Cain was afraid of his own people
   
  jd
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 9 
  Dec 2005 00:20:07 ESTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] New 
  Subject-A&E
  

  
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 8:27:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
 But why  did they not have children until 
they were 1) changed into mortal 
beings
 
I hate to tell you this B but the children generally come 
NINE Months AFTER the FACT!
  Blainerb:  Hmm, let's see, chapter three of Genesis 
  ends with the couple being driven out of the paradisiacal garden, then chapter 4 begins as 
  follows:  
  "And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she 
  conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from 
  the Lord."
  Sounds like the fun began AFTER leaving the 
  garden  But no timetable is given.
  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  Blainerb: Ha!  
  I agree, it was a good commandment!   But why  did 
  they not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal 
  beings, and 2) forced out of the garden?   
   
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard 
  Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

So they were created one of two ways.  They were 
either eternal with the ability to fall through disobedience - 
OR they were created like us which is mortal 
and dying as we live with access to the tree of 
life?
 
Why would a God of life in whom there is no darkness or 
shadow of turning create a dying people?  A&E
chose death in disobedience.
 
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 04:33:36 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Me thinks you are putting words in his mouth, 
  Judy. Had they have continued to eat of the tree of life, they would not 
  have died, their mortality being the potential to die 
  in the absence of the sustenance supplied by the tree of life: "'And 
  now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and 
  live forever' -- so the LORD God banished him from the Garden . . 
  ." 
   
  Bill
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
JD your dylexia has kicked in again.  We who 
are born through procreation are created in the "image" of the
first Adam.  They were here first already 
and the tree of life is what they were encouraged to eat from. 
to
say they were walking in death right then is pure 
unwarranted speculation; why would a God og life create them 
in death?
 
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:33:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Also,  there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just 
  like us  --  which includes the fact that they were created 
  "mortal,"  hence, the The Tree of Life , in the 
  garden.    
   
  jd  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 09 Dec 
  2005 00:27:22 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New 
Subject-A&E
  

  
  
  
  So Cain and Abel were children # 
  1 and #2.   and when Cain 
  killed Able  --  who was he afraid of  --  I 
  mean,  where did those people come from?   I personally 
  believe that Adam and Eve were not the only people created.   
  But that is not a  popular opinion.   If we go with 
  the standard opin  --  Cain was afraid of his own 
  people
   
  jd
  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:20:07 
  ESTSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E
  

  
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 8:27:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
 But why  did they not have children until they 
were 1) changed into mortal beings
 
I hate to tell you this B but the children generally come NINE 
Months AFTER the FACT!
  Blainerb:  Hmm, let's see, chapter three of Genesis 
  ends with the couple being driven out of the paradisiacal garden, then chapter 4 begins as follows:  
  
  "And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she 
  conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the 
  Lord."
  Sounds like the fun began AFTER leaving the garden  
  But no timetable is given.
  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  Blainerb: Ha!  I 
  agree, it was a good commandment!   But why  did they 
  not have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings, and 
  2) forced out of the garden?   
   
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  I wasn't there Blaine.  If 
you don't like it, complain to God.  He ordered it, not 
me.  I do, however, think it was a great idea.  One of the 
easiest commands to keep. ;-)[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior 
  to the Fall??    What sacrilege is 
  this??   :>)
  Blainerb
   
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard 
  Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  I think you might have missed 
something, Blaine.  There is no reason to think that Judy 
would not have been here if there had been no fall.  The 
command to "Be fruitful and multiply" came prior to the 
fall.  See Genesis 1:28.Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  Blainerb:  You 
  seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a daughter of God 
  are, Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit, none of 
  us including your wonderful  self would  even 
   be here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging around in 
  their perfect little paradise, never knowing good from e

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

What is the evidence?
 
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 04:20:21 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Agreed.
  
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 


Also,  there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just like 
us  --  which includes the fact that they were created 
"mortal,"  hence, the The Tree of Life , in the 
garden.    
 
jd  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]





So Cain and Abel were children # 1 
and #2.   and when Cain killed 
Able  --  who was he afraid of  --  I mean,  where 
did those people come from?   I personally believe that Adam and 
Eve were not the only people created.   But that is not a  
popular opinion.   If we go with the standard opin  
--  Cain was afraid of his own people
 
jd
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



In a message dated 12/8/2005 8:27:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   But why  did they not have children until they 
  were 1) changed into mortal beings
   
  I hate to tell you this B but the children generally come NINE 
  Months AFTER the FACT!
Blainerb:  Hmm, let's see, chapter three of Genesis ends 
with the couple being driven out of the paradisiacal garden, then chapter 4 begins as follows:  

"And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she 
conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the 
Lord."
Sounds like the fun began AFTER leaving the garden  
But no timetable is given.

  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  

Blainerb: Ha!  I 
agree, it was a good commandment!   But why  did they not 
have children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings, and 2) 
forced out of the garden?   
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I wasn't there Blaine.  If you don't like it, 
  complain to God.  He ordered it, not me.  I do, however, 
  think it was a great idea.  One of the easiest commands to keep. 
  ;-)[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote: 
  

Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior to 
the Fall??    What sacrilege is this??   
:>)
Blainerb
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard 
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think you might have missed something, Blaine.  
  There is no reason to think that Judy would not have been here if 
  there had been no fall.  The command to "Be fruitful and 
  multiply" came prior to the fall.  See Genesis 
  1:28.Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  

Blainerb:  You 
seem to be forgetting how wonderful you as a daughter of God 
are, Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit, none of us 
including your wonderful  self would  even 
 be here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging around in 
their perfect little paradise, never knowing good from evil and 
not even caring.  But they would be eternally pure and 
goody-good righteous...  Is that what you think the Lord 
really wanted?  
 
In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard 
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   
  The trees in the garden DaveH are the two kinds of 
  wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full 
  of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to 
  eat from.  The other tree - the one the serpent was 
  promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic.  So take 
  your pick.  One leads to life and the other to 
  death.
   
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 
2:4)
 

 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 22:04:35 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  DAVEH:  It is not that I disagree with what you said below, 
  Judy.But, I think you've gone off topic.  We are discussing A&E's 
  transgression, not our own.  As soon as they were cast out of the Garden 
  for their transgression, I think they pretty well knew they had no grounds to 
  accuse Him of being unloving or unjust.  
  To think that God put them through that test 
  just to prove to them the consequences of 
  disobedience seems a little illogical to me, Judy.  
   
