subject:"RE\: \[TruthTalk\] Traditional Christian theology \-\- does sham mean anything"

In a message dated 1/18/2005 4:06:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

To call that ad hominem is straining at gnats IMO. She did not call him any ugly names. She is criticizing a theology not a person. Izzy (Since you asked.)



So, if I said that her theology was thoughtless, without practical consequence and stupid, that would not be ad hominem? Tha leaves open a whole host of negatives. Awesome. This squeal without the pig thingy may work after all -- that is if you don't give a care about the person you criticize. 

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-19 Thread Judy Taylor






On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:08:19 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about just discussing the validity of the 
teaching in question? 
You can't do that without insulting the 
person or the teaching itself? 

jt: Why not? We should be able 
to be Berean here which is to compare different teachings alongside the Word of 
God
How does one insult 
a teaching it is either true or false and if false it needs to be 
brought to the light. If a person holding on
to it as truth is insulted then they 
are holding on too tightly and it is a chance to let go. Onlytruth 
will stand in that day.

I count only four contributors on this forum 
who apprently can't comply. 4 out of 14 contributors -- 
obviously it can be done.And you don't overlook anything considered 
negative. Nothing. John 

jt: Comply with what John? Is 
there some kind of rule book I don't know about? jt


  In a message dated 1/18/2005 5:10:53 PM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 
  It is my opinion - that this 
  moderation thing is getting too oppressive. When it becomes impossible 
  to dialogue with another person withoutconstant nit picking about ad 
  hominems then communicating becomes more of a burden than a joy.. Is it 
  really necessary? There was no question about ad hominem when G accused 
  me of writing on an 8th grade level. which is both personal and unflattering 
  along with the ongoing cult and myth accusations...Is my referring to Lance's 
  incarnation doctrine one time worse than all that? Hey! I can overlook 
  some things - in fact I would rather overlook things myself than live with 
  this constant scrutiny. Could we save it for crisis 
  situations?

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/19/2005 6:41:04 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Why not? We should be able to be Berean here which is to compare different teachings alongside the Word of God
 How does one insult a teaching it is either true or false and if false it needs to be brought to the light. If a person holding on
 to it as truth is insulted then they are holding on too tightly and it is a chance to let go. Only truth will stand in that day.
 
I count only four contributors on this forum who apprently can't comply. 4 out of 14 contributors -- obviously it can be done.
And you don't overlook anything considered negative. Nothing. John 
 
jt: Comply with what John? Is there some kind of rule book I don't know about? jt
 


So, no problem with calling your teachings stupid? Did you somehow overlook the purpose of my post. 

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-19 Thread Judy Taylor






On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:20:12 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I don't have any "teachings" that are my 
  own John; my goal is toagree with the "Teacher" so I 
  can
  receive and walk in His 
  doctrine with those who are likeminded. So if you call that "stupid" then that 
  is 
  between you and the Lord. I wouldn't take it as a 
  personal insult but maybe grieved in my spirit over
  such ignorance andthis would not be conducive to any kind 
  of fellowship between us. jt
  
  On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:05:58 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  So, no problem with calling your teachings 
  stupid? Did you somehow overlook the purpose of my post. 
  John 
  
  In a message dated 1/19/2005 6:41:04 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:Why 
  not? We should be able to be Berean here which is to compare different 
  teachings alongside the Word of GodHow does one insult a 
  teaching it is either true or false and if false it needs to be brought to the 
  light. If a person holding onto it as truth is insulted then they are holding on too tightly 
  and it is a chance to let go. Only truth will stand in that 
  day. I count 
  only four contributors on this forum who apprently can't comply. 4 out 
  of 14 contributors -- obviously it can be done.And you 
  don't overlook anything considered negative. Nothing. 
  John jt: Comply 
  with what John? Is there some kind of rule book I don't know 
  about? jt

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-19 Thread ShieldsFamily











In a message dated 1/18/2005 4:06:55 PM Pacific Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:




To call that ad hominem
is straining at gnats IMO. She did not call him any ugly names. She
is criticizing a theology not a person. Izzy (Since you asked.)



So, if I said that her theology was thoughtless, without practical consequence
and stupid, that would not be ad hominem? Tha leaves open a whole
host of negatives. Awesome. This squeal without the pig
thingy may work after all -- that is if you don't give
a care about the person you criticize.
John



You can carry anything to the extreme,
JD. (Especially you!) J Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




myth (they're all your 
ownacc toyour own falsifications)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:20:12 -0500 Judy 
Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I don't have any "teachings" of my own 
  
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




that's the seventh 
spirituallife of the cat (seven is the perfect 
number)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:00:36 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ||
  [the]squeal without the pig thingy may work after 
  all -- that is if you don't give a care about the 
  person you criticize.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




a math wiz, 
eh:)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:08:19 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ||
  ..I count only four contributors on this forum who 
  apprently can't comply. 4 out of 14 contributors..
  ||

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/19/2005 4:57:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



a math wiz, eh:)
 
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:08:19 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
||
 .. I count only four contributors on this forum who apprently can't comply. 4 out of 14 contributors..



Alright!! I've always wanted to be one and now, apparently, I are. Didn't know it was this easy. 

By the way, Gman -- you can myth me anytime. I can take it. Room for growth, I always say or in other words, I could be wrong, but probably not. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




a myth wiz, too, 
eh?

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:09:34 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  In a message dated 1/19/2005 4:57:53 PM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  a math wiz, eh:) On Wed, 19 
Jan 2005 09:08:19 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
||.. I count only four contributors on this forum who 
  apprently can't comply. 4 out of 14 
  contributors..Alright!! 
  I've always wanted to be one and now, apparently, I are. Didn't 
  know it was this easy. By the way, Gman 
  -- you can myth me anytime. I can take 
  it. Room for growth, I always say or in other words, I 
  could be wrong, but probably not. JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/19/2005 6:15:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

a myth wiz, too, eh?


oh, you betcha !! I do much better with criticism from friends than enemies.
J

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/19/2005 8:45:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

don't have any "teachings" that are my own John; my goal is to agree with the "Teacher" so I can
 receive and walk in His doctrine with those who are likeminded. So if you call that "stupid" then that is 
between you and the Lord. I wouldn't take it as a personal insult but may be grieved in my spirit over
 such ignorance and this would not be conducive to any kind of fellowship between us. jt
 


What in the hell are you talking about? Don't make up stuff and then trash talk your own fantasy That is stupid. Absolutely nothing in the above has anything to do with what I wrote. I was asking a question about ad hominem -- but, of course, since you don't bother to actually read my post, I can see how you get confused. In fact, Judy -- just ignore my posts altoghether. I will go and do likewise.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-19 Thread Judy Taylor




jt: No John, apparently I don't have a clue what you 
were talking about but no point in being the 
voice
of the accuser and getting your knickers in a knot. 

Why not explain the interaction below to me in a 
patient and lucid manner as a pastor, bishop, beloved 

etc. or even a normal vanilla Christian might do 
because you are beginning to sound like 'G' 
with all
this 'fantasy' talk. jt


On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:22:33 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What in the hell are you talking 
about? Don't make up stuff and then trash talk 
your own fantasy That is stupid.
Absolutely nothing in the above has anything 
to do with what I wrote. I was asking a question about ad 
hominem -- 
but, of course, since you don't 
bother to actually read my post, I can see how you get 
confused. In fact, Judy -- 
just ignore my posts altoghether. I 
will go and do likewise.
_

  In a message dated 1/19/2005 8:45:32 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  I don't have 
  any "teachings" of my own John; my goal is toagree with the "Teacher" 
  and receive
  
  and walk in His doctrine. If you call that "stupid" 
  then that is between you and the Lord. I would try
  not to take it to heart but it would not be conducive 
  to any kind of fellowship because you would
  have broken the royal law.
  
  On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:05:58 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  So, no problem with 
  calling your teachings stupid? Did you somehow overlook the purpose of my post. John 
  
  
  In a message dated 1/19/2005 6:41:04 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Why not? We should be able 
  to be Berean here which is to compare different teachings alongside the Word 
  of GodHow does one insult 
  a teaching it is either true or false and if false it needs to be brought 
  to the light. If a person holding onto it as truth is insulted then 
  they are holding on too tightly and it is a chance to let go. Only truth 
  will stand in that day. I count only four contributors on 
  this forum who apprently can't comply. 4 out 
  of 14 contributors -- obviously it can be done.And you 
  don't overlook anything considered negative. Nothing. 
  John jt: Comply 
  with what John? Is there some kind of rule book I don't know 
  about? jt

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




John, some people are able to separate themselves. From 
what I understand David to sayhe still gets around in a flesh body and he 

has the same opportunity to sin every day as the rest 
of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting him? Is this 
some kind 
of public humiliation?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his postings 
  have been very clear on the subject to everyone except Judy. Here is 
  the question and we can start the discussion from this:David 
  Miller,. do you have sin in your life to any 
  degree? Consider sins of omission (knowing to do right but 
  not taking the time or energy to do it); event sins (such as murder, 
  angry words, adultery  this is the "biblical sin" usually referenced 
  in the Message); sins of the character (pride, selfishness, 
  conceit, envy, laziness, anger, deceitfullness [different from a deceitful 
  act], arrogance and the like). A simply one word answer will be sufficient at this 
  stage. Let's not speak of temptation, shall 
  we. Temptation is not sin, as we all 
  know. Such is a good topic for future discussion, but 
  not now. my answer is "yes." My answer for all on 
  this forum is "yes." What about you, David? Yes 
  nor no. Jack D SmithsonThe Webbmeister

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




Jt says: 'from what I understand David to say' As 
everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this is not the 
difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to qualify by uttering 'from 
what I understand' thus indicating that you just might be incorrect. I'd posit a 
couple of thoughts on this and, related matters:

1. Implicit in every utterance is some version 
of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from what I understand of the text before 
me'

2. All speaking of anything is partial and 
provisional.

3. David himself may not know how to answer John's 
question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did have this discussion some 
time ago with, as I recall, the same outcome.

4. David just might consider his approximation of 
an answer the 'way of humility'.

5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, he 
consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed. I am, by inference, 
saying the same thing of every believer/non-believer in the cosmos.

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Judy 
  Taylor 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 18, 2005 06:27
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
  Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
  
  John, some people are able to separate themselves. 
  From what I understand David to sayhe still gets around in a flesh body 
  and he 
  has the same opportunity to sin every day as the rest 
  of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting him? Is 
  this some kind 
  of public humiliation?
  
  On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his postings 
have been very clear on the subject to everyone except Judy. Here 
is the question and we can start the discussion from this:David 
Miller,. do you have sin in your life to any 
degree? Consider sins of omission (knowing to do right 
but not taking the time or energy to do it); event sins (such as 
murder, angry words, adultery  this is the "biblical sin" usually 
referenced in the Message); sins of the character (pride, 
selfishness, conceit, envy, laziness, anger, deceitfullness [different from 
a deceitful act], arrogance and the like). A simply one word answer will 
be sufficient at this stage. Let's not speak of 
temptation, shall we. Temptation is 
not sin, as we all know. Such is a good topic for 
future discussion, but not now. my answer is 
"yes." My answer for all on this forum is "yes." What 
about you, David? Yes nor no. Jack D 
SmithsonThe Webbmeister