  How is it illogical?  When you being evil tell 
  your child if you do that I will spank you.  When they do it and 
  you
  spank them - why is warning them 
  illogical?  Just jumping on them out of the blue would be illogical 
  to me.    Ponder that God foreordained Jesus to 
  be A&E's Savior even before A&E were created.  He then created a 
  universe just for A&E, and then a planet with all the goodies to keep 
  A&E alive, and then a Garden full of everything they would need to live 
  forever in a very pure and comfortable environment.  Then God plants one 
  evil tree (from your perspective) and turns Satan loose in paradise to have a 
  go at tempting A&E just to test A&E in an effort to prove to A&E 
  that they will not have grounds to accuse Him of 
  being unloving or unjust.  Whew!!!.To me that sure 
  seems like a lot of effort for minimal return, Judy. 
   
  Makes sense to me DaveH but then I accept God's Word, 
  I don't try to second guess him or figure out a better
  way to do things. It is written already and sealed in 
  heaven so to me all speculation is a big waste of time and
  does not lead to peace and 
  rest.. Please don't think that I am 
  trying to minimize the import of this topicnothing could be further from 
  the truth.  To me, understanding the circumstances of the Fall is 
  extremely important.  It just seems from my perspective that the commonly 
  believed Christian perspective regarding the Fall doesn't really explain why 
  it happened, which is why I find it interesting to learn what you believe 
  about it.  Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
   
  Let me get this straight - you are saying that the 
  Christians have all been deceived about why the fall happened
  and you Mormons are the only ones who know the facts 
  of the matter??  Am I hearing correctly??Judy Taylor 
  wrote: 
  

When all of us stand before God at the great white 
throne judgment... we have to know where we failed.  Noone 
will have grounds to accuse Him of 
being unloving or unjust because we will have condemned ourselves and 

we will know this without anyone having to tell us...  So the test 
is for us rather than for Him.  judyt
 
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:36:28 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  To test them 
  DaveHDAVEH:  ???   Do you not think 
  God knew their faith, Judy?  Why do you think God would need to test 
  them, since he created themknowing they would transgress?Judy 
  Taylor wrote: 
  

To test them DaveH.  Faith 
is ALWAYS tested.
 
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:24:10 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  He did not plan for them to fall.DAVEH:  If 
  that is so, then why do you think he placed the tree of knowledge of 
  good and evil in the Garden of Eden, Terry?    
  Rather than go to all the trouble of preparing a remedy for the fall, 
  would it have not been immensely easier to simply not have put the 
  tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden?  IOWthere 
  must have been a reason for God to put the tree there.   
  Seems like it would be important to understand for what the purpose 
  the Lord placed that tree there.   Why do you think, 
  Terry?Terry Clifton wrote: 
  This seems so obvious that it should be hard to 
miss, but if you have been taught otherwise all your life, I suspect 
it would be hard to accept.God is omnicient,  He knew they 
would sin.  He did not plan for them to fall.  He 
planned a remedy for the fall.  Big difference.As to their 
descendents missing the mark, who knows?  All we can do is 
speculate, and speculation often leads to 
error.=Dave 
Hansen wrote: 
He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for 
  everyone?if they had not they 
  would have saved themselves and the rest of 
  humanity all of the heartache, 
  suffering, and misery that has been the human lot since 
  then.DAVEH:   Thank 

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 21:45:44 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  being over protective through fear is one 
  thingDAVEH:   That seems to be a tactic of some 
  Christians.  For instance, the whole commonly believed scenario about 
  hell being a literal punitive torturous form of punishment is an example that 
  I see driving some people away from Christianity.  I'm sure there will be 
  some SPers who will point to their successes by using such methodology, but 
  that does not necessarily offset the numbers of those who are turned off by 
  such rhetoric.
   
  They may be turned off at that moment but who knows 
  whether or not a seed has been planted that God will
  water at a later date?  That was John the 
  Baptists ministry ie "the axe will be layed to the root of the tree of 
  those
  who do not repent"This is what the wisdom of the world 
  teaches.DAVEH:   Have you ever read of some of 
  the examples where groups of people were decimated by diseases brought into 
  their environment by outsiders?  
   
  Yes and usually these groups were already compromised 
  by sin. The American indians were pagan god
  worshippers and the Australian aborigines were 
  animists leaving both wide open.God has 
  given us an immune system which should be able to throw off anything that 
  comes our wayDAVEH:  I tend to agree with you on this 
  to a point, Judy.  Though I don't view it as an 
  immune system, but rather as inoculation.  We aren't born with 
  a resistance to sin, but we achieve it as we become one with the Lord.  I 
  think it was Paul who explained the analogy of putting on the armor of 
  God.  We aren't born with that armor, but acquire it as we grow in 
  Christ.  The tree of life is "pure, 
  peaceable, and full of good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His 
  creation to eat from.DAVEH:  Then why do you think God 
  kept A&E from partaking of it after they transgressed?
   
  Because they would have lived forever in their fallen 
  and demonized state and He will not have any devils in heaven; but he did 
  make for them a way of escape planned before the foundation of the 
  world.The other tree - the one the 
  serpent was promoting - is earthly, sensual, and 
  demonic.DAVEH::   You've lost me on that one, 
  Judy.  Are you saying the tree of knowledge of good and evil is earthly, sensual, and 
  demonic?    If so, it sounds like you are 
  implying that God planted something evil in the Garden of Eden in an effort to 
  tempt A&E.  If that is what you are suggesting, do you have Biblical 
  evidence to support your theory?  
   
  I am saying He allowed it - to test their faith 
  and they bit. It came in the form of the serpent who spoke to Eve 

  He was full of wisdom from the other tree.  In 
  the gospels you will remember the parable of the sower who sows
  the good seed which is God's Word (Jesus explains) 
  and the enemy who sows another word making tares
  which will be separated from the wheat in the last 
  day.  Same idea.    FWIWI had the 
  impression that Gen 1 suggests exactly the opposite12] 
  And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and 
  the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw 
  that it was good..That the trees God created were 
  good.   Reading Gen 2..
   
  We are not talking about "fruit" trees here DaveH; in 
  the garden there are two trees that have to do with
  different kinds of knowledge or 
  wisdom.[9] And out of the ground made the LORD God to 
  grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of 
  life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree 
  of knowledge of good and evildoes not give me the 
  impression that the tree of knowledge of good and evil was in 
  itself evil.  If you disagree, I'd like to understand why you think 
  such.  
   