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




Thank you for those thoughts Lance. I use "from what I 
understand" in this instance because I am dealing with ppl
in different stages of spiritual growth who may not see 
things as I see them. However, I do believe in such a thing 
as
objective truth. I do believe that there is a right and 
a wrong, a good and an evil. Everything is not "subjective" - 


Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth the most 
wicked city in the known world to "awake to righteousness and sin not" - Is this 
just a play onwords? Was he telling them to do 
something that was impossible? If the Corinthians were able to do this don't you 
believe it is in the realm of possibility for David Miller? You are wrong 
about every believer consciously and actively sinning daily in thought, word, 
and deed; if this is what is going on then these people (even those who profess 
to be following Christ) are deceived ppl who are walking in unbelief. 
jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Jt says: 'from what I understand David to say' As 
  everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this is not the 
  difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to qualify by uttering 
  'from what I understand' thus indicating that you just might be incorrect. I'd 
  posit a couple of thoughts on this and, related matters:
  
  1. Implicit in every utterance is some version of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from what I 
  understand of the text before me'
  
  2. All speaking of anything is partial and 
  provisional.
  
  3. David himself may not know how to answer 
  John's question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did have this 
  discussion some time ago with, as I recall, the same outcome.
  
  4. David just might consider his approximation of 
  an answer the 'way of humility'.
  
  5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, word and 
  deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of every 
  believer/non-believer in the cosmos.
  

From: 
    Judy 
Taylor 

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
    Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

John, some people are able to separate themselves. 
From what I understand David to sayhe still gets around in a flesh 
body and he 
has the same opportunity to sin every day as the 
rest of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting him? 
Is this some kind 
of public humiliation?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his postings 
  have been very clear on the subject to everyone except Judy. 
  Here is the question and we can start the discussion from 
  this:David Miller,. do you have sin in 
  your life to any degree? Consider sins of omission 
  (knowing to do right but not taking the time or energy to do it); 
  event sins (such as murder, angry words, adultery  this is the 
  "biblical sin" usually referenced in the Message); sins of the 
  character (pride, selfishness, conceit, envy, laziness, anger, 
  deceitfullness [different from a deceitful act], arrogance and the 
  like). A simply 
  one word answer will be sufficient at this stage. 
  Let's not speak of temptation, shall we. Temptation is not sin, as we all 
  know. Such is a good topic for future discussion, 
  but not now. my answer is "yes." My answer for 
  all on this forum is "yes." What about you, 
  David? Yes nor no. Jack D 
  SmithsonThe Webbmeister

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

Jt asks:'don't you believe it is in the realm of
possibility for David Miller?' NO I DO NOT! However, it could well be that the
text, here and elsewhere, yourself, and David Miller are in possession of an
'objective truth' that eludes me.

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: January 18, 2005 07:22
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

Thank you for those thoughts Lance. I use "from what
I understand" in this instance because I am dealing with ppl
in different stages of spiritual growth who may not
see things as I see them. However, I do believe in such a thing
as
objective truth. I do believe that there is a right
and a wrong, a good and an evil. Everything is not "subjective" -

Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth the most
wicked city in the known world to "awake to righteousness and sin not" - Is
this just a play onwords? Was he telling them
to do something that was impossible? If the Corinthians were able to do this
don't you believe it is in the realm of possibility for David Miller?
You are wrong about every believer consciously and actively sinning daily in
thought, word, and deed; if this is what is going on then these people (even
those who profess to be following Christ) are deceived ppl who are walking in
unbelief. jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Jt says: 'from what I understand David to say'
As everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this is not the
difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to qualify by uttering
'from what I understand' thus indicating that you just might be incorrect.
I'd posit a couple of thoughts on this and, related matters:

1. Implicit in every utterance is some version of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from what
I understand of the text before me'

2. All speaking of anything is partial and
provisional.

3. David himself may not know how to answer
John's question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did have this
discussion some time ago with, as I recall, the same outcome.

4. David just might consider his approximation
of an answer the 'way of humility'.

5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, word and
deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of every
believer/non-believer in the cosmos.

From:
Judy
Taylor

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

John, some people are able to separate
themselves. From what I understand David to sayhe still gets around
in a flesh body and he
has the same opportunity to sin every day as the
rest of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting
him? Is this some kind
of public humiliation?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his
postings have been very clear on the subject to everyone except
Judy. Here is the question and we can start the discussion
from this:David Miller,. do you have
sin in your life to any degree? Consider sins of
omission (knowing to do right but not taking the time or energy to do
it); event sins (such as murder, angry words, adultery
this is the "biblical sin" usually referenced in the Message);
sins of the character (pride, selfishness, conceit, envy,
laziness, anger, deceitfullness [different from a deceitful act],
arrogance and the like). A simply one word answer will be sufficient at
this stage. Let's not speak of temptation,
shall we. Temptation is not sin,
as we all know. Such is a good topic for future
discussion, but not now. my answer is "yes."
My answer for all on this forum is "yes." What about you,
David? Yes nor no. Jack D
SmithsonThe Webbmeister

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




FWIW Lance, My belief is thatyou are in a 
time warp, stuck in your cosmic incarnation while 
DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrection. It is the 
power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to be free 
from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence for 
sin. This is not just static theology - it's a living way that needs to be 
walked in. jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Jt asks:'don't you believe it is in the realm of 
  possibility for David Miller?' NO I DO NOT! However, it could well be that the 
  text, here and elsewhere, yourself, and David Miller are in possession of an 
  'objective truth' that eludes me.
  
From: Judy Taylor 
Thank you for those 
thoughts Lance. I use "from what I understand" in this instance because I am 
dealing with ppl
in different stages of spiritual growth who may not 
see things as I see them. However, I do believe in such a thing 
as
objective truth. I do believe that there is a right 
and a wrong, a good and an evil. Everything is not "subjective" - 


Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth the 
most wicked city in the known world to "awake to righteousness and sin not" 
- Is this just a play onwords? Was he 
telling them to do something that was impossible? If the Corinthians were 
able to do this don't you believe it is in the realm of possibility for 
David Miller? You are wrong about every believer consciously and 
actively sinning daily in thought, word, and deed; if this is what is going 
on then these people (even those who profess to be following Christ) are 
deceived ppl who are walking in unbelief. jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Jt says: 'from what I understand David to 
  say' As everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this is 
  not the difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to qualify by 
  uttering 'from what I understand' thus indicating that you just might be 
  incorrect. I'd posit a couple of thoughts on this and, related 
  matters:
  
  1. Implicit in every utterance is some version of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from 
  what I understand of the text before me'
  
  2. All speaking of anything is partial and 
  provisional.
  
  3. David himself may not know how to answer 
  John's question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did have this 
  discussion some time ago with, as I recall, the same outcome.
  
  4. David just might consider his 
  approximation of an answer the 'way of humility'.
  
  5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, word and 
  deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of every 
  believer/non-believer in the cosmos.
  

From: 
    Judy 
    Taylor 
    
    Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
    Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

John, some people are able to separate 
themselves. From what I understand David to sayhe still gets 
around in a flesh body and he 
has the same opportunity to sin every day as 
the rest of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting 
him? Is this some kind 
of public humiliation?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his 
  postings have been very clear on the subject to everyone except 
  Judy. Here is the question and we can start the discussion 
  from this:David Miller,. do you have 
  sin in your life to any degree? Consider sins of 
  omission (knowing to do right but not taking the time or energy to do 
  it); event sins (such as murder, angry words, adultery 
   this is the "biblical sin" usually referenced in the 
  Message); sins of the character (pride, selfishness, 
  conceit, envy, laziness, anger, deceitfullness [different from a 
  deceitful act], arrogance and the like). A simply one word answer 
  will be sufficient at this stage. Let's not 
  speak of temptation, shall we. Temptation is not sin, as we all 
  know. Such is a good topic for future 
  discussion, but not now. my answer is "yes." 
  My answer for all on this forum is "yes." What about you, 
  David? Yes nor no. Jack D 
  SmithsonThe Webbmeister

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

A couple of questions for the purpose of
clarification, please:

1. What does the _expression_ 'cosmic incarnation'
mean? If you don't know then, why use it?

2. As we 'speak', do you consider yourself to be
completely free of sin in thought, word and deed?

3a. I think you make a good point with respect to
'resurrection power' but, I'd rather speak of the ongoing mediatorial work of
the ascended Christ via the book of Hebrews.However, does either of these provide the REALITY as opposed to the
POSSIBILITY of living a life ENTIRELY FREE OF SIN IN THOUGHT, WORD, AND DEED?

3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to this
in your life then, please say so without ambiguity.

thanks,

Lance

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

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: January 18, 2005 07:59
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

FWIW Lance, My belief is thatyou are in a
time warp, stuck in your cosmic incarnation while
DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrection. It is the
power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to be free
from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence for
sin. This is not just static theology - it's a living way that needs to
be walked in. jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Jt asks:'don't you believe it is in the realm
of possibility for David Miller?' NO I DO NOT! However, it could well be
that the text, here and elsewhere, yourself, and David Miller are in
possession of an 'objective truth' that eludes me.

From: Judy Taylor
Thank you for those
thoughts Lance. I use "from what I understand" in this instance because I
am dealing with ppl
in different stages of spiritual growth who may
not see things as I see them. However, I do believe in such a thing
as
objective truth. I do believe that there is a
right and a wrong, a good and an evil. Everything is not
"subjective" -

Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth the
most wicked city in the known world to "awake to righteousness and sin
not" - Is this just a play onwords? Was
he telling them to do something that was impossible? If the Corinthians
were able to do this don't you believe it is in the realm of possibility
for David Miller? You are wrong about every believer consciously and
actively sinning daily in thought, word, and deed; if this is what is
going on then these people (even those who profess to be following Christ)
are deceived ppl who are walking in unbelief. jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:

Jt says: 'from what I understand David to
say' As everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this is
not the difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to qualify by
uttering 'from what I understand' thus indicating that you just might be
incorrect. I'd posit a couple of thoughts on this and, related
matters:

1. Implicit in every utterance is some version of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from
what I understand of the text before me'

2. All speaking of anything is partial and
provisional.

3. David himself may not know how to answer
John's question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did have this
discussion some time ago with, as I recall, the same
outcome.

4. David just might consider his
approximation of an answer the 'way of humility'.

5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then,
he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought,
word and deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of every
believer/non-believer in the cosmos.

From:
Judy Taylor

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

John, some people are able to separate
themselves. From what I understand David to sayhe still gets
around in a flesh body and he
has the same opportunity to sin every day as
the rest of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting
him? Is this some kind
of public humiliation?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his
postings have been very clear on the subject to everyone except
Judy. Here is the question and we can start the discu

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

Lance wrote:
 IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously, 
 actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed.

Then I guess I am not one of you.

Peace be with you.
David Miller.

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

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

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread ShieldsFamily









That is the point in contentionis it
not? Izzy





















5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed. I am, by inference, saying the
same thing of every believer/non-believer in the cosmos.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

Close but no cigar! However, if there were a 'cigar' you would be 'one of
us' would you?

IFF you understand David's meaning (I don't) please let us mortals if your
life experience (sinlessness, I think) is identical to his.

- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 18, 2005 09:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean
anything

 Lance wrote:
  IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
  actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed.

 Then I guess I am not one of you.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

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

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

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

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

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread ShieldsFamily









J 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of David Miller



Lance wrote:

 IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously, 

 actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed.



Then I guess I am not one of you.



Peace be with you.

David Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread Terry Clifton

Lance Muir wrote:
Close but no cigar! However, if there were a 'cigar' you would be 'one of
us' would you?
IFF you understand David's meaning (I don't) please let us mortals if your
life experience (sinlessness, I think) is identical to his.
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 18, 2005 09:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean
anything

Lance wrote:

IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed.

Then I guess I am not one of you.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.

==
We could all chip in and hire someone to follow David around until they 
catch him sinning, but if he doesn't sin then we might all go broke.
Probably better (and cheaper) to take him at his word .  Taking him at 
his word costs nothing.
Terry

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

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread ShieldsFamily









==

We could all chip in and hire someone to follow David around until they


catch him sinning, but if he doesn't sin then we might all go broke.

Probably better (and cheaper) to take him at his word . Taking him at 

his word costs nothing.

Terry



--

Terry, you are a perfect example of the
pure wisdom of the Spirit. J Izzy

(PS Which is the opposite of the wisdom of
the world.)

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

So, you also read David as claiming sinlessness in word, deed and thought?

That being the case, you make a good point, Terry.

- Original Message - 
From: Terry Clifton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 18, 2005 08:44
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean
anything

 Lance Muir wrote:

 Close but no cigar! However, if there were a 'cigar' you would be 'one of
 us' would you?

 IFF you understand David's meaning (I don't) please let us mortals if
your
 life experience (sinlessness, I think) is identical to his.

 - Original Message - 
 From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
 Sent: January 18, 2005 09:16
 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean
 anything

 Lance wrote:

 IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
 actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed.

 Then I guess I am not one of you.

 Peace be with you.
 David Miller.

 ==
 We could all chip in and hire someone to follow David around until they
 catch him sinning, but if he doesn't sin then we might all go broke.
 Probably better (and cheaper) to take him at his word .  Taking him at
 his word costs nothing.
 Terry

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

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

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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

If you think I want David to make clear what is clear to me -- well, then, call it any of your favorite little names. Either he believes that he is a sinner [with current sin problems as opposed to temptation problems] or he doesn't. Since you are the one who challenged this (my assertion that David claims a sinlessness because of the HG's influence in his life) , since David's response is a confusing one (at best thought), I have asked the question below. Do I bait sameone to tell the truth? Come on, Judy -- get a grip. Of course I do. We are to be fishers of men and I am, the Chief Baiter.

Whew !

In a message dated 1/18/2005 3:30:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John, some people are able to separate themselves. From what I understand David to say he still gets around in a flesh body and he
has the same opportunity to sin every day as the rest of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting him? Is this some kind
of public humiliation?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his postings have been very clear on the subject to everyone except Judy.
Here is the question and we can start the discussion from this:

David Miller,. do you have sin in your life to any degree? Consider sins of omission (knowing to do right but not taking the time or energy to do it); event sins (such as murder, angry words, adultery this is the "biblical sin" usually referenced in the Message); sins of the character (pride, selfishness, conceit, envy, laziness, anger, deceitfullness [different from a deceitful act], arrogance and the like). A simply one word answer will be sufficient at this stage.

Let's not speak of temptation, shall we. Temptation is not sin, as we all know. Such is a good topic for future discussion, but not now.

my answer is "yes." My answer for all on this forum is "yes." What about you, David? Yes nor no.

Jack D Smithson
The Webbmeister

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/18/2005 5:02:58 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

others have moved on to the resurrection. It is the power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to be free from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence for sin. This is not just static theology - it's a living way that needs to be walked in. jt

Actually, a profound summerary of what I believe. Glad to have you aboard, Judy.

John -- The Communal Voice Crying in the Wildernes

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

John wrote:
 I don't like it when I am talking about one
 thing sin and you speak of soemthing
 entirely different   temptation.   I do not
 like that at all.

Sorry, John.  Some misunderstanding here.  In this particular context, I 
interpret battle with sin as being the struggle one experiences when they 
are tempted to sin.  A battle can be either won or lost.

Do you understand battle with sin as being the same thing as sinning?

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/18/2005 8:04:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Sorry, John. Some misunderstanding here. In this particular context, I 
interpret "battle with sin" as being the struggle one experiences when they 
are tempted to sin. A battle can be either won or lost.

Do you understand "battle with sin" as being the same thing as "sinning"?


Did you not take into account the context of MY question? Incredible. You know full well what our discussion was about. To change in the face of a difficult question is not something I will go along with. I have stated, once again, my question just a few minutes ago. When that post appears, please refer to it. 

Thanks

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

In a message dated 1/18/2005 5:20:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to this in your life then, please say so without ambiguity.


Yes. That is all I am getting at. I thought it was clear until David sent that post talking about temptation and, essentially, avoiding in clear statement, what he actually taught in that very post. It is clear to me that David believes he has no sin issues (as opposed to temptation matters). Correct me if I am wrong. He sees the work of the Spirit as opposed to sin in much the same way as one end of a magnet is opposed to the other (that's why it is at the other end, of course --- tell me I am not a scientist !) With the Spirit in his life -- sin MUST be repelled. So, there is no sin. His problem is one of Dilemma Doctrine Theology (solely, a term of my creation and, yes, I am proud). When one is going through the DDT's, often strange and delusional matters come to life. 

Doctor J

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread Slade Henson




Hahaha...I found that funny.
Actually, I've heard of the "Sinless Doctrine"from C. Barr and Daniel 
Lee.

Run, 
JohnRUN!