  Because Jesus says that nothing that goes into the 
  mouth is of itself evil - it just goes in and comes out in the draught. It is 
  what comes out of the heart that defiles the man - and these two trees had 
  that kind of power.Judy Taylor wrote: 
  

DaveH writes: 
   FWIW.While it may be noble to want to keep one's 
children pure and innocent, a loving parent who overly protects their 
children will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the ills of the 
world.  
 
Not necessarily; being over protective through 
fear is one thing.  Teaching children spiritual discernment in the 
fear of God is another because then the parent has His power and watchful 
eye on their side.
 
I see it similar to communicable illnesses.  You could raise your 
kid in a bubble and he would live a germ/virus free life.  But once he 
enters the real world, he would be extremely vulnerable to catching a slew 
of nasty bugs.  Isn't it much better to allow your kid be exposed to 
such haz

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

JD your dylexia has kicked in again.  We who are 
born through procreation are created in the "image" of the
first Adam.  They were here first already and 
the tree of life is what they were encouraged to eat from. to
say they were walking in death right then is pure 
unwarranted speculation; why would a God og life create them 
in death?
 
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 00:33:40 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
  Also,  there is evidence that Adam and Eve were created just like 
  us  --  which includes the fact that they were created 
  "mortal,"  hence, the The Tree of Life , in the garden.    
  
   
  jd  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 
  00:27:22 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E
  

  
  
  
  So Cain and Abel were children # 1 
  and #2.   and when Cain killed 
  Able  --  who was he afraid of  --  I mean,  where 
  did those people come from?   I personally believe that Adam and Eve 
  were not the only people created.   But that is not a  popular 
  opinion.   If we go with the standard opin  --  Cain 
  was afraid of his own people
   
  jd
  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:20:07 ESTSubject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] New Subject-A&E
  

  
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 8:27:46 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
 But why  did they not have children until they were 
1) changed into mortal beings
 
I hate to tell you this B but the children generally come NINE 
Months AFTER the FACT!
  Blainerb:  Hmm, let's see, chapter three of Genesis ends 
  with the couple being driven out of the paradisiacal garden, then chapter 4 begins as follows:  
  
  "And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she 
  conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the 
  Lord."
  Sounds like the fun began AFTER leaving the garden  But 
  no timetable is given.
  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  Blainerb: Ha!  I agree, 
  it was a good commandment!   But why  did they not have 
  children until they were 1) changed into mortal beings, and 2) forced out 
  of the garden?   
   
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 7:46:18 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  I wasn't there Blaine.  If you 
don't like it, complain to God.  He ordered it, not me.  I do, 
however, think it was a great idea.  One of the easiest commands to 
keep. ;-)[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote: 

  
  Are you saying Adam and Eve were capable of having sex prior to 
  the Fall??    What sacrilege is this??   
  :>)
  Blainerb
   
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 6:48:37 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  I think you might have missed 
something, Blaine.  There is no reason to think that Judy would 
not have been here if there had been no fall.  The command to 
"Be fruitful and multiply" came prior to the fall.  See Genesis 
1:28.Terry[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  
  Blainerb:  You seem 
  to be forgetting how wonderful you as a daughter of God are, 
  Judy.  Without Adam and Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit, none of us 
  including your wonderful  self would  even  be 
  here--Adam and Eve would just be lounging around in their perfect 
  little paradise, never knowing good from evil and not even 
  caring.  But they would be eternally pure and goody-good 
  righteous...  Is that what you think the Lord really 
  wanted?  
   
  In a message dated 12/8/2005 3:41:54 A.M. Mountain Standard 
  Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
 
The trees in the garden DaveH are the two kinds of 
wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of 
good fruit" and this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat 
from.  The other tree - the one the serpent was promoting - 
is earthly, sensual, and demonic.  So take your pick.  
One leads to life and the other to death.
 
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 
  2:4)
   
  
   
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?

[Judy Taylor]

In OT days they did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling 
them, nor did they have
God's Law written on their hearts.  They lived in 
a theocracy and Moses had to 
gather the ppl, men, women, and children and read God's Law to them every
seven years.  jt
 
 
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:21:12 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
    
  How is this different from OT days   
  Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts   ???
   
  jd
   
    -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 
  11:11:07 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?
  

  
  
  
   
  How is this different from OT days   
  Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts   ???
   
  jd
   
   
   
  -Original Message-----From: Judy Taylor 
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:09:54 
  -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Is Judas going to Heaven?
  

  
  Why do we need scripture?  
  Yes the born again/spirit filled believer is given 
  the measure of faith - 
  Yes we now have God's Law written on our hearts 
  But let's look at our example, the Head of the 
  Church, the one we are to follow 
  During His earthly ministry Jesus walked in all this 
  too; in fact He walked in the fulness of the Spirit  
  When confronted by the adversary - What was His 
  defense?  It is written, It is written, It is written.
  No wonder the professing church is so weak.  You 
  would rather do it any way but learn from Him.
   
  If anyone speaks not according to 
  THIS WORD there is no light of day for him (Isa 
  8:20)
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


  
  
  You haven't read the book either !!!   This is what is so 
  great about you and Judy.   First --  
  you two disagree on a number of points  
  -- but, like you, I will ignore that for 
  time being.   In addition to the Inspired Version 
  doctrine, and the Inerrant 
  Understanding didache,  you two also believe that you can 
  condemn a book without having read it , not to mention that you know of 
  the personal judgments of God.  With those qualifications,  
  why do we even need the Bible?   We 
  certainly don't need preachers, pastors and teacher  --  I mean 
  the Holy Spirit will take care of all that -  right?  But ignore 
  these questions, as well.   
  Your peace of mind just might be at stake.    
   
  jd  
   -
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] What is it with this PERSONALIZE PROBLEM?

[Judy Taylor]

I think anyone who introduces a new thing should pave 
the way - which is to
start with themselves.  My response is not an 
excuse for anything - what am I excused from??
 
On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:52:49 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  
  
   
   yet another excuse to not answer questions.   You and 
  Kevin have this down to an art form !!
   
   
   
   
  From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  

  
  

  OK - You go first
   
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Are the PERSONS on TT suggesting that that 
which they say is not embodied truth? J
ust say so so that we may factor that in when 
reading you.
  