K

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2005 
  11.09To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean 
  anythingIn a message dated 1/18/2005 
  5:20:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to this in your life 
then, please say so without ambiguity.Yes. That is all 
  I am getting at. I thought it was clear until David 
  sent that post talking about temptation and, essentially, avoiding in clear 
  statement, what he actually taught in that very post. It is 
  clear to me that David believes he has no sin issues (as opposed to temptation 
  matters). Correct me if I am wrong. He sees the work of the 
  Spirit as opposed to sin in much the same way as one end of a magnet is 
  opposed to the other (that's why it is at the other end, of course 
  --- tell me I am not a scientist !) With the Spirit in 
  his life -- sin MUST be repelled. So, there is 
  no sin. His problem is one of Dilemma Doctrine Theology 
  (solely, a term of my creation and, yes, I am proud). When 
  one is going through the DDT's, often strange and delusional matters 
  come to life. Doctor 
J

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything




David:Following your reply to my question as 
follows:"LOL Lance, my source is Scripture!" Are these (ones) the source of your 
belief? If not then, from whom did you first hear this?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Slade 
  Henson 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: January 18, 2005 11:58
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
  Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
  
  Hahaha...I found that funny.
  Actually, I've heard of the "Sinless Doctrine"from C. Barr and 
  Daniel Lee.
  
  Run, 
  JohnRUN!
  
  K
  
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, 
18 January, 2005 11.09To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: 
Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean 
anythingIn a message dated 
1/18/2005 5:20:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to this in your 
  life then, please say so without ambiguity.Yes. That is 
all I am getting at. I thought it was clear until 
David sent that post talking about temptation and, essentially, avoiding in 
clear statement, what he actually taught in that very 
post. It is clear to me that David believes he has no sin issues 
(as opposed to temptation matters). Correct me if I am 
wrong. He sees the work of the Spirit as opposed to sin in much 
the same way as one end of a magnet is opposed to the other (that's why it 
is at the other end, of course --- tell me I am not a 
scientist !) With the Spirit in his life -- sin MUST be 
repelled. So, there is no sin. His 
problem is one of Dilemma Doctrine Theology (solely, a term of my 
creation and, yes, I am proud). When one is going through 
the DDT's, often strange and delusional matters come to 
life. Doctor J

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything





On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:15:06 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  A couple of questions for the purpose of 
  clarification, please:
  
  1. What does the _expression_ 'cosmic incarnation' 
  mean? If you don't know then, why use it?
  
  jt: Why ask the question if you 
  already believe you have it figured out Lance?
  
  2. As we 'speak', do you consider yourself to be 
  completely free of sin in thought, word and deed?
  
  jt: I am not walking in any known 
  sin as we speak..
  
  3a. I think you make a good point with respect to 
  'resurrection power' but, I'd rather speak of the ongoing mediatorial work of 
  the ascended Christ via the book of Hebrews.However, does either of these provide the REALITY as opposed to the 
  POSSIBILITY of living a life ENTIRELY FREE OF SIN IN THOUGHT, WORD, AND DEED? 
  
  
  jt: Yes it is possible to live a 
  sanctified life and to stand before Him without shame when he 
  returns.
  
  3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to 
  this in your life then, please say so without ambiguity.
  
  jt: What do you mean ambiguity? I 
  don't make it a secret that I believe sanctification is a second work of grace 
  and from what
  I read I believe DavidM just 
  might be talking about the same..People seem 
  to get it in their head for some reason that I follow
  John Wesley and to tell you the 
  truth I don't really know what he believed about holiness.
  
  thanks,
  
  Lance
  
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: January 18, 2005 07:59
    Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
    Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

FWIW Lance, My belief is thatyou are in 
a time warp, stuck in your cosmic incarnation 
while DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrection. It 
is the power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to 
be free from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence 
for sin. This is not just static theology - it's a living way that 
needs to be walked in. jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Jt asks:'don't you believe it is in the realm 
  of possibility for David Miller?' NO I DO NOT! However, it could well be 
  that the text, here and elsewhere, yourself, and David Miller are in 
  possession of an 'objective truth' that eludes me.
  
From: Judy 
Taylor 
Thank you for those 
thoughts Lance. I use "from what I understand" in this instance because 
I am dealing with ppl
in different stages of spiritual growth who may 
not see things as I see them. However, I do believe in such a 
thing as
objective truth. I do believe that there is a 
right and a wrong, a good and an evil. Everything is not 
"subjective" - 

Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth the 
most wicked city in the known world to "awake to righteousness and sin 
not" - Is this just a play onwords? Was 
he telling them to do something that was impossible? If the Corinthians 
were able to do this don't you believe it is in the realm of possibility 
for David Miller? You are wrong about every believer consciously 
and actively sinning daily in thought, word, and deed; if this is what 
is going on then these people (even those who profess to be following 
Christ) are deceived ppl who are walking in unbelief. 
jt

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Jt says: 'from what I understand David to 
  say' As everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this 
  is not the difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to 
  qualify by uttering 'from what I understand' thus indicating that you 
  just might be incorrect. I'd posit a couple of thoughts on this and, 
  related matters:
  
  1. Implicit in every utterance is some version of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from 
  what I understand of the text before me'
  
  2. All speaking of anything is partial 
  and provisional.
  
  3. David himself may not know how to 
  answer John's question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did 
  have this discussion some time ago with, as I recall, the same 
  outcome.
  
  4. David just might consider his 
  approximation of an answer the 'way of humility'.
  
  5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, 
  he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, 
  word and deed. I am, by infer

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread Jeff Powers

Does that mean that you David Miller are sinless?
- Original Message - 
From: David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 9:16
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean 
anything


Lance wrote:
IFF David is 'one of us' then, he consciously,
actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed.
Then I guess I am not one of you.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
--
Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may 
know how you ought to answer every man.  (Colossians 4:6) 
http://www.InnGlory.org

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


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

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread Jeff Powers




In my younger days we called it "Tripping"! 

Those delusians are not real, they are filiments of your 
imagination. 
Thank G-d Dr. J is on the case!
Jeff

Life makes warriors of us all.To emerge the victors, 
we must armourselves with the most potent of weapons.That weapon is 
prayer.--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 
  11:09
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
  Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
  In a message dated 1/18/2005 5:20:10 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to this in your life 
then, please say so without ambiguity.Yes. That is all 
  I am getting at. I thought it was clear until David 
  sent that post talking about temptation and, essentially, avoiding in clear 
  statement, what he actually taught in that very post. It is 
  clear to me that David believes he has no sin issues (as opposed to temptation 
  matters). Correct me if I am wrong. He sees the work of the 
  Spirit as opposed to sin in much the same way as one end of a magnet is 
  opposed to the other (that's why it is at the other end, of course 
  --- tell me I am not a scientist !) With the Spirit in 
  his life -- sin MUST be repelled. So, there is 
  no sin. His problem is one of Dilemma Doctrine Theology 
  (solely, a term of my creation and, yes, I am proud). When 
  one is going through the DDT's, often strange and delusional matters 
  come to life. Doctor 
J

RE: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread Slade Henson




Is 
this considered an ad hominem? "My belief is thatyou are in a time warp, stuck in your 
cosmic incarnation while DavidM, myself and others 
have moved on to the resurrection" Or do we allow the lawyers say, "it is 
not an ad hominem because Judy used the term "My belief is?"


-- 
slade

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy 
  TaylorSent: Tuesday, 18 January, 2005 08.00To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional 
  Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
  FWIW Lance, My belief is thatyou are in a 
  time warp, stuck in your cosmic incarnation while 
  DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrection. It is the 
  power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to be free 
  from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence for 
  sin. This is not just static theology - it's a living way that needs to 
  be walked in. jt
  
  On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
  
Jt asks:'don't you believe it is in the realm 
of possibility for David Miller?' NO I DO NOT! However, it could well be 
that the text, here and elsewhere, yourself, and David Miller are in 
possession of an 'objective truth' that eludes me.

  From: Judy Taylor 
  Thank you for those 
  thoughts Lance. I use "from what I understand" in this instance because I 
  am dealing with ppl
  in different stages of spiritual growth who may 
  not see things as I see them. However, I do believe in such a thing 
  as
  objective truth. I do believe that there is a 
  right and a wrong, a good and an evil. Everything is not 
  "subjective" - 
  
  Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth the 
  most wicked city in the known world to "awake to righteousness and sin 
  not" - Is this just a play onwords? Was 
  he telling them to do something that was impossible? If the Corinthians 
  were able to do this don't you believe it is in the realm of possibility 
  for David Miller? You are wrong about every believer consciously and 
  actively sinning daily in thought, word, and deed; if this is what is 
  going on then these people (even those who profess to be following Christ) 
  are deceived ppl who are walking in unbelief. jt
  
  On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
Jt says: 'from what I understand David to 
say' As everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this is 
not the difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to qualify by 
uttering 'from what I understand' thus indicating that you just might be 
incorrect. I'd posit a couple of thoughts on this and, related 
matters:

1. Implicit in every utterance is some version of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from 
what I understand of the text before me'

2. All speaking of anything is partial and 
provisional.

3. David himself may not know how to answer 
John's question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did have this 
discussion some time ago with, as I recall, the same 
outcome.

4. David just might consider his 
approximation of an answer the 'way of humility'.

5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then, 
he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, 
word and deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of every 
believer/non-believer in the cosmos.

      
  From: 
  Judy Taylor 
      
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
  Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
  
  John, some people are able to separate 
  themselves. From what I understand David to sayhe still gets 
  around in a flesh body and he 
  has the same opportunity to sin every day as 
  the rest of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting 
  him? Is this some kind 
  of public humiliation?
  
  On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his 
postings have been very clear on the subject to everyone except 
Judy. Here is the question and we can start the discussion 
from this:David Miller,. do you 
have sin in your life to any degree? Consider 
sins of omission (knowing to do right but not taking the time or 
energy to do it); event sins (such as murder, angry 
words, adultery  this is the "biblical sin" usually 
refere

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread ttxpress




there's a post or twoin 
play alludg to at least two categories of wisdom..perhaps a semineognostic force 
is at work in a virtualcult environment?

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0500 
"Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  ..[re: certain ppl] in possession of 
  an 'objective truth' that eludes [him].
  
||

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread ttxpress




myth [the NT res is not a 
culticevnt; everyone will re resurrectd inc Lance:)]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:59:37 -0500 Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the 
  resurrection.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

Jeff wrote:
 Does that mean that you David Miller are sinless?

No.  It means that I do not consciously, actively, sin daily in thought, 
word and deed.

On second thought, define sinless.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

Slade wrote:
 Is this considered an ad hominem? My
 belief is that you are in a time warp, stuck
 in your cosmic incarnation while DavidM,
 myself and others have moved on to the
 resurrection Or do we allow the lawyers
 say, it is not an ad hominem because Judy
 used the term My belief is?

This is kind of in the gray area.  It makes a point, but it is getting a 
little personal.  I tend to let something like this slide, but it depends on 
how the person being spoken to might react.  Lance is not likely to knee 
jerk react to it, but someone else might.

Judy, you can try to be a little less personal.  Try to stick with the 
subject matter and leave personal characterizations out of the dialogue. 
Thanks.

Peace be with you.
David Miller. 


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

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

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything





Itis my opinion - that this moderation thing is 
getting too oppressive. When it becomes impossible to dialogue with 
another personwithout
constant nit picking about ad hominems then communicating becomes 
more of a burden than a joy.. Is it really necessary? There was no 
question about ad hominem whenG accused me of writing on an 8th grade 
level. which is both personal and unflattering along with the ongoing cult and 
myth accusations...Is my referring to Lance's incarnation doctrine one time 
worse than all that? Hey! I can overlook some things - in factI 
would rather overlook things myselfthan live with thisconstant 
scrutiny. Could we saveit for crisis situations?