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy asks Lance

[Judy Taylor]

Are Kevin and Judy chasing them down to behead them or 
burn them at the stake taking away their
opportunity to repent, Lord willing?  The latter 
(as you call them) do not argue with orthodoxy as they
are part of it but neither do they sanctify the Lord in 
their hearts which is apparent by the fruit of their
lives.  People who make a stand for the truth are 
never heroes ... Look at what happened to THE
TRUTH HIMSELF
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:17:47 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  WHY AREN'T YOU JUST AS CONCERNED ABOUT THE 
  HERETIC HUNTERS AS YOU ARE ABOUT THE 
  OCCULTIC TYPE FANTASY FOLK?
   
  Lance answers Judy
   
  I am MUCH MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE HERETIC 
  HUNTERS as the latter are not heretics, Judy.
   
  Lance ansks himself: Who are the HERETIC 
  HUNTERS?
   
  Lance answers himself (schizophrenia anyone?) 
  Judy & Kevin are the HH on TT. This is why I tend you respond to you, 
  Judy. Kevin pretty much gets DELETE from me. He strikes me as both bright and, 
  informed but says nothing worth hovering over (IMO). 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance's Opinion - My problem???

[Judy Taylor]

Bottom line Lance is Jesus' criteria for knowing the 
Truth (Himself) is
When we abide in Him and HIS WORDS abide in us - is 
when we will know the Truth and
the truth will make us free .
 
Rather than when we know a little bit about Him and mix 
it with pagan folklore and
mystery religions ...
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:03:56 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Lance I don't make your opinions my problem so why is 
  what I write your problem?
  You won't ever have to answer to anyone for it.  
  I am responsible for what I speak/write.
  Why arn't you just as concerned about the heretic 
  hunters as you are about the occultic
  type fantasy folk?  jt
   
   
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:45:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
  
Judy: You made it YOUR problem when you stated 
that he did not know the Lord. 
(I don't think you even employed an IMO). Why 
not, at the very least, give us an "IMO'?

  From: Judy Taylor 
   
  That is not my problem (what you think); it is 
  entirely between you and the one you serve.
  My responsibility is to walk in good conscience 
  toward the Lord and others.
   
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:30:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Honestly Judy, just SOMETIMES!
 
Now, back to the matter at hand; IFF you 
are wrong concerning JRRT & CSL 
(according to some on TT) then, what are we 
to think concerning that which we read of you hereafter?

  From: Judy 
  Taylor 
   
  Are you up to being able to separate the holy 
  from the profane yourself Lance?
   
   
  On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
  writes:
  
Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that 
only those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be 
his mouthpieces. They (JRRTY & CSL) were not speaking for Him 
(God).
 
IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO 
SEPARATE THE HOLY FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you 
as you applied to them (JRRT & CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS 
MOUTHPIECE!
 
Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on 
this point?
  
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
  
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
  
  judyt    
  He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
  Commandments  
  is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance's Opinion - My problem???

[Judy Taylor]

Lance I don't make your opinions my problem so why is 
what I write your problem?
You won't ever have to answer to anyone for it.  I 
am responsible for what I speak/write.
Why arn't you just as concerned about the heretic 
hunters as you are about the occultic
type fantasy folk?  jt
 
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:45:18 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Judy: You made it YOUR problem when you stated 
  that he did not know the Lord. 
  (I don't think you even employed an IMO). Why 
  not, at the very least, give us an "IMO'?
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
That is not my problem (what you think); it is 
entirely between you and the one you serve.
My responsibility is to walk in good conscience 
toward the Lord and others.
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:30:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Honestly Judy, just SOMETIMES!
   
  Now, back to the matter at hand; IFF you are 
  wrong concerning JRRT & CSL 
  (according to some on TT) then, what are we 
  to think concerning that which we read of you hereafter?
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
Are you up to being able to separate the holy 
from the profane yourself Lance?
 
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that 
  only those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be 
  his mouthpieces. They (JRRTY & CSL) were not speaking for Him 
  (God).
   
  IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE 
  THE HOLY FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you as you 
  applied to them (JRRT & CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS 
  MOUTHPIECE!
   
  Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on 
  this point?
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] To Lance who is ever seeking the perfect person

[Judy Taylor]

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:42:37 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Even the one 'infallible interpreter' on TT has taken issue 
  with your Scriptural interpretation(s) on occasion(s). 
  Many have taken exception to your 
  non-personalist hermeneutic. 
   
  What in the world is this? If we are to communicate 
  Lance, you will have to use plain-speak
   
  Many take exception to your sacred/secular dichotomy. 
   
  And what is this?  Separating the holy from the 
  profane? Being unwilling to call the world sacred in the face
  of your belief that it was all assumed in 
  Christ?
   
  Many take exception over your dualism/gnosticism. 
   
  I don't have a "gnosticism" What I do have is a 
  "walking after the Spirit" and not fulfilling the lusts of the 
  flesh
  Faulty exegesis here Lance.
   
  Many take exception to your  unthinking criticisms of persons whom God holds dear. 
  
  (Calvin, Barth, Lewis, Tolkien & BOB DYLAN) (Maybe just 
  you and me on this one, Gary)
   
  God holds the whole unbelieving world "dear" for that 
  matter (John 3:16) - but when they judge themselves unworthy of eternal 
  life they exclude themselves from his 
  Promises.  The ones who make it are those who do His will and 
  who
  speak as the "oracles of God"
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: December 08, 2005 07:23
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Lance Needs to 
Check Archives

Lance, it may be wise for you to check the 
archives before making these wild accusations.
It's not me doing the painting.  It is 
you who have me in a corner of your mind labelled 
"fundamentalist"
And you ascribe to me all of the beliefs in your 
"fundamentalist" card file.  
As per the issue of who goes to hell I have 
always said the same thing which is "that is not my call" 
But you have yet to hear me - do I need a soapbox 
and bullhorn?  Oh well!!  Nothing new under the sun is 
there
Far be it for me to try and tell you anything ... 
even when it comes to what I personally believe.
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:11:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:
WATCH BELOW AS JUDY ASSISTS LANCE IN THE ART OF INTERPRETATION

  OK Judy! Having painted yourself in a corner, just make 
  yourself comfortable. I'll watch your posts in future for use of the word 
  'HELL'.  
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:44:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Judy said'For the record, I don't believe that C. S. 
  Lewis actually knew the Lord'
   
  Lance, having made an incorrect leap in logic,due to 
  a  belief that Judy believed that persons who die while not 
  knowing the Lord (Lewis is dead), go to hell, thought she'd so 
  consigned him. I suspect that the operative word herein is 
  'consigned'. Let me then remove this word and, ask Judy the following 
  questions:   
   
  1. Do you stand by your assessment that csl did not 
  'know' (define please) the Lord?
   
  
  Yes I do and if you are scandalized by CSL 
  Lance, I would say the same about Augustine, Athanasius and Calvin who 
  called himself an "Augustinian theologian"  ... They were not 
  following the example Christ left for us either by
  hunting down and killing heretics. Do 
  you think the "culture of their day" will excuse them?  I can't 
  imagine having to stand in front of the Lord in that day and say "But 
  Lord, I hunted down and killed all of these 
  heretics in your name" (as per Matt 7:21) Tell me, is this doing the 
  will of the Father?  Is this following 
  Jesus' example?  Will He say "Well done thou good and faithful 
  servant?"
   
  2. Should you be correct then, WHERE IS CSL? (employ 
  some biblical interpretation, please)
   
  CSL has gone to spend eternity with the one 
  he served and the Lord Himself will make that determination by either 
  accepting or rejecting him on that 
  day. 
   
  thanks,  Lance
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
     

Re: [TruthTalk] What is it with this PERSONALIZE PROBLEM?

[Judy Taylor]

OK - You go first
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:32:45 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Are the PERSONS on TT suggesting that that which 
  they say is not embodied truth? J
  ust say so so that we may factor that in when 
  reading you.
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] ATTENTION MODERATOR(s) We do have two (2) of them don't we?

[Judy Taylor]

That is not my problem (what you think); it is entirely 
between you and the one you serve.
My responsibility is to walk in good conscience toward 
the Lord and others.
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:30:48 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Honestly Judy, just SOMETIMES!
   
  Now, back to the matter at hand; IFF you are 
  wrong concerning JRRT & CSL (according to some on TT) then, what are we to 
  think concerning that which we read of you hereafter?
  
    From: Judy Taylor 
 
Are you up to being able to separate the holy from 
the profane yourself Lance?
 
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that only 
  those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be his 
  mouthpieces. They (JRRTY & CSL) were not speaking for Him 
  (God).
   
  IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE THE 
  HOLY FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you as you applied to 
  them (JRRT & CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS MOUTHPIECE!
   
  Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on this 
  point?
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] ATTENTION MODERATOR(s) We do have two (2) of them don't we?

[Judy Taylor]

Are you up to being able to separate the holy from the 
profane yourself Lance?
 
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:17:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Quoting Judy Taylor: He (God) says that only 
  those who know how to separate the holy from the profane can be his 
  mouthpieces. They (JRRTY & CSL) were not speaking for Him 
  (God).
   
  IMO JUDY YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEPARATE THE HOLY 
  FROM THE PROFANE! Applying the same logic to you as you applied to them (JRRT 
  & CSL) THEN YOU CANNOT BE HIS MOUTHPIECE!
   
  Do you agree Judy, IFF I'm correct on this 
  point?
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Lance Needs to Check Archives

[Judy Taylor]

Lance, it may be wise for you to check the 
archives before making these wild accusations.
It's not me doing the painting.  It is 
you who have me in a corner of your mind labelled 
"fundamentalist"
And you ascribe to me all of the beliefs in your 
"fundamentalist" card file.  
As per the issue of who goes to hell I have always 
said the same thing which is "that is not my call" 
But you have yet to hear me - do I need a soapbox and 
bullhorn?  Oh well!!  Nothing new under the sun is 
there
Far be it for me to try and tell you anything ... even 
when it comes to what I personally believe.
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:11:05 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
WATCH BELOW AS JUDY ASSISTS LANCE IN THE ART OF INTERPRETATION

  OK Judy! Having painted yourself in a corner, 
  just make yourself comfortable. I'll watch your posts in future for use of the 
  word 'HELL'.  
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:44:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Judy said'For the record, I don't believe that C. S. 
  Lewis actually knew the Lord'
   
  Lance, having made an incorrect leap in logic,due to a 
   belief that Judy believed that persons who die while not knowing the 
  Lord (Lewis is dead), go to hell, thought she'd so consigned him. I 
  suspect that the operative word herein is 'consigned'. Let me then remove 
  this word and, ask Judy the following questions:   
   
  1. Do you stand by your assessment that csl did not 
  'know' (define please) the Lord?
   
  
  Yes I do and if you are scandalized by CSL Lance, 
  I would say the same about Augustine, Athanasius and Calvin who called 
  himself an "Augustinian theologian"  ... They were not following the 
  example Christ left for us either by
  hunting down and killing heretics. Do you 
  think the "culture of their day" will excuse them?  I can't imagine 
  having to stand in front of the Lord in that day and say "But Lord, 
  I hunted down and killed all of these heretics 
  in your name" (as per Matt 7:21) Tell me, is this doing the will 
  of the Father?  Is this following Jesus' 
  example?  Will He say "Well done thou good and faithful 
  servant?"
   
  2. Should you be correct then, WHERE IS CSL? (employ 
  some biblical interpretation, please)
   
  CSL has gone to spend eternity with the one he 
  served and the Lord Himself will make that determination by either 
  accepting or rejecting him on that 
  day. 
   
  thanks,  Lance
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] WATCH BELOW AS JUDY ASSISTS LANCE IN THE ART OF INTERPRETATION

[Judy Taylor]

 
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:44:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Judy said'For the record, I don't believe that C. S. Lewis 
  actually knew the Lord'
   
  Lance, having made an incorrect leap in logic,due to a 
   belief that Judy believed that persons who die while not knowing the 
  Lord (Lewis is dead), go to hell, thought she'd so consigned him. I suspect 
  that the operative word herein is 'consigned'. Let me then remove this word 
  and, ask Judy the following questions:   
   
  1. Do you stand by your assessment that csl did not 'know' 
  (define please) the Lord?
   
  
  Yes I do and if you are scandalized by CSL Lance, I 
  would say the same about Augustine, Athanasius and Calvin who called himself 
  an "Augustinian theologian"  ... They were not following the example 
  Christ left for us either by
  hunting down and killing heretics. Do you think 
  the "culture of their day" will excuse them?  I can't imagine having to 
  stand in front of the Lord in that day and say "But Lord, I hunted down and killed all of these heretics in your name" (as 
  per Matt 7:21) Tell me, is this doing the will of 
  the Father?  Is this following Jesus' example?  Will He say "Well 
  done thou good and faithful servant?"
   
  2. Should you be correct then, WHERE IS CSL? (employ some 
  biblical interpretation, please)
   
  CSL has gone to spend eternity with the one he served 
  and the Lord Himself will make that determination by either accepting or 
  rejecting him on that day. 
   
  thanks,  Lance
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

[Judy Taylor]

How would you know how DavidM loves his wife 
Lance?  Isn't this putting your opinion out there a bit?
I don't think he has shared his whole mind on this 
matter exhaustively - do you?  Also his priorities are
definitely not mainstream.  So why is he the 
subject here?
 
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:23:56 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  My rather ill-formed point Judy, had more to do 
  with David's errant 'take' and the male/female thingy. He and, others who 
  espouse such errant thinking/teaching are somewhat accountable for the very 
  issues they rail against.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
 
Your fault if you don't know her mother's name 
Lance. David has mentioned it on TT before. I know it.
Also why would they be talking about her when they 
are so ridiculed and maligned?  I don't notice you saying
a whole lot about your wife on this list either and 
I certainly would not know her name.
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:47:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  Perhaps when her mind and the MIND OF GOD are 
  more in sinc; having built upon this foundation layed for her by her mom 
  (someone almost never mentioned by either her or her dad..strangely) she 
  will then be spoken to more frequently as Christine and, not David's 
  daughter. (I'd mention you mom's name but, don't know it). 
   
  fn:Christine: Are you at the University of 
  Florida? Do you know of Andrea Sterk? (professor) 
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
 
I sure don't wonder at this 
Christine,
Whenever you post JD makes allusions to your 
age, like he is the old man full of wisdom and you are
just the novice who still has to learn; do you 
sometimes feel like you are being diss'd?
 
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:11:05 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  JD, I feel put down by you quite a bit. Not only do 
  you pooh-pooh my thoughts, but you turn the issue into a personal 
  analysis time and time again. No ones posts make me feel worse than 
  yours.I would not have said anything but... you asked. 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


ALL of my posts are designed to help others  --  so 
my percentage would be,  ahh,  well, zero!!   Would that 
be your understanding as 
well?  jd  From: Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com>



Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience?
 
And for a even more interesting note
In your eyes what is your 
Percentage?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  Nonsense  -  but as a 20 something,   I 
  understand you point of view.   Putting poeple down is the subject matter of 
  perhaps 95% of deegan's 
  postings.   Go refigure. 
   
  jd  -Original 
  Message-From: Christine Miller <verilysaid@yahoo.com>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 
  -0800 (PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people down
  

  
  Kevin's 
  criticisms are godly. You may disagree with them, I may choose to 
  make a more moderate approach to them, but the truth is, we must learn to be wary to 
  falsehoods and lies. I am starting to see that more and 
  more Christians do not take things as seriously as they should. 
  The feminism movement is an example of this. It may not have 
  seemed to obvious to the church in the 1960s what this movement 
  would produce, and I'm sure it didn't seem like such a powerful 
  movement at first, so they chose not to take a stand. But so much 
  of society's moral decay has stemmed from that movement: 
  immodesty, the erroding of the 
  family unit, the confusion of gender roles, the rise of moral 
  relativism and humanism, the rise of sexual promescuity, etc. Kevin's "putting people down" as you say is not act 
  of bitterness or pride, but out of passion for the Truth. This 
  passionate support/disdain of Kevin's is so crucial, especially in the last days. 
  We must also be passionate in our support or rejection of 
  the different issues.Mat. 11:12And from the days of 
  John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent 
  take it by force.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  

Re: [TruthTalk] Judy says:'FOR THE RECORD I DON't believe csl actually knew the Lord

[Judy Taylor]

Yes Lance, I do appreciate your concern
But I have yet to consign the first person to hell - 
it's all in your too vivid imagination.
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:19:44 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Your DISCERNMENT ON THIS MATTER (who knows, maybe 
  a few other matters also) is wide of the mark. I've occasionally drawn a 
  comparison between yourself and David Miller on this discernment thingy, Judy. 
  Do take care won't you, Judy, in consigning persons to 
Hell? 
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

[Judy Taylor]

Your fault if you don't know her mother's name Lance. David has mentioned 
it on TT before. I know it.
Also why would they be talking about her when they are so ridiculed and 
maligned?  I don't notice you saying
a whole lot about your wife on this list either and I certainly would not 
know her name.
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:47:11 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Perhaps when her mind and the MIND OF GOD are 
  more in sinc; having built upon this foundation layed for her by her mom 
  (someone almost never mentioned by either her or her dad..strangely) she will 
  then be spoken to more frequently as Christine and, not David's daughter. (I'd 
  mention you mom's name but, don't know it). 
   
  fn:Christine: Are you at the University of 
  Florida? Do you know of Andrea Sterk? (professor) 
  
    - Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: December 08, 2005 05:22
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people 
down

I sure don't wonder at this Christine,
Whenever you post JD makes allusions to your age, 
like he is the old man full of wisdom and you are
just the novice who still has to learn; do you 
sometimes feel like you are being diss'd?
 
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:11:05 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
writes:

  JD, I feel put down by you quite a bit. Not only do you 
  pooh-pooh my thoughts, but you turn the issue into a personal analysis 
  time and time again. No ones posts make me feel worse than yours.I 
  would not have said anything but... you asked. 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  


ALL of my posts are designed to help others  --  so my 
percentage would be,  ahh,  well, zero!!   Would that be 
your understanding as well?  
jd  From: 
Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com>



Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience?
 
And for a even more interesting note
In your eyes what is your 
Percentage?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  Nonsense  -  but as a 20 something,   I 
  understand you point of view.   Putting poeple down is the subject matter of 
  perhaps 95% of deegan's 
  postings.   Go refigure. 
  
   
  jd  -Original 
  Message-From: Christine Miller <verilysaid@yahoo.com>To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 -0800 
  (PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people down
  

  
  Kevin's 
  criticisms are godly. You may disagree with them, I may choose to make 
  a more moderate approach to them, but the truth is, we must learn to be wary to falsehoods 
  and lies. I am starting to see that more and more Christians 
  do not take things as seriously as they should. The feminism movement 
  is an example of this. It may not have seemed to obvious to the church 
  in the 1960s what this movement would produce, and I'm sure it didn't 
  seem like such a powerful movement at first, so they chose not to take 
  a stand. But so much of society's moral decay has stemmed from that 
  movement: immodesty, the erroding 
  of the family unit, the confusion of gender roles, the rise of moral 
  relativism and humanism, the rise of sexual promescuity, etc. Kevin's "putting people down" as you say is not act of 
  bitterness or pride, but out of passion for the Truth. This passionate 
  support/disdain of Kevin's is so 
  crucial, especially in the last days. We must also be 
  passionate in our support or rejection of the different 
  issues.Mat. 11:12And from the days of John the Baptist 
  until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by 
  force.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  

Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting 
people down.   You have allies on this forum but no real 
brethren  (except -  possibly, Dean).   I 
suspect that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense.   

The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to 
you  --  not to Lance.   You have not 
spoken honestly about Barth.   I suspect this is a habit 
of yours  --  speaking dishonestly of other's 
beliefs.   C.S.L included.   
 
 
jd
 
-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan <openairmission@yahoo.com>To

Re: [TruthTalk] On employing the words OF GOD without the WORD OF GOD

[Judy Taylor]

Lance why don't you trying employing the "words of God" 
with the WORD OF GOD
sometime and give us an example of the "real thing" IYO 
of course.  jt
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:41:25 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  IFF one (mis)cites Scripture with the intention 
  of speaking for God, what is it that one has done?
   
  Perhaps one who only/always cites/interprets 
  without error can enlighten us?
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

Re: [TruthTalk] Why is it that those people who profess participation, by adoption through Christ in God's family...

[Judy Taylor]

Lance my goodness, this looks more like a morning rant 
than morning musings ... sigh!
 
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:30:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  Forever rail against the graciousness of this selfsame 
  God?
   
  Who is railing?  Taking His Own Words seriously 
  is hardly railing against anything, in fact it is honoring Him in his love and 
  graciousness because this is what He requires of us.
   
  Judy & Kevin wish to inform us what God can't do through 
  Lewis & Tolkien (in print or on film). Y'all ought to read Linda Shield's 
  observations. Amen Linda!
   
  I read Linda's observations and there was a time when 
  I may have agreed with her - However, I now believe that a heart truly 
  surrendered to Christ would have layed aside the 
  classical education and mythology rather than try to mix it like oil and 
  water.  Paul had a pretty good education 
  himself and he counted it as dung compared to the knowledge of Christ. For the 
  record I don't believe CSL actually knew the Lord 
  though he may have been up on doctrinal orthodoxy and he made a lot of money 
  with his writing.  His personal choices tell the rest of the 
  story.
   
  David, Christine, Judy and Linda rail against feminism, 
  absolving the believing community of its part in marginalizing women in the 
  home, church and society at large (most are rather duplicitous on the society 
  thingy).
   
  I have not railed against anything Lance and the 
  "believing community" I am around encourages women to stay at home and nurture 
  their children. I happen to believe that God made men and women to be 
  different and that the women are the nurturers. In a home where there is the 
  love of Christ (beginning with the husband/father) there is 
  no reason for women to be out there swimming with the 
  sharks and wearing themselves out to be accepted.
   
  MYOPIA-Ask Linda for a definition. 
   
  Judy employed the word 'sad' three times in a post 
  yesterday. Well TTers here is a piece of news for y'all GOD READS TT!! 
  When we, either through ignorance or intentionality, misrepresent HIM then, HE 
  IS SAD!  There's a whole lot of misrepresentin' goin' on here children! 
  
   
  No Lance.  I have not misrepresented the God I 
  serve at all; He may not meet your standards but He is the one 
  I must answer to.  You have your own thing going 
  on that makes no sense at all to me.
   
  'Drive by posts'..was that a Smithson original? Shootin' 
  brothers and sisters, even when exhibiting mega stupidity, ain't the best way 
  to go (ceptin' now and then, of course) 
   
   
    
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

DaveH writes: 
   FWIW.While it may be noble to want to keep one's children 
pure and innocent, a loving parent who overly protects their children 
will end up with kids acutely susceptible to the ills of the world.  
 
Not necessarily; being over protective through fear is 
one thing.  Teaching children spiritual discernment in the fear of God is 
another because then the parent has His power and watchful eye on their 
side.
 
I see it similar to communicable illnesses.  You could raise your kid 
in a bubble and he would live a germ/virus free life.  But once he enters 
the real world, he would be extremely vulnerable to catching a slew of nasty 
bugs.  Isn't it much better to allow your kid be exposed to such hazards so 
that he can become inoculated against the ravages in the strength of his youth 
than allow such illnesses to eventually attack later in life when one is perhaps 
more vulnerable? 
 
This is what the wisdom of the world teaches.  But 
we are fearfully and wonderfully made and God has given us an immune system 
which should be able to throw off anything that comes our way when not 
compromised by sin.
 
 I see that somewhat as an analogy to the tree knowledge of good and 
evil.  I hope that makes a little sense, Terry.  (Though I'm sure some 
TTers will take exception.)  FTRI don't think that is the sole reason 
for the tree though.
 
The trees in the garden DaveH are the two kinds of 
wisdom.  The tree of life is "pure, peaceable, and full of good fruit" and 
this is the tree God wanted His creation to eat from.  The other tree - the 
one the serpent was promoting - is earthly, sensual, and demonic.  So take 
your pick.  One leads to life and the other to death.
 
judyt    
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His 
Commandments  
is a liar (1 John 2:4)

truthtalk@mail.innglory.org

[Judy Taylor]

When all of us stand before God at the great white 
throne judgment... we have to know where we failed.  Noone 
will have grounds to accuse Him of 
being unloving or unjust because we will have condemned ourselves and 

we will know this without anyone having to tell us...  So the test is for us 
rather than for Him.  judyt
 
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:36:28 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  To test them 
  DaveHDAVEH:  ???   Do you not think God 
  knew their faith, Judy?  Why do you think God would need to test them, 
  since he created themknowing they would transgress?Judy Taylor 
  wrote: 
  
To test them DaveH.  Faith is 
ALWAYS tested.
 
On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 07:24:10 -0800 Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  He did not plan for them to fall.DAVEH:  If that 
  is so, then why do you think he placed the tree of knowledge of good and 
  evil in the Garden of Eden, Terry?    Rather than 
  go to all the trouble of preparing a remedy for the fall, would it have 
  not been immensely easier to simply not have put the tree of knowledge of 
  good and evil in the garden?  IOWthere must have been a reason 
  for God to put the tree there.   Seems like it would be 
  important to understand for what the purpose the Lord placed that tree 
  there.   Why do you think, Terry?Terry Clifton wrote: 
  
  This 
seems so obvious that it should be hard to miss, but if you have been 
taught otherwise all your life, I suspect it would be hard to 
accept.God is omnicient,  He knew they would sin.  He 
did not plan for them to fall.  He planned a remedy for the 
fall.  Big difference.As to their descendents missing the mark, 
who knows?  All we can do is speculate, and speculation often leads 
to 
error.=Dave 
Hansen wrote: 
He wanted Adam and Eve to ruin it for 
  everyone?if they had not they would 
  have saved themselves and the rest of 
  humanity all of the heartache, suffering, 
  and misery that has been the human lot since 
  then.DAVEH:   Thank you two for 
  your comments, both of which focus in one facet of the A&E 
  situation of which I am most keen.   One of my earliest 
  religious memories was a comment a neighborhood kid made to me in 
  which he said A&E screwed it up for us by taking the forbidden 
  fruit.  He explained that had they not transgressed, we would all 
  live forever without experiencing death.  Even though the kid was 
  less than religious later on in life, his comment always struck me as 
  being intriguing, and now you folks have sparked that fire 
  again.    I must be missing something about 
  your (forgive mebut let me say, Protestant) belief about the 
  fall.  If A&E had not transgressed, do you think none of 
  their descendants would have transgressed?  In my experience, the 
  best way to get a kid to do something, is to forbid him from doing 
  it!  Don't you think that at some point---probably much sooner 
  than later---one of A&E's children would have fallen?  Or do 
  you believe that of the billions who descended from A&E, none 
  would ever have transgressed?  Just what are the chances of that 
  happening.zilch?!?!?!    Sowhy do most 
  Christians blame A&E for the misery in the world, when it was 
  inevitable.  From my perspectivenot only was it expected, but 
  it was planned.   And...evidently you believe that as 
  well, since you believe Jesus was foreordained to be our Savior from 
  before the world was created.that it was planned?  (Please 
  let me know if you do not believe such.)  Yet you apparently 
  don't believe that God wanted it to happen that way.  Do you see 
  why your perspective perplexes me?  It doesn't seem 
  logical.  Like I saidperhaps I'm missing something about the 
  way you understand it.
  Judy wrote:I think they did nto have 
  to transgress and if they had not they would have saved themselves 
  and the rest of
  humanity all of the heartache, suffering, 
  and misery that has been the human lot since then.  Why would 
  the Lord
  want that for 
  them/us?Terry Clifton wrote: 
  God 
hates sin, Dave, more than I hate liver. I will never eat liver, no 
matter how many onions you use to cover it, no matter how many times 
I am given that option.  God will give you the option, but it 
is not His desire. I think that must be one of 

Re: [TruthTalk] Putting people down

[Judy Taylor]

I sure don't wonder at this Christine,
Whenever you post JD makes allusions to your age, like 
he is the old man full of wisdom and you are
just the novice who still has to learn; do you 
sometimes feel like you are being diss'd?
 
On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:11:05 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

  JD, I feel put down by you quite a bit. Not only do you 
  pooh-pooh my thoughts, but you turn the issue into a personal analysis time 
  and time again. No ones posts make me feel worse than yours.I would 
  not have said anything but... you asked. 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  


ALL of my posts are designed to help others  --  so my 
percentage would be,  ahh,  well, zero!!   Would that be your 
understanding as well?  jd  From: Kevin Deegan 



Maybe you have a Guilty Conscience?
 
And for a even more interesting note
In your eyes what is your 
Percentage?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  
  
  Nonsense  -  but as a 20 something,   I 
  understand you point of view.   Putting poeple down is the subject matter of perhaps 95% of deegan's postings.   Go refigure. 
   
  jd  -Original Message-From: 
  Christine Miller To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 05:53:51 -0800 
  (PST)Subject: [TruthTalk] Putting people down
  

  
  Kevin's criticisms 
  are godly. You may disagree with them, I may choose to make a more 
  moderate approach to them, but the truth is, we must learn to be wary to falsehoods and 
  lies. I am starting to see that more and more Christians do not 
  take things as seriously as they should. The feminism movement is an 
  example of this. It may not have seemed to obvious to the church in the 
  1960s what this movement would produce, and I'm sure it didn't seem like 
  such a powerful movement at first, so they chose not to take a stand. But 
  so much of society's moral decay has stemmed from that movement: 
  immodesty, the erroding of the family 
  unit, the confusion of gender roles, the rise of moral relativism and 
  humanism, the rise of sexual promescuity, etc. Kevin's "putting people down" as you say is not act of 
  bitterness or pride, but out of passion for the Truth. This passionate 
  support/disdain of Kevin's is so 
  crucial, especially in the last days. We must also be passionate 
  in our support or rejection of the different issues.Mat. 
  11:12And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of 
  heaven suffereth violence, and the 
  violent take it by force.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

  

Your whole life's "ministry" is pretty much about putting people 
down.   You have allies on this forum but no real 
brethren  (except -  possibly, Dean).   I suspect 
that Lance "likes him" because he makes sense.   
The "Cathoilic" thingy is important only to 
you  --  not to Lance.   You have not spoken 
honestly about Barth.   I suspect this is a habit of 
yours  --  speaking dishonestly of other's 
beliefs.   C.S.L included.   
 
 
jd
 
-Original Message-From: Kevin Deegan To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 18:02:00 -0800 
(PST)Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Ebert & Roeper give the 'Lion, 
the witch and the wardrobe' two thumbs up




Lance likes him because he is so Catholic
The mormons love him because he believed as they do in 
BECOMING a 'god'
 
"Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I 
could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the 
fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about 
child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up 
a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody 
them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. 
Everything began with images; a faun carrying an 
umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't 
even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its 
own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36).
 
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/lewis/general.htm
Lewis termed himself "very Catholic" -- his 
prayers for the dead, belief in 
purgatory, and rejection of the literal 
resurrection of the body are serious deviations from Biblical 
Christianity (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, p. 234); he even went to a 
priest for regular confession (p. 198), and received 
the sacrament of extreme unction on 7/16/63 (p. 301).