  
  
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  On Behalf Of Slade 
  HensonIs this considered an 
  ad hominem? "My 
  belief is thatyou are in a time warp, stuck in your cosmic 
  incarnation while DavidM, myself and others have 
  moved on to the resurrection" Or do 
  we allow the lawyers say, "it is not an ad hominem because Judy used the term 
  "My belief 
  is?"-- 
  slade
  
  
FWIW 
Lance, My belief is thatyou are in a time warp, stuck in your 
cosmic incarnation 
while DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrection. It 
is the power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to 
be free from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence 
for sin. This is not just static theology - it's a living way that 
needs to be walked in. jt



On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 07:34:58 -0500 "Lance Muir" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  Jt asks:'don't you believe it 
  is in the realm of possibility for David Miller?' NO I DO NOT! However, it 
  could well be that the text, here and elsewhere, yourself, and David 
  Miller are in possession of an 'objective truth' that eludes 
  me.
  

From: Judy 
Taylor 

Thank you 
for those thoughts Lance. I use "from what I understand" in this 
instance because I am dealing with ppl

in different stages 
of spiritual growth who may not see things as I see them. However, 
I do believe in such a thing as

objective truth. I 
do believe that there is a right and a wrong, a good and an evil. 
Everything is not "subjective" - 



Paul the apostle 
told the people at Corinth the most wicked city in the 
known world to "awake to righteousness and sin not" - Is this just a 
play onwords? Was he telling them to do something that was 
impossible? If the Corinthians were able to do this don't you believe it 
is in the realm of possibility for David Miller? You are wrong 
about every believer consciously and actively sinning daily in thought, 
word, and deed; if this is what is going on then these people (even 
those who profess to be following Christ) are deceived ppl who are 
walking in unbelief. jt



On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:49:07 -0500 "Lance Muir" 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  
  Jt says: 'from what I 
  understand David to say' As everyone has access to what David has 
  'said', IMO this is not the difficulty that John has. Even you, 
  Judy, have had to qualify by uttering 'from what I understand' thus 
  indicating that you just might be incorrect. I'd posit a couple of 
  thoughts on this and, related 
  matters:
  
  
  
  1. Implicit in every 
  utterance is some version 
  of:'as I see it', in my opinion,'from what I 
  understand of the text before 
  me'
  
  
  
  2. All speaking of 
  anything is partial and 
provisional.
  
  
  
  3. David himself may not 
  know how to answer John's question with the sort of clarity John 
  wants. We did have this discussion some time ago with, as I recall, 
  the same outcome.
  
  
  
  4. David just might 
  consider his approximation of an answer the 'way of 
  humility'.
  
  
  
  5. IMO, IFF David is 'one 
  of us' then, he consciously, 
  actively, sins daily in thought, word and deed. I am, by 
  inference, saying the same thing of every believer/non-believer in the 
  cosmos.
  



From: 
Judy Taylor 
    
    
    
    
    Subject: 
    Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

5. IMO, IFF David is 
'one of us' then, he 
consciously, actively, sins daily in thought, word and 
deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of 
every believer/non-believer in the 
cosmos.

  
  
  
  From: Judy Taylor 
      
      
  
  
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 
      Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean 
  anything
  
  
  
  John, 
  some people are able to separate themselves. From what I 
  understand David to sayhe still gets around in a flesh body 
  and he 
  
  has 
  the same opportunity to sin every day as the rest of us both 
  physically and emotionally. Are you baiting him? Is 
  this some kind 
  
  of 
  public humiliation?
  
  
  
  On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 
  02:24:51 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  

I don't know why I 
have to choke this out of David, when his postings have been 
very clear on the subject to everyone except Judy. 
Here is the question and we can start the discussion from 
this:David Miller,. do you have sin in your life to any 
degree? Consider sins of omission 
(knowing to do right but not taking the time or energy to do 
it); event sins (such as murder, angry words, 
adultery  this is the "biblical sin" usually referenced in 
the Message); sins of the character (pride, 
selfishness, conceit, envy, laziness, anger, deceitfullness 
[different from a deceitful act], arrogance and the 
like). A simply one word answer will be 
sufficient at this stage. Let's not 
speak of temptation, shall we. Temptation is not sin, as we 
all know. Such is a good topic 
for future discussion, but not now. my 
answer is "yes." My answer for all on this forum is 
"yes." What about you, David? Yes 
nor no. Jack D SmithsonThe 
Webbmeister

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything

2005-01-18 Thread Jeff Powers




How about as Torah obedient asone can 
possiblybe in 5765. I know I sin and I admit it,
just like nearly everyone else here.
Yet for most reading this thread, your answer (see 
below) places you above everyone else. I am
sure I'm not the only one who reads your answer to 
be that you claim to be sinless.
However, you tap-danced around John's direct question in 
a manner that allows you to answer
with a non-answer.
Lance wrote: IFF David is 'one of 
us' then, he consciously,  actively, sins daily in thought, word and 
deed.Then I guess I am not one of you.Peace be with 
you.David Miller.
Then you answer me with an attitude of superiority (I 
may be wrong but thats how I
read your answer) as if everyone but you 
"conciously, actively, sin..." Then ask me
to define sin? 
Jeff

Life makes warriors of us all.To emerge the victors, 
we must armourselves with the most potent of weapons.That weapon is 
prayer.--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov
- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 18:40
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology 
-- does sham mean anything
 Jeff 
wrote: Does that mean that you David Miller are sinless? 
 No. It means that I do not consciously, actively, sin daily in 
thought,  word and deed.  On second thought, define 
sinless.  Peace be with you. David Miller.  
  -- "Let your speech be always with grace, 
seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." 
(Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org 
 If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you 
will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to 
send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he 
will be subscribed.

Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything